Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-24 18:52:58 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> The singular goal of the United States was to prevent another attack
>> on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.
>
> Bullshit. The goal was to hand big bucks to big oil and friends.
> Mission accomplished.
Well? What rational person would hand big bucks to his ENEMIES?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 15, 10:35 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4fb9f295-919e-4e2e-9061-2e16db53ea0b@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>>
>> So, just who is stupid?
>>
>> From the article:
>> She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
>> engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book,
>> Going
>> Rogue.
>>
>> Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. On
>> Fox,
>> she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show and
>> TLC
>> will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska.
>
> You can't judge somebody's character by the size of their wallet.
You said "stupid" That has nothing to do with character.
On Mar 26, 10:59=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 8:37 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
> > arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
> > was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
>
> It's your country, and you won't get any argument from me for running it
> like you want. Just spare us the moral superiority posture ...
> historically it doesn't play any better there than it does here.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Nothing to do with moral superiority. Everything to do with respect
for a host country.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
Well, I guess it's time to reengage the gmail filter. I don't want to
keep being exposed to the hate and bigotry coming down from CA...
--
STOP THE SLAUGHTER! Boycott Baby Oil!
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Charlie Self
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 25, 4:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> > >hate speech.
>> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>>
>> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>> > Toy?
>>
>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>> don't want that kind over here.
>> We try to keep it clean here.
>
>C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
>is useful only to her agent and bankers.
Charlie, her agent and bankers are making money because people want to
hear what she has to say, both live and in print. How many of her
books are bestsellers, hmm? More than one somebody wants her info.
I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent,
but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin
On Mar 24, 4:30=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
> > running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial problem=
s
> > to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
> > under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, the
> > economy prospered
>
> Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700 bill=
ion
> to $3 trillion? =A0The Reagan under whom America went from being the worl=
d's
> largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? =A0The Reagan under whom t=
he
> trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L Crisis occurred? =A0The Re=
agan
> of whom his Secretary of the Treasury said, "In the four years that I ser=
ved
> as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and neve=
r
> discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him
> one-on-one....The President never told me what he believed or what he wan=
ted
> to accomplish in the field of economics." =A0That Reagan?
>
> Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remember
> only what they want to remember? =A0Left or right it's the same, history =
gets
> edited to suit ideology.
Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
conservative. I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
on the first Bush's watch??
Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
voted for. From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. Interest
rates were around 20% whenever he took office. The stock market took
a huge crash. I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
ONE job within the store. It was that bad.
Again, I was young, but how did he create that deficit? I think it
was because he got tax cuts to be pushed thru. And, yes, he increased
military spending but the military was in SHAMBLES. One thing the
Federal Government IS responsible for is the military and it was in a
state of disrepair whenever he came in (along with a lot of other
things). (And to be fair, Ford got a broken government from Nixon and
he fixed it pretty good, in retrospect, but he passed along a still
impaired government to Carter who did his best to water it down before
he passed it along to Reagan).
Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. If I remember
correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. In the end, it was
CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
reaching across the aisle. Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
You are right: it is amazing how people see only what they want to
see and remember only what they want to remember.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:54:40 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've also seen a lot of name-calling too. Seems some of those smart and
>intelligent people have resorted to personal attacks.
Of course! How else am I to express my wrath? :)
On Mar 24, 8:39=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:24=A0am, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > hate speech.
> > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts.=
..
> > > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> > this for years.
>
> There was no plan, just $10,000.00 for entertainment fees. You give
> her way too much credit.
>
> "The students in Ottawa didn't want to hear what I had to say,
> boohoo." will play well in Texas?
>
> She's going to capitalize on the fact that we won't eat her shit? Wow,
> she's desperate. I'm still wondering what the hell she was doing here
> _other than_ her fee? Did she run out of crazy-capital in the US?
We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
speech. We know you (Robonut) have no brain, too.
On Mar 25, 11:33=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 2:44=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> >> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >> >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >> >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> >> >hate speech.
> >> >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts=
...
> >> >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> >> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >> wanted to hear. =A0What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >> Toy?
>
> >The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> >don't want that kind over here.
> >We try to keep it clean here.
>
> Uh, suuuure. =A0Just a few questions:
>
> 1) Why was she invited?
It was an agency booking for ther entertainment division.
> 2) Why was she allowed to enter the country?
Why not? It wasn't the country that rejected her, it was the local
audience that did, and the cops stepped in to protect her.
> 3) Why was it her own people who stopped the speech instead of your
> cops?
They stopped it on the advice ("we can't protect that douche-bag.")
from local police.
> 4) Why didn't the University Police keep the protestors from rioting?
They didn't riot. They loudly proclaimed that they knew who she was.
> Hmm, what else...?
>
I dunno, Larry, keep making them up though, you're still funny...
On Mar 24, 8:15=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
have reached.
Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
RonB
On Apr 16, 9:12=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:57=A0am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Apr 15, 10:35 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> > >> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> > >> So, just who is stupid?
>
> > >> From the article:
> > >> She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
> > >> engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book,
> > >> Going
> > >> Rogue.
>
> > >> Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. O=
n
> > >> Fox,
> > >> she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show=
and
> > >> TLC
> > >> will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska=
.
>
> > > You can't judge somebody's character by the size of their wallet.
>
> > You said "stupid" =A0That has nothing to do with character.
>
> She sold her soul for money. She's just another Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/
> O'Reilly shill yakking about God, Guns, Guts blasting their way into
> the hearts of =A0the toothless BillyBobs of society. They will buy
> anything.
The group has a major lack: any real service to their nation. My
interest in this started in the '60s, when movie hero John Wayne
started knocking people who wanted to avoid 'Nam. Upon checking, I
found he had managed to avoid WWII, while piling up movie credits and
shekels. Dick Cheney is another: along about his fifth draft
exemption, he explained, "I have better things to do." Then in later
years he spends his time exhorting abler men and women to fight.
Their reason for existence is bucks, nothing else. They are not
patriots any more than a Wall Street banker getting a 100 million
dollar bonus for screwing up our economy is a patriot.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:41:06 -0600, Chris Friesen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 03/24/2010 04:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>>>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
>>>> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel
>>>> projects.
>>>
>>> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
>>> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>>>
>>
>> Yep, the war cost a bunch. The eight Bush years added about $900 billion to
>> the national debt.
>
>Plus another trillion or so in increased interest on the added
>borrowing, plus the ongoing cost of supporting disabled veterans, plus
>the cost of refurbishing the military after it's over.
You think the TeraBux that Obama has borrowed will be interest free?
>> Obama reached $900 billion in his first month in office,
>> and has run up in excess of $3 trillion his first year. Not counting what's
>> to come.
>
>Wasn't the Bush bailout in the previous year close to the same amount?
No. Obama is spending that money again, too.
>Arguably that $3T is in pretty exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure
>the stimulus was all that useful, but you certainly can't say that the
>situation was normal.
The next 20 years will be "exceptional" too?
>> The singular goal of the United States was to
>> prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
>> several strategies were employed to disrupt or curtail terrorist financing,
>> safe harbors, communication, recruitment, training, and movement. These
>> strategies have been spectacularly successful.
>
>Why were they in Iraq then when the bad guys were in Afghanistan and
>Saudi Arabia?
Iraq was unfinished business. After 911 there was no way to leave it
unfinished.
>> In the decade prior to the Bush years, there were one or two attacks on the
>> U.S. or its interests abroad per year: The 1st WTC bombing, the U.S.S. Cole,
>> attacks on our embassies, kidnapping of diplomats, and so forth.
>>
>> Since the Bush goals were implemented, there has been not a single instance
>> of an attack on U.S. civilian interests in the U.S. or against U.S.
>> interests abroad.
>>
>> Until Obama became president. Since then, there have been three.
>
>How much of that is just "testing the new guy"?
He failed. Now what?
On Apr 4, 11:35=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 5:32=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
> >> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >> > I said:
> >> >>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
> >> >>You Jest! Surely!!
>
> >> >>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> >> > You wouldn't want this?
> >> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3DJNP4220.jpg
> >> > or this:
> >> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3Dsilver-dress.jp=
g
> >> > I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
> >> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3Dgun.jpg
> >> > And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
>
> >> Well, that and the fact that she's smiling. =A0Libs don't see much of =
that
> >> in their women.
> > Cite, please.
>
> =A0 OK, you asked for it:
> <http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/helen.jpg>
>
> <ll4humor.com/images/files/Scary Hillary Clinton.jpg>
>
> <culture.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/rosie051.jpg>
>
> <http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/27/mn_iraq_benjamin.jpg>
>
> Compare and contrast
>
> <http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/images/BarbaraBush.jpg>
>
> <http://www.oldredoldten.com/assets/Laura_Bush.jpg>
>
> <http://bitsblog.florack.us/wp-
> content/uploads/2008/09/ham_mary_katharine.jpg>
>
> =A0 It's not just the looks, it's the attitude. =A0Most liberal women, ev=
en when
> smiling come across as angry with the world and circumstances. =A0The
> conservative women may be unhappy with current circumstances, but are
> engaged and enthusiastic in fixing those circumstances.
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
The only attractive one is Laura Bush, but you have to wonder about
her judgment and taste in men. I guess one can always look the other
way when money and power is all you're after. And Barbara Bush? A
pitbull in pearls.
I also find Garafalo, O'Donnell and Clinton repulsive.
Now Palin is hot. Too bad she's so stupid.
On Apr 15, 10:35=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4fb9f295-919e-4e2e-9061-2e16db53ea0b@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> So, just who is stupid?
>
> From the article:
> She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
> engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book, Goin=
g
> Rogue.
>
> Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. On Fox=
,
> she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show and =
TLC
> will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska.
You can't judge somebody's character by the size of their wallet.
On Mar 24, 5:22=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:094ef15c-b48d-41ec-a3a3-17610bc52a8c@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remembe=
r
> > only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history g=
ets
> > edited to suit ideology.
> > Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
> > conservative.
>
> That's not what Reagan said, he claimed the ballooning federal deficit wa=
s
> the single biggest disappointment of his presidency.
>
> > =A0I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> > on the first Bush's watch??
>
> You are way off. =A0The consequences extended into Bush 41's presidency, =
even
> Clinton's, but it hit while Reagan was in office. =A0It turned out that
> deregulation that allowed S&Ls to do things formerly only banks could do-=
- =A0
> but without the regulations banks are subject to--wasn't such a great ide=
a.
> Come to think of it, sweeping deregulation (or an existing lack of
> regulation) often seems to precede a massive economic crisis--ain't it
> amazing how it works out like that?
>
> > Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> > voted for. =A0From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. =A0Intere=
st
> > rates were around 20% whenever he took office. =A0The stock market took
> > a huge crash. =A0I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> > the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> > ONE job within the store. =A0It was that bad.
>
> I recall. =A0I liked Reagan, but I'm not willing to pretend some of his
> policies didn't cause a lot of problems further down the road.
>
> > Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> > himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. =A0If I remember
> > correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. =A0In the end, it wa=
s
> > CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
>
> Not exactly. =A0Reagan's power lay in his ability to peel away enough
> Democrats from their party that in combination with Republicans they coul=
d
> move legislation through Congress against the wishes of the party which
> actually had a majority. =A0But it's the White House that proposes budget=
s,
> and the President who signs legislation, or vetoes it if he thinks it's a
> bad idea. =A0So there is no way to credibly claim that the staggering inc=
rease
> in the federal debt over Reagan's presidency is something he had no contr=
ol
> over.
>
> Yes, rebuilding the military was a valid concern, but so was kickstarting
> the economy, and health care. =A0Why does military spending get a pass wh=
en
> economic stimulus or keeping Americans out of the Emergency Room is
> automatically something not worth borrowing for?
>
> > And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> > monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> > reaching across the aisle. =A0Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
>
> Kind of hard to reach across the aisle when the folks on the other side h=
ave
> only one thing on their minds: the next election. =A0It might amuse you t=
o
> read up on the tactics the Republicans used to pass prescription drug
> legislation back in 2203, then get back to me about pushing through
> legislation without reaching across the aisle.
>
> > You are right: it is amazing how people see only what =A0they want to
> > see and remember only what they want to remember.
>
> Yup, thanks for confirming my theory.
Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
The reason why the building the military was a big concern is because
that is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible
for--one of the few.
I am going to say it again: you can get and do and be whatever the
heck you want in this country, you just need to have the will do do it
and want it and be it. Nothing that is worth it is easy. I hate to
say it but you need to work for what you get. I am sorry there are so
many people out there who need more money to pay for health
insurance. I'm sorry there are so many people who are out of work. I
am sorry for a lot of things but this bill was not the right thing nor
was it the right time to do it.
Answer me this: If this damn bill is so freaking good, why in the
world are Obama and the rest of the high brass in Washington EXEMPTED
from it? Why aren't they forced to use it? That is glossed over.
Answer me this, too: Why isn't there any cost savings in that bill?
Real cost savings? Why didn't they work to reduce tort reform? You
talk about crooks, don't tell me lawyers don't do their fair share of
fleecing the health care system. Why didn't they look into intra-
state portability to naturally increase competition? Why didn't they
look into things like helping small business band together to buy
health insurance at a lower price? Why rip it apart?
And to keep this thread sort of on-topic like Robatoy said, Glenn Beck
is an example of somebody who was a down and out drunk who got himself
together and worked like a dog to get to where he is today. You may
not like his viewpoints nor his mannerism but you have to give him
kudos for remaking himself like a Phoenix.
On Apr 16, 5:57=A0am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 10:35 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4fb9f295-919e-4e2e-9061-2e16db53ea0b@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> >> So, just who is stupid?
>
> >> From the article:
> >> She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
> >> engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book,
> >> Going
> >> Rogue.
>
> >> Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. On
> >> Fox,
> >> she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show a=
nd
> >> TLC
> >> will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska.
>
> > You can't judge somebody's character by the size of their wallet.
>
> You said "stupid" =A0That has nothing to do with character.
She sold her soul for money. She's just another Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/
O'Reilly shill yakking about God, Guns, Guts blasting their way into
the hearts of the toothless BillyBobs of society. They will buy
anything.
And yes, we have them up here too.... agents that can 'rent an
attraction' for a fund-raiser. In this case Palin is just another
carnival ride/ferris wheel. They pay her to attract a certain crowd
who deep=3Ddown think they're going to see Tina Fey...but instead get an
impostor. Not only doesn't Palin have anything worthwhile to say,
she's riding the coattails of Tina Fey.
On Mar 27, 8:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the
> >> leader of a TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for
> >> "anti-government utterances." Also, about the same time, Google left
> >> China for being reluctant to comply with edicts "against the public
> >> decency and morality."
>
> >> Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by
> >> the government.
>
> > Not "wrongful" speech, HATE speech. The US has hate-crime laws race,
> > religion, ethnicity (orientation etc.is some states) . What we have
> > done, is taken that one step further here that the verbal incitement
> > to do harm to those groups is covered also. Coulter's agent should
> > have known this.
>
> > let's say IF we had a bunch of skinheads wandering through a park and
> > I stood up and said: "There walks a black faggot" and pointed at a man
> > who is then beat up by the skinheads... or for even TRYING to get that
> > man beat up, even making that suggestion... is a violation of anti-
> > hate legislation.
>
> > It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
> > arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
> > was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
>
> You make an interesting, though silly, point, but Coulter did not engage =
in
> hate speech. She didn't engage in ANY speech. Fact is, her ability to
> express herself was prevented by hate ACTION.
>
> So, then, some folks in Canada engaged in criminal acts to prevent someon=
e
> else from reciting nursery rhymes, or singing "O Canada" or whatever Coul=
ter
> planned. You do not know, nor can you, whether Coulter was about to deliv=
er
> a hate speech or talk about raising bunnies. What we DO know, is that her
> speech was disrupted by distaste for who she was, not for what she said.
>
> If Canada despises hate speech, then shun the speaker or arrest her for t=
he
> content of the speech. What was done was just plain rude.
>
> On the plus side, it's nice to see Canadians getting exercised over
> something. Other than hockey.
Your information is incomplete. She had 'performed' the night before
in London, Ontario where she uttered racial slurs. That brought out
the rage.
On Apr 15, 8:46=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:42=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> That article makes an interesting point about free speech. " I can say
> what I what, but don't record it because I can't be held accountable."
Here is the problem: The exact same thing can be said about the people
on the other side of the aisle. Obama will refuse to answer any
questions from people he does not see as "real" journalists. Pelosi
is the same way. It is not all on one side or the other.
This whole thing is just plain stupid. I think everybody arguing in
here about politics need to take the log out of their eye so they can
help get the speck of sawdust out of the other person's eye.
(Well, at least it was WOOD related.)
On Mar 26, 10:50=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > >hate speech.
> > > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shut=
s...
> > > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > > Toy?
>
> > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > don't want that kind over here.
> > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
>
> Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
> Klan statements.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "we
> don't want that kind over here."
Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts-ann
> -coulter-speech?bn=1
They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
this for years.
Bt then, universities aren't particularly interested in developing
intelligence these days.
In article
<0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da2a1@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
<"[email protected]"> wrote:
> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
> speech.
*SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
In article <[email protected]>, Elrond Hubbard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Universities are hotbeds of liberalism is because educated people are more
> likely to have been taught how to use critical thinking.
Cites facts not in evidence.
I see little evidence of critical thinking at Canadian universities,
but plenty of evidence that debate is regularly rejected, and
groupthink is, if not required, then certainly strongly encouraged.
Dr. Deb wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:15Â am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> hate speech.
>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> Having been following the "Hate Speech" monstrosity in Canada, there
> is one thing that is rather obvious. If one is on the Left, one can
> make charges of "Hate Speech" against someone who has said something
> you "consider" offensive. The really odd thing is, the gate does not
> seem to swing both ways. Odd that, or maybe not.
>
> Deb
Well, that goes without saying. The very definition of modern day hate
speech is a conservative winning an argument with a statist liberal. Kind
of like this little bit from Duke University canceling an event on
Motherhood in it's Women's Center when it learned that a group actually
wanted to discuss, well, motherhood:
<http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/29/duke-university-cancels-motherhood-
event-when-pro-life-group-participates/>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Apr 18, 11:06=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:39:35 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >On Apr 16, 10:16=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> >> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> >> Well, I guess it's time to reengage the gmail filter. I don't want to
> >> keep being exposed to the hate and bigotry coming down from CA...
>
> >Then stop sending that shit up here.
>
> Hey, YOUR people book OUR people. =A0Get over it. =A0Some of your people
> like "that shit" and the last I heard, our northern states don't
> border on the Republic of Toy.
>
Hey, we like our MILF's crazy. We just want them to STFU and just
strip. (Except Coulter, she'd put us off our food for days.)
On Mar 29, 9:38=A0am, "Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:15=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > hate speech.
> > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> Having been following the "Hate Speech" monstrosity in Canada, there
> is one thing that is rather obvious. =A0If one is on the Left, one can
> make charges of "Hate Speech" against someone who has said something
> you "consider" offensive. =A0The really odd thing is, the gate does not
> seem to swing both ways. =A0Odd that, or maybe not.
>
> Deb
The gate does swing both ways. Just that there is so much more hate on
the right, like Eric Zundel for instance.
On Apr 4, 7:35=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > You must have found some innocuous Youtube shorts of her then. I also
> > don't hate her, I don't think she should be exporting HER hatred to
> > Canada. Get it? It is HER hatred I despise. Her Right Wing Hatred.
> > Don't hate the hater, hate the hatred.
>
> Ah, that's the difference. In the U.S. we harken to the notion that the
> antidote to unacceptable speech is more speech, that only the free exchan=
ge
> of ideas, no matter how repugnant they may seem, is the best way to solve=
a
> problem. We believe in dissent for the sake of the task. Or at least we h=
ave
> a heritage of thinking along those lines...
>
> In Canada, little children are brought up to believe that impure thoughts
> are evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. They grow to adultho=
od
> conflicted and ambivalent, infected with a government-imposed
> manic-depressive brain stem.
>
> A carney operator was once asked "How do you find 'wild men' who bite the
> heads off chickens?" His answer was simple: "You don't FIND 'em, you grow
> your own!"
>
> And your qualification that you don't hater HER, only her views, is
> disingenuous. Her views ARE her! Without them, she'd be just another
> good-looking, rich, blonde - of which there are many in the conservative
> movement.
Calling her goodlooking kinda lets the air out of the rest of position.
On Mar 26, 11:10=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 26, 10:50 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech a=
nd
> > > > >hate speech.
> > > > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-sh=
uts...
> > > > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > > > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > > > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > > > Toy?
>
> > > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > > don't want that kind over here.
> > > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
>
> > Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
> > Klan statements.
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "=
we
> > don't want that kind over here."
>
> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Bigot Wing.
Right Wing then.
"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
violence and intimidation. "
On Mar 26, 8:20=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:42=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >On Mar 25, 5:25=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> > >> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >> >That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big=
a
> > >> >douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
> > >> >May a bit about Beck is allowed.
> > >> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
>
> > >> You have a calling, Toy. =A0You appear to be shameless at political
> > >> lying and hating. =A0Come to the U.S. and join the Democratic Party!
>
> > >> OBTW,http://fwd4.me/6jn=A0was a hoax. =A0The guy's probably DNC
> > >> registered.
>
> > >LMAO... I thought you were hipper than that. It's a fucking JOKE! An
> > >internet meme. It is funny.
>
> > >Oh... and he has never denied it either....ooooweeeeee
>
> > How would you feel if someone started a website with the namewww.DidRob=
atoyRapeAndKillaYounGirlIn2000.comandpromoted it globally,
> > using your name and address?
>
> I didn't start that webpage, nor did I visit the one of which you
> speaketh.
> I posted that pic of beck because he has such a stupid look on his
> face and didn't even realize the crawl line and what it said..
> I am familiar with the meme though as I am an avid reader and
> contributor of Fark.
>
> > I've only heard a couple of her short YouTube speeches. What is it
> > about her that you hate so? =A0You're a RabidToy over her.
>
> You must have found some innocuous Youtube shorts of her then. I also
> don't hate her, I don't think she should be exporting HER hatred to
> Canada. Get it? It is HER hatred I despise. Her Right Wing Hatred.
> Don't hate the hater, hate the hatred.
He must have missed the speech where she stated it would be "fun to A
bomb Iran."
On Mar 26, 1:53=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > >hate speech.
> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts.=
..
> > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > Toy?
>
> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> don't want that kind over here.
> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
Klan statements.
On Mar 26, 9:19=A0am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 3/26/10 9:13 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:33 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> >> <[email protected]> =A0scrawled the following:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> >>>> <[email protected]> =A0scrawled the following:
>
> >>>>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >>>>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech an=
d
> >>>>> hate speech.
> >>>>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >>>>>http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shut=
s...
> >>>>> -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> >>>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >>>> wanted to hear. =A0What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >>>> Toy?
>
> >>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> >>> don't want that kind over here.
> >>> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> >> Uh, suuuure. =A0Just a few questions:
>
> >> 1) Why was she invited?
>
> > It was an agency booking for ther entertainment division.
>
> >> 2) Why was she allowed to enter the country?
>
> > Why not? It wasn't the country that rejected her, it was the local
> > audience that did, and the cops stepped in to protect her.
>
> >> 3) Why was it her own people who stopped the speech instead of your
> >> cops?
>
> > They stopped it on the advice ("we can't protect that douche-bag.")
> > from local police.
>
> >> 4) Why didn't the University Police keep the protestors from rioting?
>
> > They didn't riot. They loudly proclaimed that they knew who she was.
>
> >> Hmm, what else...?
>
> > I dunno, Larry, keep making them up though, you're still funny...
>
> Sign held by a child in Calgary yesterday when she appeared there:
>
> "I don't have a camel or a flying carpet, can you lend me your broomstick=
?"
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA
>
> --
> Froz...
>
> The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Coulter probably played better in Calgary... dunno...but that sign is
funny...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:15:43 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
>> produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>
>--------------------------------------
>Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>
>With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
>strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
>programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
Um, time for your lithium tablet, Lew. <sigh>
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
On 03/24/2010 07:24 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> this for years.
>
> Bt then, universities aren't particularly interested in developing
> intelligence these days.
Unfortunately it's really hard to have a reasoned debate with someone
whose whole plan is to try and provoke a media event.
From what I saw of the event in London, it seemed like she was trying to
dodge questions she didn't like and the students were demanding that she
answer.
Chris
On 2010-03-24 11:42:54 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> said:
> You still do not get what Glen Beck, the conservative movement and
> others are saying.
You might investigate Glenn Beck's past history before you accept his
having your best interest at heart. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/index.html
On 2010-03-24 18:52:58 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:
> The singular goal of the United States was to prevent another attack on
> the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.
Bullshit. The goal was to hand big bucks to big oil and friends.
Mission accomplished.
On 2010-03-25 02:42:22 -0400, "LDosser" <[email protected]> said:
> About those three? Not me. Except to the extent they keep the radical
> left foaming at the mouth.
About those three? Not me. Except to the extent they keep the radical
right foaming at the mouth. FTFY.
On 2010-03-25 01:04:16 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
> You forgot Limbaugh, Bush, and Cheney.
> With libs, it's all about personal attacks because they can't debate
> on substance. It's all about feelings.
Character, or lack thereof, IS substance.
On 2010-03-25 09:59:53 -0400, Upscale <[email protected]> said:
> What's next, alien invasion?
Plimouth Colonie was an alien invasion. The First People have a right
to be pissed!
On 2010-03-25 10:04:24 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> said:
> Put him in a corner and he will either start calling you names or try
> to attacking your character.
Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of
character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether
someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his
own a man's character is, the better it fits him.
-- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
On 2010-03-25 17:25:03 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> said:
> OBTW, http://fwd4.me/6jn was a hoax. The guy's probably DNC
> registered.
You did not read far enough:
> Don't miss the fine print at the bottom:
> Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape
> and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof
> that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like
> this to spread lies and misinformation.
On 2010-03-25 16:13:17 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
> Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
> she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
> Too many ball-less wonders up there.
That must be another example of the Constitution "protecting us from
the tyranny of the majority."
On 2010-03-26 09:20:03 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]> said:
> You must have found some innocuous Youtube shorts of her then. I also
> don't hate her, I don't think she should be exporting HER hatred to
> Canada. Get it? It is HER hatred I despise. Her Right Wing Hatred.
> Don't hate the hater, hate the hatred.
Re: Palin:
http://www.theawl.com/2010/03/sarah-palins-planet-earth-and-the-end-times
On 2010-03-26 14:55:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
> Labels are shorthand used in thoughtful and objective analysis rather
> than long, tiring, repetitive descriptions.
i.e., Jack Stein is a fucking waste of oxygen.
Shorthand, thereby avoiding a long, tiring, repetitive description.
On 2010-03-26 14:03:01 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
> I read some of the first part of it and found it extremely boring. I'd
> rather just listen and watch him, and see if I find him useful and
> interesting. So far, he is doing great!
Nothing like an open mind, Jack. And yours is nothing like an open mind.
On 3/27/2010 4:17 AM HeyBub spake thus:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
They *were* Democrats, a long, long time ago, but that's a totally
misleading answer, as per usual for you, Bub.
So why were the Democrats--the part of the underdog, the
underclass--such fucking racists back in the day?
I'm glad you asked. In a nutshell, it's because the poor dumb rednecks
in the South felt that the Republicans had sold them out on the issue of
slavery. (Remember that great Republican, Abe Lincoln?) So they turned
to the opposing party to attempt to restore the status quo ante.
Hence the "boll weevil Democrats" (yes, including Rob't Byrd). It has
nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing (though most of them were
clearly right-wingers).
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
On 2010-03-27 09:30:19 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
> I have nothing worthwhile to say, but I'll say it anyway.
First thing you've written that I can agree with.
On 3/28/2010 8:57 AM Neil Brooks spake thus:
> On Mar 28, 8:42 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the "boll weevil Democrats" (yes, including Rob't Byrd). It has
>>> nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing (though most of them were
>>> clearly right-wingers).
>>
>> The right, (the real right, not the right portrayed on lame, left wing
>> network TV) stands for the individual and individual freedom and the
>> more right you are, the more towards anarchy, not slavery, you get. The
>> left, (the real left, not the left portrayed on lame, left wing TV)
>> stands for government control, and the more left you get, the closer you
>> get to totalitarian dictators, like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro
>> and so on. Those that persecute the individual based on race or
>> religion, or any other mob rule is not anywhere close to being on the
>> right, but solidly, soundly and emphatically on the left.
>>
>> This is why the left wing, socialist bastards have had little trouble
>> decimating the black family in the US to insure they would remain weak,
>> broke and dependent on Big Brother to survive.
>>
>> Thats how it is.
>
> You should have your water tested.
>
> Something's ... just ... wrong with you.
Ackshooly, I think it's Kool-Aid, not water the man's been drinking.
Meaning the Kool-Aid served up by the Mainstream Media and the doctrine
of American Exceptionalism (the idea that we, the shining city on the
hill of democracy, are, sui generis, different from and better than the
rest of the world).
Couple of misteaks in Jack's response: he meant *anarchism*, not
anarchy, as the ultimate extrapolation of personal liberty, and this
political believe really belongs on the far left, not the far right
(although there is some overlap here with right-wing libertarianism: I
know because as a committed leftie, I have a definite libertarian streak
myself).
While there are undoubtedly some strictly doctrinaire lefties who would
love to turn the U.S. into a working model of the Soviet Union (e.g.,
the Maoists, Socialist Worker's Partiers (SWaPpers), and others), these
are *by far* a tiny minority of what passes for the Left in the U.S.
Apparently Jack has never heard of, nor would he understand, such
concepts as "democratic socialism" (I'm sure he would just dismiss this
as a simple contradiction in terms). To someone steeped in the mythology
of the Triumph of Capitalism over Degenerate and Evil Communism, this is
understandable. But it's interesting that so much of the rest of the
world doesn't agree with this analyis, which should indeed make one
wonder if it isn't something in the water ...
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
"DGDevin" wrote:
> I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
> produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
--------------------------------------
Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
Lew
On 3/29/2010 6:45 AM Jack Stein spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Ackshooly, I think it's Kool-Aid, not water the man's been drinking.
>>
>> Meaning the Kool-Aid served up by the Mainstream Media
>
> Jack has never drunk from the Mainstream Media fountain of Kool-Aid.
> For example, find someone in the mainstream media that will acknowledge
> that Hitler was a left-wing socialist.
Y'know, most of the Nazi historical revisionists (the ones who try to
convince us that the Holocaust never happened, or that it "wasn't as bad
as they say it was") are repugnant shitheads. You're just koo-koo with
your version of events.
>> Couple of misteaks in Jack's response: he meant *anarchism*, not
>> anarchy, as the ultimate extrapolation of personal liberty,
>
> I meant anarchy, a society absent of government or law, the absence of
> government control. You can use anarchism if you like, it would not
> change anything said.
Do you even know what anarchism is? I doubt it. Hint: it's *not* the
same thing as anarchy.
Read something by a guy named Kropotkin for more information.
>> (although there is some overlap here with right-wing libertarianism: I
>> know because as a committed leftie, I have a definite libertarian streak
>> myself).
>
> Libertarians are firmly, and solidly on the right, anarchy side of the
> line. Nothing about Libertarians believe a strong, centralized
> government should control the individual.
Well, duh! That was my point. But congratulations for picking up on that.
>> While there are undoubtedly some strictly doctrinaire lefties who would
>> love to turn the U.S. into a working model of the Soviet Union (e.g.,
>> the Maoists, Socialist Worker's Partiers (SWaPpers), and others), these
>> are *by far* a tiny minority of what passes for the Left in the U.S.
>
> Really? I think our current President is trying to do this. He has
> surrounded himself with anti-American socialists and communists, (Van
> Jones,
So I guess you missed the part where the Obama administration threw Van
Jones under the bus after he was attacked by the right-wing echo-chamber
press? (I know all about Van Jones, by the way, being from the Bay Area.)
> Anita Dunn, et al)and even uses communist lingo calling them
> Czars.
They (the White House) don't use the term "czar": that's a MS press usage.
>> Apparently Jack has never heard of, nor would he understand, such
>> concepts as "democratic socialism" (I'm sure he would just dismiss this
>> as a simple contradiction in terms).
>
> Jack's far more interested in how a socialist dictator like Hitler could
> be considered on the right side of the spectrum, where anarchy clearly
> resides, or a libertarian, like you say you are, could be on the left,
> where total government control (totalitarianism) resides?
So you really believe that because the Nazis called themselves "national
socialists" that they were socialists? Really?
And do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
On 2010-04-04 01:06:32 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> said:
> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/ykd3a2m
"Robatoy" wrote:
She sold her soul for money. She's just another Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/
O'Reilly shill yakking about God, Guns, Guts blasting their way into
the hearts of the toothless BillyBobs of society. They will buy
anything.
And yes, we have them up here too.... agents that can 'rent an
attraction' for a fund-raiser. In this case Palin is just another
carnival ride/ferris wheel. They pay her to attract a certain crowd
who deep=down think they're going to see Tina Fey...but instead get an
impostor. Not only doesn't Palin have anything worthwhile to say,
she's riding the coattails of Tina Fey.
-------------------------------------------------
Dick Army and the money backing him are feeding on "Whitey's" fear
with their Tea Party agenda.
"Whitey" does not have a problem cashing his Social Security check or
accepting Medicare, but good grief the idea that a non white person
might receive some form of gov't assistance is something they have
been taught to hate.
Not to worry, the sky will not fall when Whitey is no longer in the
majority, meanwhile, there are some who continue to hate.
Lew
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:23:01 -0400, the infamous Jack Stein
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 03/25/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>>>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>>>> have reached.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>>> Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
>>> she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
>>> Too many ball-less wonders up there.
>>
>> According to one of the organizers there were 2000 protesters. Does
>> that mean they should have beat the crap out of Coulter and the people
>> that came to see her?
>
>Sure seems to be what you freaks are advocating. I think the cops
>should have taken care of the assholes trying to stifle free speech, if
>they can't do it then you have to figure out a way to stop the
>socialists bastards before they kill a few million of your people ala
>Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Pol Pot and the like.
>
>> Besides, what makes you think that all the people that came to see her
>> actually support her views? The London audience didn't seem all that
>> friendly.
>
>Don't really care what reason they had to listen to her, but they should
>not of been prevented from hearing it by a pack of screaming left wing
>socialists. Really though, I'm not too interested in what the Canadians
>do, much more interested in what the socialists are up to in my country.
Agreed. I think the gov't is letting the assholes get away with too
much nowadays. Peaceful assembly is OK. Disruptive assembly and
riots should be punishable by arrest, period.
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:13:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 25, 11:33 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>> >> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >> >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> >> >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> >> >hate speech.
>> >> >We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> >> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> >> >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>>
>> >> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>> >> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>> >> Toy?
>>
>> >The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>> >don't want that kind over here.
>> >We try to keep it clean here.
>>
>> Uh, suuuure. Just a few questions:
>>
>> 1) Why was she invited?
>
>It was an agency booking for ther entertainment division.
>
>> 2) Why was she allowed to enter the country?
>
>Why not? It wasn't the country that rejected her, it was the local
>audience that did, and the cops stepped in to protect her.
>
>> 3) Why was it her own people who stopped the speech instead of your
>> cops?
>
>They stopped it on the advice ("we can't protect that douche-bag.")
>from local police.
>
>> 4) Why didn't the University Police keep the protestors from rioting?
>
>They didn't riot. They loudly proclaimed that they knew who she was.
>
>> Hmm, what else...?
>>
>I dunno, Larry, keep making them up though, you're still funny...
And you, Toy, on this subject, are a hate crime waiting to happen.
Man, you're hot for her.
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
On Mar 25, 11:42=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 5:25=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> >> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >> >That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
> >> >douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
> >> >May a bit about Beck is allowed.
> >> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
>
> >> You have a calling, Toy. =A0You appear to be shameless at political
> >> lying and hating. =A0Come to the U.S. and join the Democratic Party!
>
> >> OBTW,http://fwd4.me/6jn=A0was a hoax. =A0The guy's probably DNC
> >> registered.
>
> >LMAO... I thought you were hipper than that. It's a fucking JOKE! An
> >internet meme. It is funny.
>
> >Oh... and he has never denied it either....ooooweeeeee
>
> How would you feel if someone started a website with the namewww.DidRobat=
oyRapeAndKillaYounGirlIn2000.comand promoted it globally,
> using your name and address?
I didn't start that webpage, nor did I visit the one of which you
speaketh.
I posted that pic of beck because he has such a stupid look on his
face and didn't even realize the crawl line and what it said..
I am familiar with the meme though as I am an avid reader and
contributor of Fark.
>
> I've only heard a couple of her short YouTube speeches. What is it
> about her that you hate so? =A0You're a RabidToy over her.
>
You must have found some innocuous Youtube shorts of her then. I also
don't hate her, I don't think she should be exporting HER hatred to
Canada. Get it? It is HER hatred I despise. Her Right Wing Hatred.
Don't hate the hater, hate the hatred.
On Mar 24, 9:15=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
Oops, the wrap could have deprived some of you..<G>
http://tinyurl.com/y8odevx
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
>
> Universities are hotbeds of liberalism is because educated people are
> more likely to have been taught how to use critical thinking. The
> extreme right wing preys on the fear and ignorance of its supporters.
True. I can think of some great liberal thinkers and philosophers: Karl
Marx, Mao Tse-Tsung, John Maynard Keynes, Pierre Trudeau, FDR, Barak Obama.
All have been discredited.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
>> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel
>> projects.
>
> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>
Yep, the war cost a bunch. The eight Bush years added about $900 billion to
the national debt. Obama reached $900 billion in his first month in office,
and has run up in excess of $3 trillion his first year. Not counting what's
to come.
As far as Afghanistan, during the Bush administration, no matter how much
agitation went on, the killing or capturing of Osama ben Laden was NEVER a
goal of the United States. The singular goal of the United States was to
prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
several strategies were employed to disrupt or curtail terrorist financing,
safe harbors, communication, recruitment, training, and movement. These
strategies have been spectacularly successful. If, during prosecution of
these tactics, OBL ended up dead or caught, that would have been a plus, but
was never a goal.
In the decade prior to the Bush years, there were one or two attacks on the
U.S. or its interests abroad per year: The 1st WTC bombing, the U.S.S. Cole,
attacks on our embassies, kidnapping of diplomats, and so forth.
Since the Bush goals were implemented, there has been not a single instance
of an attack on U.S. civilian interests in the U.S. or against U.S.
interests abroad.
Until Obama became president. Since then, there have been three.
On Mar 29, 10:59=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Have the Hate Speech police been to your door yet? =A0I suspect they woul=
d
> not like your gay bashing homophobic and sexist rhetoric much up there
> in the great white north.
>
Sorry if offended your lifestyle, Jack... but I really don't have a
problem with that.
> --
> Jack
> Got Change: The Individual =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Collective!http://j=
bstein.com
DGDevin wrote:
>
> I'm sorry the cost of health insurance has doubled in the past fifteen
> years, I'm sorry health insurance companies absorb far more for
> administrative overhead than in any other industrialized nation, I'm
> sorry our taxes and our insurance premiums go to pay for ER treatment
> for the uninsured instead of regular clinic treatment which is far
> cheaper, I'm sorry Americans pay more for health care than anyone and
> yet have shorter life expectancy that people in many wealthy
> nations....
Geeze! So many misapprehensions in one paragraph.
* "... health insurance has doubled in 15 years" - So has everything else.
Money invested at 7% will double in TEN years.
* "... insurance companies ... more administrative overhead than other
countries..." - Insurance companies are one of the most regulated businesses
in the country. I'm sure that contributes greatly to the overhead.
* "... Americans ... have shorter life expectancy... than many wealthy
nations" - Life expectancy is not the best metric for measuring health care.
A) Many people die before the health care system can get involved: auto
accidents, executions, gang warfare, ordinary warfare, etc. B) Many nations
count premature infant deaths as "stillborn." We don't.
A better metric is life expectancy after diagnosis. Here the U.S. stands WAY
above most countries with most illnesses. For example, the five-year
survival rate for breast cancer is better than 90% in the U.S. compared to
56% in the UK.
>
> Not the right time to do it? How many people are you prepared to see
> die until you figure it's the right time?
Something less than, say, eight million.
>
> I thought Bush's proposal for malpractice lawsuit reform was a good
> start, though I felt his cap was too low. If you ended up in
> wheelchair for life with a feeding tube in your stomach because of a
> surgeon's blunder would you figure only five hundred grand would
> cover that? However I agree that really breathtaking punitive
> damages are counter-productive, awards should be limited to actual
> costs of medical care, loss of wages and a reasonable amount for pain
> and suffering, not awards running into the tens of millions of
> dollars that primarily enrich lawyers.
We have medical tort reform in Texas. There is NO cap on pain and suffering
or economic loss. There IS a cap ($250,000) on punative damages. Medical
malpractice insurance rates have DROPPED every year for the past seven years
and we've seen about a 12% increase in the number of physicians practicing
in the state. Some counties where there wasn't even ONE OB/GYN eight years
ago now have several.
>
> You mean the way banks became able to pick and choose which state
> they would base their credit card operations in so they could find a
> state that allowed any interest rates the banks wanted, any fees and
> penalties they wanted?
That's called "competition" (between the states).
> Sure, that worked out great for the consumer,
> didn't it. The former governor of Delaware has said he thought it
> was a fine idea at the time because of all the banks that set up shop
> there; later, when he realized it allowed the banks to fleece
> Americans he had a change of heart--too late.
Credit cards are slightly different from health insurance; nobody was FORCED
to get a credit card.
Chris Friesen wrote:
>>
>> Yep, the war cost a bunch. The eight Bush years added about $900
>> billion to the national debt.
>
> Plus another trillion or so in increased interest on the added
> borrowing, plus the ongoing cost of supporting disabled veterans, plus
> the cost of refurbishing the military after it's over.
>
>
>> Obama reached $900 billion in his first month in office,
>> and has run up in excess of $3 trillion his first year. Not counting
>> what's to come.
>
> Wasn't the Bush bailout in the previous year close to the same amount?
>
It's kinda confusing. The federal fiscal year starts on September 1st, and
the new president is sworn in the next January. I was counting the last full
fiscal year for which Bush was in charge. Obama was president for 3/4 of the
fiscal year in which the bailout occurred - TARP business was in force.
Further, the bailout under Bush was only an "authorization," it was Obama
administration that actually spent the money. If the bailout was not
considered a good idea, Obama could have merely declined to participate.
The Bush people say they did not have enough time remaining in their term to
fix the economy, so they kicked the can down the road.
On Apr 7, 10:18=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:28=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Charlie Self
> > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >>On Mar 25, 4:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > >>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >>> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > >>> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech=
and
> > >>> > >hate speech.
> > >>> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >>> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-=
shuts...
> > >>> > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > >>> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech th=
ey
> > >>> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > >>> > Toy?
>
> > >>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. W=
e
> > >>> don't want that kind over here.
> > >>> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> > >>C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulte=
r
> > >>is useful only to her agent and bankers.
>
> > > Charlie, her agent and bankers are making money because people want t=
o
> > > hear what she has to say, both live and in print. =A0How many of her
> > > books are bestsellers, hmm? =A0More than one somebody wants her info.
>
> > > I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
> > You Jest! Surely!!
>
> > She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> More to the Seabiscuit side, I'd say. The first time I saw her, I
> thought she'd stolen that facial shape from an old buckskin riding
> horse I'd had.
To me, she looks like Tim Burton drew a caricature.
On Apr 15, 8:42=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
That article makes an interesting point about free speech. " I can say
what I what, but don't record it because I can't be held accountable."
"Evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right? When I look at the
> folks the Pres. has surrounded himself with. I get a bit concerned that
> it's
> all about a plan to fundamentally change this country for the worse. They
> couldn't do it in the 60's when they wore tie/dye and no power. Now with
> suits and ties and power watch out!!!!!
When Obama became head of the Harvard Law Review he mightily pissed off the
"progressives" there by appointing many conservatives to editorial
positions--the progressives assumed he would do the exact opposite. Thus it
shouldn't have come as a surprise that when he became President he appointed
many people that liberals were not happy to see given high office. He kept
on a couple of Bush-era Republican cabinet members, he put prominent
veterans of Wall St. in charge of economic policy, he chose an EPA head with
a reputation of being heavily pro-business and so on.
But what do we hear from clowns like Beck? Obama has surrounded himself
with socialists if not outright communists, just wait, he's going to put a
hammer & sickle on Old Glory any day now. Sure, there has been at least one
appointee who maybe deserved that kind of accusation, that goofball Van
Jones--anyone from the 911 Truther camp shouldn't be trusted with a driver's
license much less a federal appointment. And the administration richly
deserves to be embarrassed over attempted appointments of people who had
neglected to pay their taxes properly, but that is hardly proof of them
being part of a left-wing plot, is it.
I don't know where this national obsession with conspiracy came from, but it
sure isn't a good sign of the mental health of the republic.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:240320100724097472%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> this for years.
Yup, now she gets to play martyr.
> Bt then, universities aren't particularly interested in developing
> intelligence these days.
Two things:
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with
unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and
competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let
its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open
market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
JFK
"In fairness, the echo chamber effect is not unique to the Tea Partiers; an
artifact of political polarization and media fragmentation is that it's
easier for people across the ideological spectrum to stay within information
comfort zones that confirm rather than challenge their beliefs."
Jim DiPeso
In a recent article on how misinformed Tea Party supporters are on Alaskan
oil reserves.
Canadians hauling each other before human rights tribunals over "hate
speech" only to see their complaints later dismissed by the courts is a sad
sight. A printer in Toronto who declined to do a printing job for a
gay/lesbian group due to his religious beliefs was prosecuted and fined.
After an expensive legal battle the courts overturned that verdict saying
that it was unconstitutional to force someone to print materials promoting a
lifestyle they consider immoral or mocking their own religious beliefs.
Gee, religious beliefs are as protected as sexual orientation--who knew?
It's also ironic that the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that hate
speech was not protected speech was later used to decide that the govt.
could prosecute pornography sellers for certain sorts of porn no matter how
ill-defined the state's definition of bad-vs.-okay porn is--that law of
unintended consequences is a real bitch.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:25:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
If you're interested in that, then you're hard up big time. Hell, I'm
short, fat and bald and even I wouldn't consider her attractive.
(That's if she really is a her and not some botched trans-gender
medical procedure.)
>Seabiscuit should be so lucky.
Seabiscuit would've run off and you'd never have see him again.
On Mar 27, 9:25=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:58:55 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > Get your finger off the send button asshole.
>
> Sure, but I thought I was a douche-nozzle?
>
You DO have a problem with that moniker....ROTFLMAO
On Mar 24, 9:54=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:39=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 9:24=A0am, Dave Balderstone
>
> > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech an=
d
> > > > hate speech.
> > > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shut=
s...
> > > > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > > They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> > > this for years.
>
> > There was no plan, just $10,000.00 for entertainment fees. You give
> > her way too much credit.
>
> > "The students in Ottawa didn't want to hear what I had to say,
> > boohoo." will play well in Texas?
>
> > She's going to capitalize on the fact that we won't eat her shit? Wow,
> > she's desperate. I'm still wondering what the hell she was doing here
> > _other than_ her fee? Did she run out of crazy-capital in the US?
>
> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
> speech.
=A0
I can give you some examples of things you can't say in the US.
> We know you (Robonut) have no brain, too.
That's some exquisite use of language you gurgled there, Lou. Stayed
up all night for that one, did you?
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> >hate speech.
>> >We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>>
>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>> Toy?
>>
>The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>don't want that kind over here.
>We try to keep it clean here.
Uh, suuuure. Just a few questions:
1) Why was she invited?
2) Why was she allowed to enter the country?
3) Why was it her own people who stopped the speech instead of your
cops?
4) Why didn't the University Police keep the protestors from rioting?
Hmm, what else...?
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
On Mar 28, 12:11=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 27, 6:44 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Mar 27, 8:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> > > They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
>
> > Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> > rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
> > there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> > crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> > shit on somebody's lawn.
> > The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> > to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> > energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> > No biggie.
>
> > I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
> > up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
> > slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
> > his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
> > Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
> > you?
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > ...didn't think so...
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
> > Actually, we do have that right.
>
> Exercise it then.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Why?
Same reason as Coulter.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:10 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mar 26, 10:50 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>>>>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>>>>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>>>>>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>>>>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>>>>> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>>>>> Toy?
>>>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>>>> don't want that kind over here.
>>>> We try to keep it clean here.
>>>> ========================================================
>>>> Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
>>> Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
>>> Klan statements.
>>> ==============================================================
>>> Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "we
>>> don't want that kind over here."
>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>>
>> ===============================================================
>> Bigot Wing.
>
> Right Wing then.
>
> "Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
> is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
> the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
> further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
> violence and intimidation. "
So why was the senior member of the senate democratic party an Exalted
Cyclops in the klan?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 26, 10:59 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/26/2010 8:37 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> > It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
>> > arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
>> > was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
>>
>> It's your country, and you won't get any argument from me for running it
>> like you want. Just spare us the moral superiority posture ...
>> historically it doesn't play any better there than it does here.
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>Nothing to do with moral superiority. Everything to do with respect
>for a host country.
Did you hear her disrespect your country while she was up there, or at
any other time?
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
On Mar 24, 9:24=A0am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > hate speech.
> > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> this for years.
>
There was no plan, just $10,000.00 for entertainment fees. You give
her way too much credit.
"The students in Ottawa didn't want to hear what I had to say,
boohoo." will play well in Texas?
She's going to capitalize on the fact that we won't eat her shit? Wow,
she's desperate. I'm still wondering what the hell she was doing here
_other than_ her fee? Did she run out of crazy-capital in the US?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:10:50 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On 2010-03-24 18:52:58 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> The singular goal of the United States was to prevent another attack
>>> on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.
>>
>> Bullshit. The goal was to hand big bucks to big oil and friends.
>> Mission accomplished.
>
>Well? What rational person would hand big bucks to his ENEMIES?
>
The USA. They've at one time or another backed just about every
ragime they've gone to war against at one time or other - even Osama
Bin Ladin.
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
I said:
>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
>You Jest! Surely!!
>
>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
You wouldn't want this?
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=JNP4220.jpg
or this:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg
I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=gun.jpg
And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
Seabiscuit should be so lucky.
--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent,
but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin
On Mar 27, 8:17=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
shit on somebody's lawn.
The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
No biggie.
I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
you?
.
.
.
...didn't think so...
On Mar 26, 7:03=A0pm, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:58:55 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Get your finger off the send button asshole.
LOL
LDosser wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "LDosser" wrote:
>>
>>> I rest my case!
>> ----------------------
>> What case?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter, Beck
> or Palin.
You forgot Limbaugh, Bush, and Cheney.
With libs, it's all about personal attacks because they can't debate on
substance. It's all about feelings.
As another poster pointed out, if this health care abomination is so
great, why did they have to use closed door deals, shut out the Republicans
(yeah, they got invited to a couple of meetings but all Republican ideas
were outright rejected), give bribes, political kickbacks, and promises of
future jobs to soon to be defeated congresscritters in order to pass this
overthrow of the US system?
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article
> <0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da2a1@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> <"[email protected]"> wrote:
>
>> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
>> speech.
>
> *SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
> Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
Pretty much true of liberal arts professors here as well. Hard sciences
(chemistry, physics, etc.) and engineering tend to be a bit more friendly to
conservatives.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Apr 16, 10:16=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> Well, I guess it's time to reengage the gmail filter. I don't want to
> keep being exposed to the hate and bigotry coming down from CA...
Then stop sending that shit up here.
>
> --
> =A0 STOP THE SLAUGHTER! =A0Boycott Baby Oil!
On Mar 25, 5:25=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
> >douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
> >May a bit about Beck is allowed.
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
>
> You have a calling, Toy. =A0You appear to be shameless at political
> lying and hating. =A0Come to the U.S. and join the Democratic Party!
>
> OBTW,http://fwd4.me/6jn=A0was a hoax. =A0The guy's probably DNC
> registered.
>
LMAO... I thought you were hipper than that. It's a fucking JOKE! An
internet meme. It is funny.
Oh... and he has never denied it either....ooooweeeeee
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:57:24 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>You said "stupid" That has nothing to do with character.
Sure it does. Anybody can and does occasionally say something that's
stupid or ignorant or both. You're taking the word too literally Ed.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700
>> billion to $3 trillion? The Reagan under whom America went from
>> being the world's largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? The
>> Reagan under whom the trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L
>> Crisis occurred? The Reagan of whom his Secretary of the Treasury
>> said, "In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury,
>> I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic
>> philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one....The
>> President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to
>> accomplish in the field of economics." That Reagan?
>
> Yep, that's the one. Miss him yet?
I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't produce
regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f1174795-29be-4fce-b867-8efb0d4e738f@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Oh, for Craps Sake! I just looked at your profile and I'm wondering
> how the hell you ended up here with your bullshit.
And I'm wondering who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read
it?
> 1) Do you own a table saw? If not, a hand saw?
I do not own a table saw, no room. However I have a circular saw, a jigsaw,
a reciprocating saw, and at least a dozen hand saws of which my favorite is
one of those Japanese pull-saws.
> 2) Given all of the groups you hang out with, why settle here with this
> diatribe?
"Diatribe" being something you disagree with.
> 3) Would you consider moving all of this kind of rhetoric over to
> rec.outdoors.rv-travel.
Or you could learn not to read threads that cause your spastic colon to
flare up. I don't use multiple screen names, sunshine, so you can killfile
me and never see a word from me again. Try it and see.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:57Â am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
... snip
>>
>> > On Apr 15, 10:35 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>news:4fb9f295-919e-4e2e-9061-2e16db53ea0b@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>>
>> >> So, just who is stupid?
>>
>> >> From the article:
>> >> She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
>> >> engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book,
>> >> Going
>> >> Rogue.
>>
>> >> Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. On
>> >> Fox,
>> >> she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show
>> >> and TLC
>> >> will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska.
>>
>> > You can't judge somebody's character by the size of their wallet.
>>
>> You said "stupid" Â That has nothing to do with character.
>
> She sold her soul for money. She's just another Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/
> O'Reilly shill yakking about God, Guns, Guts blasting their way into
> the hearts of the toothless BillyBobs of society. They will buy
> anything.
Yeah, because people can't actually believe that freedom and smaller
government are a *good* thing. Nope, they have to be dolts or people taking
advantage of dolts to believe such things.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Geeze! So many misapprehensions in one paragraph.
>
> * "... health insurance has doubled in 15 years" - So has everything else.
Your income has doubled in the past ten years? Cool, congratulations. How
about your utility bills? The interest rate on your savings account? The
price of a cup o' joe?
> * "... insurance companies ... more administrative overhead than other
> countries..." - Insurance companies are one of the most regulated
> businesses in the country. I'm sure that contributes greatly to the
> overhead.
Then why are other wealthy industrialized nations able to run their health
insurance with much lower overhead? Why does the AMA say that
administrative overhead in private insurance companies is three times higher
than in public health organizations?
> * "... Americans ... have shorter life expectancy... than many wealthy
> nations" - Life expectancy is not the best metric for measuring health
> care.
Riiiight.
> A better metric is life expectancy after diagnosis. Here the U.S. stands
> WAY above most countries with most illnesses. For example, the five-year
> survival rate for breast cancer is better than 90% in the U.S. compared to
> 56% in the UK.
American health care tends to be good at dealing with catastrophic illness
*if* you have good insurance. On the other hand if you have no insurance at
all, or if your insurance company decides to find an excuse to cut you loose
rather than pay for your treatment, then you have a problem.
>> Not the right time to do it? How many people are you prepared to see
>> die until you figure it's the right time?
>
> Something less than, say, eight million.
Cute, just so long as you aren't one of them huh?
> We have medical tort reform in Texas. There is NO cap on pain and
> suffering or economic loss. There IS a cap ($250,000) on punative damages.
> Medical malpractice insurance rates have DROPPED every year for the past
> seven years and we've seen about a 12% increase in the number of
> physicians practicing in the state. Some counties where there wasn't even
> ONE OB/GYN eight years ago now have several.
Sounds good to me. As I said, I'm in favor of such reform provided it is
equitable.
>> You mean the way banks became able to pick and choose which state
>> they would base their credit card operations in so they could find a
>> state that allowed any interest rates the banks wanted, any fees and
>> penalties they wanted?
>
> That's called "competition" (between the states).
That's fine if you believe that profit and only profit is the ultimate
arbiter. But in civilized societies we figure sometimes the public good has
to supersede private profit, that's why we have things like anti-trust laws,
banking and insurance industry regulation, fire and health
inspections--stuff like that. Of course there are those who would do away
such laws if they could.
>> Sure, that worked out great for the consumer,
>> didn't it. The former governor of Delaware has said he thought it
>> was a fine idea at the time because of all the banks that set up shop
>> there; later, when he realized it allowed the banks to fleece
>> Americans he had a change of heart--too late.
>
> Credit cards are slightly different from health insurance; nobody was
> FORCED to get a credit card.
Very true, although try renting a car sometime without one. Of course we
regulate all kinds of things people are not forced to get, but then if you
believe any kind of regulation is a bad thing then you won't find that
persuasive.
BTW, do you know which party once thought compulsory health insurance was a
good idea?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/27/national/w000626D51.DTL&tsp=1
New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get
health insurance before they were against it.
The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been
around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill
and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days,
Republicans call it government overreach. [snip]
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
>> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects.
>
> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and
occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion dollars
even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never did find those
pesky WMDs, did they.
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>> Toy?
>>
> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> don't want that kind over here.
> We try to keep it clean here.
There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the leader of a
TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for "anti-government utterances."
Also, about the same time, Google left China for being reluctant to comply
with edicts "against the public decency and morality."
Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by the
government.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
>> produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>
That is an absolute incorrect statement. I had just gotten out of college
and entered my first job when his tax cuts started to take effect (they were
phased in). I saw a significant increase in my take-home pay thanks to
those cuts and I wasn't making 1/10 of $250k per year.
> With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
> strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
> programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
>
> Lew
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
>> Robatoy wrote:
> Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
> there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> shit on somebody's lawn.
> The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> No biggie.
And that will boost the sale of her books. I'm sure she is thankful for the
help. A better way to show disdain is to just not show up. That takes more
courage than screaming or holding a sign in the street so you can get your
own 15 minutes of fame.
DGDevin wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
>> running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial
>> problems to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought
>> the economy under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he
>> instituted, the economy prospered
>
> Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700
> billion to $3 trillion? The Reagan under whom America went from
> being the world's largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? The
> Reagan under whom the trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L
> Crisis occurred? The Reagan of whom his Secretary of the Treasury
> said, "In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury,
> I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic
> philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one....The
> President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to
> accomplish in the field of economics." That Reagan?
Yep, that's the one. Miss him yet?
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:900711fa-cb78-4bdf-8d63-a4633924751f@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> There was no plan, just $10,000.00 for entertainment fees. You give
> her way too much credit.
>
> "The students in Ottawa didn't want to hear what I had to say,
> boohoo." will play well in Texas?
>
> She's going to capitalize on the fact that we won't eat her shit? Wow,
> she's desperate. I'm still wondering what the hell she was doing here
> _other than_ her fee? Did she run out of crazy-capital in the US?
>
Did you know that ANN COULTER anagrams to UNCLEAN ROT? Ain't life grand?
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
news:240320100724097472%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> hate speech.
>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts-
>> ann -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> this for years.
>
> Bt then, universities aren't particularly interested in developing
> intelligence these days.
Universities are hotbeds of liberalism is because educated people are more
likely to have been taught how to use critical thinking. The extreme right
wing preys on the fear and ignorance of its supporters.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>
>> The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and
>> occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion
>> dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never
>> did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
>
> Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
No apostrophe in its, Hey Bu'b.
"LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>
>
> You Jest! Surely!!
>
> She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
With a personality that's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen guard and one of
them Apocalypse ponies.
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kzZxn.915868$Dy7.402473
@newsfe26.ams2:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> Palin...Obama's best recruiter.
>
In my house she's known as the head Tea Bag.
DGDevin wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after
>>> they spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel
>>> projects.
>>
>> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
>> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>
> The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and
> occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion
> dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never
> did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> I said:
>>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>
>>You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> You wouldn't want this?
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=JNP4220.jpg
> or this:
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg
> I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=gun.jpg
> And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
Well, that and the fact that she's smiling. Libs don't see much of that
in their women.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
>>> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>>
>> The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and
>> occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion
>> dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never
>> did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
>
> Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
I'd have paid good money to see the Iraqi air force drop Saddam Hussein
anywhere on U.S. soil including my front yard. Somehow I don't think he
would have produced the "mushroom cloud" the Bush administration kept
warning us about.
On 3/26/2010 8:37 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
> arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
> was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
It's your country, and you won't get any argument from me for running it
like you want. Just spare us the moral superiority posture ...
historically it doesn't play any better there than it does here.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Apr 3, 6:17=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:34=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:44=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > >hate speech.
> > > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shut=
s...
> > > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > > wanted to hear. =A0What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > > Toy?
>
> > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > don't want that kind over here.
> > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
> is useful only to her agent and bankers.
Zactly
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
> running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial problems
> to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
> under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, the
> economy prospered
Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700 billion
to $3 trillion? The Reagan under whom America went from being the world's
largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? The Reagan under whom the
trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L Crisis occurred? The Reagan
of whom his Secretary of the Treasury said, "In the four years that I served
as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and never
discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him
one-on-one....The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted
to accomplish in the field of economics." That Reagan?
Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remember
only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history gets
edited to suit ideology.
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 06:35:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> In Canada, little children are brought up to believe that impure
>> thoughts are evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. They
>> grow to adulthood conflicted and ambivalent, infected with a
>> government-imposed manic-depressive brain stem.
>
> Ah, I see. You have a degree in child psychology, with an emphasis on
> Canadian child psychology. World re known are you? Well, why the fuck
> didn't you say so?
>
> (choke, gag, vomit)
>
>> And your qualification that you don't hater HER, only her views, is
>> disingenuous. Her views ARE her! Without them, she'd be just another
>> good-looking, rich, blonde - of which there are many in the
>> conservative movement.
>
> Now that makes more sense. Your support for her is exacerbated by your
> desire to screw her. She might be rich and might be blonde, but she
> certainly doesn't qualify for the good-looking description. Looking
> more like a withered crone seems to be a better description.
For your viewing pleasure, please consult:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzrUztyd1Y
Where the following Republican women (music: She's a Lady)
Sarah Palin
Michelle Malkin
All the Fox News anchorettes
Maritina McBride
Laura Ingram
and others
Compared to the Democratic ladies (music: Who Let The Dogs Out)
Rosie O'Donnell
Michele Obama
Hillary Clinton
Janet Reno
Nancy Pelosi
Janet Napalatano
Gearldine Gerafalo
Helen Thomas
and others
>
> MY degree in psychology tells me you're about as hard up as it gets
> and we're going to be inundated by your bullshit until you go out and
> get a blow job to relieve the stress.
A study last year of liberal and conservative blogs found that the liberals
used profanity - the seven naughty words - eighteen times more often than
the conservative pundits. Methinks you've given yourself away by your less
than polite chatter.
That's to be expected. Liberals act and react from the gut and are at the
mercy of the most visceral emotions; Clinton's "I feel your pain" is an
example. Common sense, cause and effect, unintended consequence, and the
like be damned. As long as it "feels good" the response must be the correct
one.
You appeal to authority, ("MY degree in psychology..."). I appeal to facts
on the ground, so compelling in their essence as to force the most casual
observer to the probable truth of my assertions. Interestingly, you did not
contradict my observations, only my qualifications for holding them.
That said, you belong to a field - a "soft" science - where truth is
determined by majority vote. I, on the other hand, am trained in empirical
science where truth is demonstrable, reproducible, and empirical. With
regard to Canadian children, one does not need to study psychology to see
the indoctrination. While not as obvious, admittedly, as banners in North
Korea proclaiming Kim Jong-Il as "our father" or China's Mao Tse-Tsung as
"our great leader," the bending of the branch is obvious to even the most
casual observer. To deny such is to deny reality.
So, it comes down to a question of what is more believable - you or my own
lying eyes?
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 06:35:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In Canada, little children are brought up to believe that impure thoughts
>are evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. They grow to adulthood
>conflicted and ambivalent, infected with a government-imposed
>manic-depressive brain stem.
Ah, I see. You have a degree in child psychology, with an emphasis on
Canadian child psychology. World re known are you? Well, why the fuck
didn't you say so?
(choke, gag, vomit)
>And your qualification that you don't hater HER, only her views, is
>disingenuous. Her views ARE her! Without them, she'd be just another
>good-looking, rich, blonde - of which there are many in the conservative
>movement.
Now that makes more sense. Your support for her is exacerbated by your
desire to screw her. She might be rich and might be blonde, but she
certainly doesn't qualify for the good-looking description. Looking
more like a withered crone seems to be a better description.
MY degree in psychology tells me you're about as hard up as it gets
and we're going to be inundated by your bullshit until you go out and
get a blow job to relieve the stress.
On Apr 4, 9:53=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 06:35:06 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> In Canada, little children are brought up to believe that impure
> >> thoughts are evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. They
> >> grow to adulthood conflicted and ambivalent, infected with a
> >> government-imposed manic-depressive brain stem.
>
> > Ah, I see. You have a degree in child psychology, with an emphasis on
> > Canadian child psychology. World re known are you? Well, why the fuck
> > didn't you say so?
>
> > (choke, gag, vomit)
>
> >> And your qualification that you don't hater HER, only her views, is
> >> disingenuous. Her views ARE her! Without them, she'd be just another
> >> good-looking, rich, blonde - of which there are many in the
> >> conservative movement.
>
> > Now that makes more sense. Your support for her is exacerbated by your
> > desire to screw her. She might be rich and might be blonde, but she
> > certainly doesn't qualify for the good-looking description. Looking
> > more like a withered crone seems to be a better description.
>
> For your viewing pleasure, please consult:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
=3DsXzrUztyd1Y
>
> Where the following Republican women (music: She's a Lady)
> Sarah Palin
> Michelle Malkin
I'll start here...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Michelle_Malkin2.gif
HeyBub wrote:
> For your viewing pleasure, please consult:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzrUztyd1Y
Thanks for that HeyBub.
Fox News just had Raquel Welch on admitting she is, and has been, a
conservative. She is 70 years old. Damn, she looked good.
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com
On Mar 25, 4:34=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:44=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > >hate speech.
> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts.=
..
> > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > wanted to hear. =A0What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > Toy?
>
> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> don't want that kind over here.
> We try to keep it clean here.
C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
is useful only to her agent and bankers.
On Mar 25, 2:49=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:01:20 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>
> >In article
> ><0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> ><"[email protected]"> wrote:
>
> >> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
> >> speech.
>
> >*SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
> >Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
>
> Here, too, unfortunately.
>
> If people don't want to hear something, why do they turn up at the
> event? =A0No, they wanted to make sure than nobody heard it. Intolerance
> like that is ugly and the supporters of that ilk should be ashamed.
> Where's the hate _now_, huh? =A0(Yeah, I'm talking to you, Toy.)
>
I don't think anybody was trying to prevent anybody from listening to
her shit. I DO think they just wanted that hate-monger to leave us-the-
fuck alone and go back to where she came from, that place where they
lap up her scuz.
"The name is Bond. James Bond."
"The name is Stein. Not Einstein."
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
>I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>hate speech.
>We'll miss you, Ann.
>
>
>http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts-ann
>-coulter-speech?bn=1
Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
Toy?
Suckage. It sucks when that kind of thing happens here, too, but
that's usually the eco-terrorists doing that. Where's that vaporizing
laser when one needs it?
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
>>is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
>>the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
>>further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
>>violence and intimidation. "
>
> And, isn't it revealing that one of the most infamous hate groups in
> the world originated in the US? Very telling don't you think?
>
> We have our own local hate group, the Quebec separatists, but they're
> the equivalent of cub scouts compared to the KKK.
You don't seem to understand the History of the group. Read up.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
>is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
>the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
>further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
>violence and intimidation. "
And, isn't it revealing that one of the most infamous hate groups in
the world originated in the US? Very telling don't you think?
We have our own local hate group, the Quebec separatists, but they're
the equivalent of cub scouts compared to the KKK.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:49:51 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 5:32 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> > I said:
>> >>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>
>> >>You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>> >>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>>
>> > You wouldn't want this?
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=JNP4220.jpg
>> > or this:
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg
>> > I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=gun.jpg
>> > And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
>>
>> Well, that and the fact that she's smiling. Libs don't see much of that
>> in their women.
>>
>> --
>>
>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> Rob Leatham
>
>Cite, please.
http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/987/1303987-nancy-pelosi-picture.htm
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
>douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
>May a bit about Beck is allowed.
>http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
You have a calling, Toy. You appear to be shameless at political
lying and hating. Come to the U.S. and join the Democratic Party!
OBTW, http://fwd4.me/6jn was a hoax. The guy's probably DNC
registered.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
On Apr 4, 5:32=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > I said:
> >>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
> >>You Jest! Surely!!
>
> >>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> > You wouldn't want this?
> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3DJNP4220.jpg
> > or this:
> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3Dsilver-dress.jpg
> > I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=3Dgun.jpg
> > And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
>
> =A0 Well, that and the fact that she's smiling. =A0Libs don't see much of=
that
> in their women.
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
Cite, please.
On Mar 27, 9:30=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > On 2010-03-26 14:55:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
>
> >> Labels are shorthand used in thoughtful and objective analysis rather
> >> than long, tiring, repetitive descriptions.
>
> > i.e., Jack Stein is a fucking waste of oxygen.
>
> Translation: I have nothing worthwhile to say, but I'll say it anyway.
>
You have been... you have been
On Mar 24, 11:55=A0am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> > We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
> > cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
> > spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects=
.
>
> And the Iraq war cost how much again? =A0(When they should have been in
> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
> Chris
The bottom line is that we are mired is a period where the
unemployment rate is in double digits--and that is measuring the
people who are currently getting unemployment benefits. This does NOT
count the number of people who have dropped off the roles nor does it
account for the people who are UNDEREMPLOYED--lost their jobs and are
making far less than they used to make.
And there are also companies who are reducing salaries in one form or
another. For example, last year, my company [a Fortune 500 company]
made *all* of its employees take one week per quarter off without
pay. I didn't realize how much I really lost until I looked at my
W-2. Thing is, even all the bigwigs who were making $100,000,
$250,000, $1,000,000 a year [in salary] all lost the same percentage.
Add all that lost salary up for a company that was still able to
maintain 50,000+ employees and that comes to one heck of a number.
They are thinking about doing this again this year--and I have heard
other companies do this and/or simply reduce salary.
All of this will naturally REDUCE the amount of taxes the government
collects. Where are you going to get all these new tax dollars from?
Does Michelle Obama grow money plants in her garden?
Somehow people think somebody else can and should pay for everything
they desire. And the poor bastards who worked their asses off to get
"rich" had to give up a lot and endure a lot to get where they got.
They had to work long, hard hours both at work and, probably, at
school. They needed to make money to spend money to make more money.
They needed to risk what they have earned in the effort to get more.
And many have probably done things that they will regret whenever they
are on their deathbed (like loving work more than family, which is a
HUGE one).
The thing is, you can do and be whatever you want to be in this
country. No matter what anybody else says. You guys are ripping on
Beck. What was he in the past? A flat-out broke drunk who had to
turn his life around to get where he got. I can't help it if many of
you don't like his views--that is beside the point. The guy literally
worked and is working his ass off. Anybody and everybody can do that.
I don't make much money and I am far, FAR from rich (I can say that
because Obama gave us the "definition" for rich to be anybody making
over $250,000 a year). I am 50 years old and I don't think I will
ever even get to being "half-rich" but that is my choice. I choose
not to work 15 hour days 6-7 days a week and never take vacation. I
choose to not continue to go to college or any other type of
schooling. I choose to spend more time with my family. Blah, blah,
blah. There are others around me who are younger than me who are real
go-getters and who work like crazy and do all the little things to get
themselves ahead. They started out more-or-less equal to me and have
zoomed past me. I can do just as good of work but my priorities are
different.
I guess what I am saying is that the people who need all this help
because they simply do not make enough money usually CHOOSE to stay in
the situation they are in. They don't want to work longer hours.
They do not want to go to school. They do not want to switch
careers. They do not want to move so they can get a job. They don't
want to do a lot of things for a variety of reasons and almost all of
them are nothing more than rationalizations. Sure, doing any one of
those things is hard, sometimes EXTREMELY hard, but how much do they
really want the "more" they are asking for? Not as much as they want
something else is the bottom line.
And it simply is not fair to have "rich" people pay more than their
fair share. It is ludicrous. It has been proven over and over again
in socialist experiments that you take away all motivation if you take
the money an industrious person makes and give it to others so they
can be equal. Where is the motivation for the industrious guy.
Pretty soon, he will produce the same output as the less industrious
guy and then you have TWO people who need to be "helped" and it will
take MORE industrious people to make up the difference.
Lastly, I wanted to SCREAM whenever I heard Obama say "his" health
care bill would provide FREE doctor visits, FREE prescriptions, FREE
shots, FREE (fill in the blank).
NOTHING IS FREE!
It irritates me whenever I hear people say that the "rich" people
SHOULD pay more taxes. THEY DO!!! Both in percentage and in sheer
dollars. And even if the percentages were the same, the sheer dollars
would still be a lot higher.
The progressive liberal say that is is only FAIR the "rich" should pay
more. We all want to be fair, but what does fair mean?
Suppose four guys go out to lunch, and split the check four ways. Is
that fair? Suppose one had a tuna sandwich, and another had lobster?
Well, maybe it would be fair to say that each pays for what he eats?
But suppose one of the guys makes $100,000 a year and the others make
only $50,000. Would it be fair to say the one who makes the big bucks
should pay twice what the others do, regardless of what he eats,
because he makes more?
If it were you, you probably wouldn't think it was "fair" to ask your
friend to pay for your meal, though an increasing voting bloc feels it
is very fair to ask other people to pay for things they want.
Let=B4s take another example.
Suppose 100 adults with jobs live on your street. And you get
together and decide that it would be wonderful if you had a new
playground that would cost about $10,000. So you vote
and the new playground wins.
Then you have to vote how much each person should chip in to buy the
playground, and the vote goes like this:
- Five of the adults are charged a total of $6,000 for the playground
everyone will use.
- Another 45 of the adults have to get together and chip in an
additional $3,700.
- And the last 50 adults have to pool their resources and come up
with $300 between them.
Is that fair? (That was the US tax code in 2006.)
Well, President Obama and his Social Democrat Party said no way is
that fair.
Those five people have to come up with a lot more money than just
$6,000, so the 45 pay less, and the 50 who were paying $300 now pay
nothing.
Under that help-the-rich guy George Bush and the Republicans in 2006,
5% of Americans=97those with incomes over $153,000, paid 60% of the
taxes, while the bottom 50% of Americans paid 3%. (IRS figures.)
Once more than 50% of the public pay nothing, what is to stop them
from voting to take everything from those who pay more?
And all in the name of being fair.
Ugh...I will await the ripping that is sure to ensue because of this
post.
On Mar 30, 10:28=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Have the Hate Speech police been to your door yet? =A0I suspect they w=
ould
> >> not like your gay bashing homophobic and sexist rhetoric much up there
> >> in the great white north.
> > Sorry if offended your lifestyle, Jack... but I really don't have a
> > problem with that.
>
> Your words are homophobic and sexist. =A0
No they're not.
> Whether I have a problem with
> that doesn't matter as much as does the Canadian Hate Speech police have
> a problem with that. =A0Be careful and good luck!
>
No hate speech from me, and thanks for caring.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 25, 5:25 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
>> >douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
>> >May a bit about Beck is allowed.
>> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
>>
>> You have a calling, Toy. You appear to be shameless at political
>> lying and hating. Come to the U.S. and join the Democratic Party!
>>
>> OBTW,http://fwd4.me/6jn was a hoax. The guy's probably DNC
>> registered.
>>
>LMAO... I thought you were hipper than that. It's a fucking JOKE! An
>internet meme. It is funny.
>
>Oh... and he has never denied it either....ooooweeeeee
How would you feel if someone started a website with the name
www.DidRobatoyRapeAndKillaYounGirlIn2000.com and promoted it globally,
using your name and address?
I've only heard a couple of her short YouTube speeches. What is it
about her that you hate so? You're a RabidToy over her.
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
On Mar 24, 4:46=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:30=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
> > > running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial probl=
ems
> > > to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
> > > under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, t=
he
> > > economy prospered
>
> > Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700 bi=
llion
> > to $3 trillion? =A0The Reagan under whom America went from being the wo=
rld's
> > largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? =A0The Reagan under whom=
the
> > trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L Crisis occurred? =A0The =
Reagan
> > of whom his Secretary of the Treasury said, "In the four years that I s=
erved
> > as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and ne=
ver
> > discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him
> > one-on-one....The President never told me what he believed or what he w=
anted
> > to accomplish in the field of economics." =A0That Reagan?
>
> > Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remembe=
r
> > only what they want to remember? =A0Left or right it's the same, histor=
y gets
> > edited to suit ideology.
>
> Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
> conservative. =A0I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> on the first Bush's watch??
>
> Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> voted for. =A0From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. =A0Interest
> rates were around 20% whenever he took office. =A0The stock market took
> a huge crash. =A0I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> ONE job within the store. =A0It was that bad.
>
> Again, I was young, but how did he create that deficit? =A0I think it
> was because he got tax cuts to be pushed thru. =A0And, yes, he increased
> military spending but the military was in SHAMBLES. =A0One thing the
> Federal Government IS responsible for is the military and it was in a
> state of disrepair whenever he came in (along with a lot of other
> things). =A0(And to be fair, Ford got a broken government from Nixon and
> he fixed it pretty good, in retrospect, but he passed along a still
> impaired government to Carter who did his best to water it down before
> he passed it along to Reagan).
>
> Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. =A0If I remember
> correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. =A0In the end, it was
> CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
>
> And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> reaching across the aisle. =A0Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
>
> You are right: it is amazing how people see only what =A0they want to
> see and remember only what they want to remember.
That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
May a bit about Beck is allowed.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
Upscale wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> So, it comes down to a question of what is more believable - you or
>> my own lying eyes?
>
> After a diatribe like that, it's obvious you need that blow job bad. I
> suggest you don't go near any vacuum cleaners until you take care of
> it, else you might find yourself in a hospital emergency with one
> stuck to your dick.
If you mean, by diatribe,"bitter or abusive speech or writing," I must
respectifully disagree. I apologize if I've given offense.
Still, you seem to have given up on "appeal to authority" and now are using
the "attack the messenger" I can't really tell whether you're using an ad
hominem attack on the argument or just being generally nasty with language
inappropriate for a family-oriented newsgroup.
Whatever, I await your evidence as to the fallacy of my original argument.
The following techniques are insufficient:
* Appeal to authority
* Ad hominem
Don't be discouraged: There are about thirty other rhetorical flourishes you
can try...
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So, it comes down to a question of what is more believable - you or my own
>lying eyes?
After a diatribe like that, it's obvious you need that blow job bad. I
suggest you don't go near any vacuum cleaners until you take care of
it, else you might find yourself in a hospital emergency with one
stuck to your dick.
On Mar 28, 5:09=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/28/2010 8:57 AM Neil Brooks spake thus:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 8:42 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> >>> Hence the "boll weevil Democrats" (yes, including Rob't Byrd). It has
> >>> nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing (though most of them were
> >>> clearly right-wingers).
>
> >> The right, (the real right, not the right portrayed on lame, left wing
> >> network TV) stands for the individual and individual freedom and the
> >> more right you are, the more towards anarchy, not slavery, you get. =
=A0The
> >> left, (the real left, not the left portrayed on lame, left wing TV)
> >> stands for government control, and the more left you get, the closer y=
ou
> >> get to totalitarian dictators, like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro
> >> and so on. =A0Those that persecute the individual based on race or
> >> religion, or any other mob rule is not anywhere close to being on the
> >> right, but solidly, soundly and emphatically on the left.
>
> >> This is why the left wing, socialist bastards have had little trouble
> >> decimating the black family in the US to insure they would remain weak=
,
> >> broke and dependent on Big Brother to survive.
>
> >> Thats how it is.
>
> > You should have your water tested.
>
> > Something's ... just ... wrong with you.
>
> Ackshooly, I think it's Kool-Aid, not water the man's been drinking.
>
> Meaning the Kool-Aid served up by the Mainstream Media and the doctrine
> of American Exceptionalism (the idea that we, the shining city on the
> hill of democracy, are, sui generis, different from and better than the
> rest of the world).
>
> Couple of misteaks in Jack's response: he meant *anarchism*, not
> anarchy, as the ultimate extrapolation of personal liberty, and this
> political believe really belongs on the far left, not the far right
> (although there is some overlap here with right-wing libertarianism: I
> know because as a committed leftie, I have a definite libertarian streak
> myself).
>
> While there are undoubtedly some strictly doctrinaire lefties who would
> love to turn the U.S. into a working model of the Soviet Union (e.g.,
> the Maoists, Socialist Worker's Partiers (SWaPpers), and others), these
> are *by far* a tiny minority of what passes for the Left in the U.S.
> Apparently Jack has never heard of, nor would he understand, such
> concepts as "democratic socialism" (I'm sure he would just dismiss this
> as a simple contradiction in terms). To someone steeped in the mythology
> of the Triumph of Capitalism over Degenerate and Evil Communism, this is
> understandable. But it's interesting that so much of the rest of the
> world doesn't agree with this analyis, which should indeed make one
> wonder if it isn't something in the water ...
>
To the point and very well said.
Sometimes our bodies and minds mature, but our viewpoints don't. Some
are locked in time, back to an age when "This is the way it
is...because THIS is the way it is." was doctrine.
It is a huge task trying to understand one's political leanings
because so many people will try to pigeon-hole what your views are.
"You think this.. therefore you must be a xxxxx"
Glad to see someone with a more 'planetary' vision. It is a big,
diverse world, and we belong to all of it.
On Mar 25, 4:40=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Evodawg wrote:
> > My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right?
>
> Simple solution is to do what Robocop does, stick your head firmly in
> the sand, or some other appropriately dark spot, and lock Beck off your
> TV. =A0Or, you could just close your eyes, cover your ears and whistle
> Dixie so you have no clue whats really going on.
>
> When I look at the
>
> > folks the Pres. has surrounded himself with. I get a bit concerned that=
it's
> > all about a plan to fundamentally change this country for the worse. Th=
ey
> > couldn't do it in the 60's when they wore tie/dye and no power. Now wit=
h
> > suits and ties and power watch out!!!!!
>
> --
> Jack
> Obama Care...Freedom not Included!http://jbstein.com
So you worship and admire Beck. You can. Just that I don't subscribe
to insane crazies like him. And that is MY choice. Are you, Jack,
trying to MAKE me watch Glenn Beck?
On Apr 4, 1:28=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Charlie Self
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>On Mar 25, 4:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> >>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >>> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech a=
nd
> >>> > >hate speech.
> >>> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >>> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-sh=
uts...
> >>> > >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> >>> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >>> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >>> > Toy?
>
> >>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> >>> don't want that kind over here.
> >>> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> >>C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
> >>is useful only to her agent and bankers.
>
> > Charlie, her agent and bankers are making money because people want to
> > hear what she has to say, both live and in print. =A0How many of her
> > books are bestsellers, hmm? =A0More than one somebody wants her info.
>
> > I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
> You Jest! Surely!!
>
> She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
More to the Seabiscuit side, I'd say. The first time I saw her, I
thought she'd stolen that facial shape from an old buckskin riding
horse I'd had.
On Mar 26, 10:47=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:40 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Evodawg wrote:
> >>> My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right?
> >> Simple solution is to do what Robocop does, stick your head firmly in
> >> the sand, or some other appropriately dark spot, and lock Beck off you=
r
> >> TV. =A0Or, you could just close your eyes, cover your ears and whistle
> >> Dixie so you have no clue whats really going on.
> > So you worship and admire Beck. You can.
>
> I don't worship anyone. =A0Beck is great though, and so far, what he and
> his team has uncovered and exposed for all to see awesome and
> unchallenged, other than a few douche-bags calling him names and making
> up shit about him. =A0You don't know this because you have your collectiv=
e
> head stuck where the sun just don't shine.
>
> Just that I don't subscribe to insane crazies like him.
>
> Yeah, thats the ticket.
>
> And that is MY choice.
>
> Well yeah, so far. =A0Is Beck on TV in your sorry ass country or has has
> your government censored him as hate speech?
>
> Are you, Jack, trying to MAKE me watch Glenn Beck?
>
> Nope, you are a joke to me, I am trying to keep Free Speech alive so I
> don't have to listen solely to Larry King, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and
> other left wing, socialist organizations. =A0Stick your head in the sand
> all you want, but I want it to be by choice, not by some socialist,
> collective government trying to control the people before the killing
> begins.
Actually, I'm quite sure there's a corollary to Godwin's Law about
those who invoke "Socialism," or any variation on the word, repeatedly
in their posts ;-)
Although labeling IS easier than thoughtful and objective analysis.....
On Mar 24, 8:24=A0am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > hate speech.
> > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> this for years.
>
> Bt then, universities aren't particularly interested in developing
> intelligence these days.
Intelligence???!!!
On Mar 28, 8:42=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > Hence the "boll weevil Democrats" (yes, including Rob't Byrd). It has
> > nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing (though most of them were
> > clearly right-wingers).
>
> The right, (the real right, not the right portrayed on lame, left wing
> network TV) stands for the individual and individual freedom and the
> more right you are, the more towards anarchy, not slavery, you get. =A0Th=
e
> left, (the real left, not the left portrayed on lame, left wing TV)
> stands for government control, and the more left you get, the closer you
> get to totalitarian dictators, like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro
> and so on. =A0Those that persecute the individual based on race or
> religion, or any other mob rule is not anywhere close to being on the
> right, but solidly, soundly and emphatically on the left.
>
> This is why the left wing, socialist bastards have had little trouble
> decimating the black family in the US to insure they would remain weak,
> broke and dependent on Big Brother to survive.
>
> Thats how it is.
You should have your water tested.
Something's ... just ... wrong with you.
On Mar 25, 10:04=A0am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 12:08 AM, LDosser wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> "LDosser" wrote:
>
> >>> I rest my case!
> >> ----------------------
> >> What case?
>
> >> Lew
>
> > Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter,
> > Beck or Palin.
>
> Put him in a corner and he will either start calling you names or try to
> attacking your character.
Oh, really? That's on a par with "all liberals hate guns" and "all
liberals are cowards who would let their children die before they'd
shoot someone."
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the
>> leader of a TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for
>> "anti-government utterances." Also, about the same time, Google left
>> China for being reluctant to comply with edicts "against the public
>> decency and morality."
>>
>> Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by
>> the government.
>
> Not "wrongful" speech, HATE speech. The US has hate-crime laws race,
> religion, ethnicity (orientation etc.is some states) . What we have
> done, is taken that one step further here that the verbal incitement
> to do harm to those groups is covered also. Coulter's agent should
> have known this.
>
> let's say IF we had a bunch of skinheads wandering through a park and
> I stood up and said: "There walks a black faggot" and pointed at a man
> who is then beat up by the skinheads... or for even TRYING to get that
> man beat up, even making that suggestion... is a violation of anti-
> hate legislation.
>
> It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
> arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
> was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
You make an interesting, though silly, point, but Coulter did not engage in
hate speech. She didn't engage in ANY speech. Fact is, her ability to
express herself was prevented by hate ACTION.
So, then, some folks in Canada engaged in criminal acts to prevent someone
else from reciting nursery rhymes, or singing "O Canada" or whatever Coulter
planned. You do not know, nor can you, whether Coulter was about to deliver
a hate speech or talk about raising bunnies. What we DO know, is that her
speech was disrupted by distaste for who she was, not for what she said.
If Canada despises hate speech, then shun the speaker or arrest her for the
content of the speech. What was done was just plain rude.
On the plus side, it's nice to see Canadians getting exercised over
something. Other than hockey.
On Mar 26, 11:26=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> Actually, they are cowards.
>
> Lew
Like I said....
On 03/24/2010 04:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
>>> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel
>>> projects.
>>
>> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
>> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>>
>
> Yep, the war cost a bunch. The eight Bush years added about $900 billion to
> the national debt.
Plus another trillion or so in increased interest on the added
borrowing, plus the ongoing cost of supporting disabled veterans, plus
the cost of refurbishing the military after it's over.
> Obama reached $900 billion in his first month in office,
> and has run up in excess of $3 trillion his first year. Not counting what's
> to come.
Wasn't the Bush bailout in the previous year close to the same amount?
Arguably that $3T is in pretty exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure
the stimulus was all that useful, but you certainly can't say that the
situation was normal.
> The singular goal of the United States was to
> prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
> several strategies were employed to disrupt or curtail terrorist financing,
> safe harbors, communication, recruitment, training, and movement. These
> strategies have been spectacularly successful.
Why were they in Iraq then when the bad guys were in Afghanistan and
Saudi Arabia?
> In the decade prior to the Bush years, there were one or two attacks on the
> U.S. or its interests abroad per year: The 1st WTC bombing, the U.S.S. Cole,
> attacks on our embassies, kidnapping of diplomats, and so forth.
>
> Since the Bush goals were implemented, there has been not a single instance
> of an attack on U.S. civilian interests in the U.S. or against U.S.
> interests abroad.
>
> Until Obama became president. Since then, there have been three.
How much of that is just "testing the new guy"?
Chris
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:58:55 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
Get your finger off the send button asshole.
On Apr 29, 11:02=A0am, Evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Their reason for existence is bucks, nothing else. They are not
> > patriots any more than a Wall Street banker getting a 100 million
> > dollar bonus for screwing up our economy is a patriot.
>
> Oh and Barny Frank and Dodd are and have no guilt associated with screwin=
g
> up the economy? If it wasn't for them forcing banks to give loans to low
> life's that could never afford them, the bad paper would have never been
> packaged with good loans and sold, eventually causing the crash when the =
low
> life's started defaulting in droves. Anyone with a brains knew real estat=
e
> was way over priced and a crash would come soon. I sold my house at a sup=
er
> high price just before the crash. Guess I'm not a Patriot because I profi=
ted
> on my ability to see what was about to happen. Oh btw I bought a bigger
> house for 1/2 of what it would have sold for a few years back. Guess I fa=
ll
> into the category of Wall Street. Sell High, Buy Low!!!!
>
> Getting Tired of Fucking Obama and the Dems. (Marxists) making it a crime=
to
> make a profit, when the fucker has all these fat cats in his back pocket.
> Get fucking REAL
> Rich
You cuss like a liberal.
On Mar 24, 6:13=A0pm, Megan Kinzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:22=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:094ef15c-b48d-41ec-a3a3-17610bc52a8c@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > > Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remem=
ber
> > > only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history=
gets
> > > edited to suit ideology.
> > > Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCA=
L
> > > conservative.
>
> > That's not what Reagan said, he claimed the ballooning federal deficit =
was
> > the single biggest disappointment of his presidency.
>
> > > =A0I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> > > on the first Bush's watch??
>
> > You are way off. =A0The consequences extended into Bush 41's presidency=
, even
> > Clinton's, but it hit while Reagan was in office. =A0It turned out that
> > deregulation that allowed S&Ls to do things formerly only banks could d=
o-- =A0
> > but without the regulations banks are subject to--wasn't such a great i=
dea.
> > Come to think of it, sweeping deregulation (or an existing lack of
> > regulation) often seems to precede a massive economic crisis--ain't it
> > amazing how it works out like that?
>
> > > Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> > > voted for. =A0From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. =A0Inte=
rest
> > > rates were around 20% whenever he took office. =A0The stock market to=
ok
> > > a huge crash. =A0I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> > > the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> > > ONE job within the store. =A0It was that bad.
>
> > I recall. =A0I liked Reagan, but I'm not willing to pretend some of his
> > policies didn't cause a lot of problems further down the road.
>
> > > Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> > > himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. =A0If I remember
> > > correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. =A0In the end, it =
was
> > > CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
>
> > Not exactly. =A0Reagan's power lay in his ability to peel away enough
> > Democrats from their party that in combination with Republicans they co=
uld
> > move legislation through Congress against the wishes of the party which
> > actually had a majority. =A0But it's the White House that proposes budg=
ets,
> > and the President who signs legislation, or vetoes it if he thinks it's=
a
> > bad idea. =A0So there is no way to credibly claim that the staggering i=
ncrease
> > in the federal debt over Reagan's presidency is something he had no con=
trol
> > over.
>
> > Yes, rebuilding the military was a valid concern, but so was kickstarti=
ng
> > the economy, and health care. =A0Why does military spending get a pass =
when
> > economic stimulus or keeping Americans out of the Emergency Room is
> > automatically something not worth borrowing for?
>
> > > And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> > > monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> > > reaching across the aisle. =A0Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
>
> > Kind of hard to reach across the aisle when the folks on the other side=
have
> > only one thing on their minds: the next election. =A0It might amuse you=
to
> > read up on the tactics the Republicans used to pass prescription drug
> > legislation back in 2203, then get back to me about pushing through
> > legislation without reaching across the aisle.
>
> > > You are right: it is amazing how people see only what =A0they want to
> > > see and remember only what they want to remember.
>
> > Yup, thanks for confirming my theory.
>
> Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
>
> The reason why the building the military was a big concern is because
> that is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible
> for--one of the few.
>
> I am going to say it again: you can get and do and be whatever the
> heck you want in this country, you just need to have the will do do it
> and want it and be it. =A0Nothing that is worth it is easy. =A0I hate to
> say it but you need to work for what you get. =A0I am sorry there are so
> many people out there who need more money to pay for health
> insurance. =A0I'm sorry there are so many people who are out of work. =A0=
I
> am sorry for a lot of things but this bill was not the right thing nor
> was it the right time to do it.
>
> Answer me this: If this damn bill is so freaking good, why in the
> world are Obama and the rest of the high brass in Washington EXEMPTED
> from it? =A0Why aren't they forced to use it? =A0That is glossed over.
>
> Answer me this, too: Why isn't there any cost savings in that bill?
> Real cost savings? =A0Why didn't they work to reduce tort reform? =A0You
> talk about crooks, don't tell me lawyers don't do their fair share of
> fleecing the health care system. =A0Why didn't they look into intra-
> state portability to naturally increase competition? =A0Why didn't they
> look into things like helping small business band together to buy
> health insurance at a lower price? =A0Why rip it apart?
>
> And to keep this thread sort of on-topic like Robatoy said, Glenn Beck
> is an example of somebody who was a down and out drunk who got himself
> together and worked like a dog to get to where he is today. =A0You may
> not like his viewpoints nor his mannerism but you have to give him
> kudos for remaking himself like a Phoenix.
Oops, what a moron I am...this computer was signed into Google with
somebody else's ID. Sorry Megan!!
On Mar 25, 2:44=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> >hate speech.
> >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> >-coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> wanted to hear. =A0What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> Toy?
>
The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
don't want that kind over here.
We try to keep it clean here.
On Mar 24, 8:19=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Megan Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
Oh, for Craps Sake! I just looked at your profile and I'm wondering
how the hell you ended up here with your bullshit. And the list below
is just your very short term stuff. Your posting history is
absolutely impressive. But I have ask a few questions:
1) Do you own a table saw? If not, a hand saw?
2) Given all of the groups you hang out with, why settle here with
this diatribe?
3) Would you consider moving all of this kind of rhetoric over to
rec.outdoors.rv-travel. Those guys have already clobbered up that
group with endless OT and Non-OT political crap. You would be
welcomed with open arms.
Activity in
500 billion barrels of tea rec.music.gdead 7 hours ago
(NDC) Virus Software rec.music.gdead 7 hours ago
500 billion barrels of tea rec.music.gdead 10 hours ago
O'Butt-hole in his own words... alt.guitar.amps 11 hours ago
OT: No taste for Coulter/Beck-style hate speech. rec.woodworking
11 hours ago
Tea Party energy policy alt.guitar.amps 20 hours ago
Major Sea Changes rec.woodworking 21 hours ago
24% of Republicans.... alt.guitar.amps 32 hours ago
Greatest instrumental rock guitarist ever? alt.music.who 36 hours
ago
Everyone of you is mean rec.music.beatles 37 hours ago
On Mar 24, 8:15=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
Having been following the "Hate Speech" monstrosity in Canada, there
is one thing that is rather obvious. If one is on the Left, one can
make charges of "Hate Speech" against someone who has said something
you "consider" offensive. The really odd thing is, the gate does not
seem to swing both ways. Odd that, or maybe not.
Deb
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da2a1@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>> <"[email protected]"> wrote:
>>
>>> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
>>> speech.
>>
>> *SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
>> Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
>
> Pretty much true of liberal arts professors here as well. Hard
> sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) and engineering tend to be a bit
> more friendly to conservatives.
That's because in math, the physical sciences, and engineering "truth" is
empirical and provable. In the soft sciences, liberal arts, and humanities,
"truth" is determined by majority vote and that vote is determined by how
the electorate "feels."
There is, despite what Al Gore says, no "consensus" in science. But if you
don't agree that Percy Bysshe Shelly was the greatest lyric poet of the
English language, you're a denier, probably a racist too, and one to be
shunned.
On Mar 27, 6:44=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 27, 8:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> > They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
>
> Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
> there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> shit on somebody's lawn.
> The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> No biggie.
>
> I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
> up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
> slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
> his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
> Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
> you?
> .
> .
> .
> ...didn't think so...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, we do have that right.
Exercise it then.
On Mar 26, 8:15=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >> Toy?
>
> > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > don't want that kind over here.
> > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the leader of=
a
> TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for "anti-government utterance=
s."
> Also, about the same time, Google left China for being reluctant to compl=
y
> with edicts "against the public decency and morality."
>
> Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by the
> government.
Not "wrongful" speech, HATE speech. The US has hate-crime laws race,
religion, ethnicity (orientation etc.is some states) . What we have
done, is taken that one step further here that the verbal incitement
to do harm to those groups is covered also. Coulter's agent should
have known this.
let's say IF we had a bunch of skinheads wandering through a park and
I stood up and said: "There walks a black faggot" and pointed at a man
who is then beat up by the skinheads... or for even TRYING to get that
man beat up, even making that suggestion... is a violation of anti-
hate legislation.
It wasn't even so much that Coulter was breaking the law, but that her
arrogance made her feel she could get away with that shit here... She
was thumbing her nose at us. You don't do that.
On Mar 28, 6:15=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DGDevin" wrote:
> > I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
> > produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>
> With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
> strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
> programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
>
> Lew
The collapse of the USSR being attributed to Reagan was more smoke and
mirrors. He was sitting in the chair, and working towards that
collapse, but much of the work was done before he even finished his
last B movie.
On Mar 25, 1:04=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> LDosser wrote:
> > "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> "LDosser" wrote:
>
> >>> I rest my case!
> >> ----------------------
> >> What case?
>
> >> Lew
>
> > Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter, B=
eck
> > or Palin.
>
> =A0 You forgot Limbaugh, Bush, and Cheney. =A0
>
> =A0 With libs, it's all about personal attacks because they can't debate =
on
> substance. =A0It's all about feelings.
>
> =A0 As another poster pointed out, if this health care abomination is so
> great, why did they have to use closed door deals, shut out the Republica=
ns
> (yeah, they got invited to a couple of meetings but all Republican ideas
> were outright rejected),
Republican ideas? You mean Just Say No?
> give bribes, political kickbacks, and promises of
> future jobs to soon to be defeated congresscritters in order to pass this
> overthrow of the US system? =A0
>
Now THERE's a method new to politics.
On 3/24/2010 10:51 AM, RonB wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> hate speech.
>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> have reached.
>
> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>
> RonB
You still do not get what Glen Beck, the conservative movement and
others are saying. This new health care tax added 409 billion dollars of
new taxes on the people who create jobs (Per this mornings news). As
the taxes from this bill moves through the economy, this will add about
4.09 trillion dollars to the cost to the side of the economic equation.
This will increase cost will cause consumer prices go up to cover the
increased cost.
Even as this 409 billion dollar increase in taxes comes into effect, we
are about to get another huge increase in taxes as President Bush's tax
cuts are allowed to expire. The average person's taxes will be going up
at the same time he is being hit with the fees for not having insurance.
I know there are those who think you can added taxes and it not effect
the average person. There has never been a tax that average person has
not been paid either directly or indirectly through increased prices.
Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial problems
to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, the
economy prospered until the pelosi plunge on September 28,2008. This was
when pelosi reneged on her constitutional responsibilities for the
monetary system and the market lost 3000 points in 14 days.
As we all know the government will take it taxes regardless of your
economic condition, (they tax your unemployment benefit). The people
who were creating job, will trim back on their employees to compensate
for that 409 billion dollars of new taxes.
We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects.
The financial industry will stabilize and return to its historic growth
rate. However with the 409 billion dollars of addition taxes and the
expiration of President Bush;s tax cuts, the unemployment rate will
remain at about 10% for the next several years.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Now THERE's a method new to politics.
It truly amazes me about some of the things one reads in this
newgroup. Rec.woodworking has some of the smartest, most intelligent
people I've ever come across.
Throw something like health care or politics into the mix and those
same people start expounding oratory of doom and hell fury with all
the common sense of a slug.
What's next, alien invasion?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 27, 9:25 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sure, but I thought I was a douche-nozzle?
>You DO have a problem with that moniker....ROTFLMAO
He does seem fixated on it doesn't he?
On Mar 25, 4:07=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > What's next, alien invasion?
>
> Who the fuck wants to go to Canada?
> Even the Canucks that can afford it slither down to the US for medical
> care....
>
> Of course, looks that thats about to end... =A0Hopefully after you, or yo=
u
> =A0 wacko pal robocop, need some timely, cutting edge heart work....
>
FEEEEL the hate.......
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> It truly amazes me about some of the things one reads in this
> newgroup. Rec.woodworking has some of the smartest, most intelligent
> people I've ever come across.
>
> Throw something like health care or politics into the mix and those
> same people start expounding oratory of doom and hell fury with all
> the common sense of a slug.
>
> What's next, alien invasion?
I've also seen a lot of name-calling too. Seems some of those smart and
intelligent people have resorted to personal attacks.
Upscale wrote:
> What's next, alien invasion?
Who the fuck wants to go to Canada?
Even the Canucks that can afford it slither down to the US for medical
care....
Of course, looks that thats about to end... Hopefully after you, or you
wacko pal robocop, need some timely, cutting edge heart work....
--
Jack
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
does not first take from somebody else.
http://jbstein.com
Upscale wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now THERE's a method new to politics.
>
> It truly amazes me about some of the things one reads in this
> newgroup. Rec.woodworking has some of the smartest, most intelligent
> people I've ever come across.
>
> Throw something like health care or politics into the mix and those
> same people start expounding oratory of doom and hell fury with all
> the common sense of a slug.
>
> What's next, alien invasion?
Some say we've already had it in that Obama was not born in the U.S.,
therefore he's an "alien." They should realize that where he was born is
immaterial, the only requirement is that he be "natural born." Since there's
no evidence he was delivered by Ceaserian section, he must have been born,
like, "natural."
On 3/24/2010 11:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
>> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
>> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects.
>
> And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
> Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
>
>> The financial industry will stabilize and return to its historic growth
>> rate.
>
> Over what period do you define it's "historic growth"? Obviously its
> recent growth rate (before the recent collapse) was unsustainable.
>
> Chris
I don't know what you are trying to add with the Iraq war comment unless
you are trying to blame President Bush for obama's 409 Billion dollars
in new taxes.
"historic growth"?
This information can be found on any investment website
The historic returns per year for stocks adjusted for inflation for in
the S&P500
1871 -2009 8.39%
1900 -2009 8.23
1950 -2009 8.71
1980 -2009 9.03
In 2006 when the Democrats took office the DOW was 11000 points.
In March 16, 2009 after obama was in office for three months the market
reached 6600, or the lowest point it had been in 10 years
Today the market has recovered to about 10500 points and has been there
since about mid October, except after obama said he was going to impose
a tax on the salaries of the executive in the financial industry when it
dropped to 9800. It has nearly recover the 700 points.
Most managed stock funds have returned about 10% per year for the last
50 years.
Based on the 30 year trend line of the the stock market (Logarithmic
plot) the market as measured by the DOW should be about 14500 or because
of the obama' economic policies about 30% higher than it is today.
That is what I mean by the "historic growth"
On 3/24/2010 4:46 PM, busbus wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Keith Nuttle"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
>>> running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial problems
>>> to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
>>> under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, the
>>> economy prospered
>>
>> Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700 billion
>> to $3 trillion? The Reagan under whom America went from being the world's
>> largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? The Reagan under whom the
>> trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L Crisis occurred? The Reagan
>> of whom his Secretary of the Treasury said, "In the four years that I served
>> as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and never
>> discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him
>> one-on-one....The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted
>> to accomplish in the field of economics." That Reagan?
>>
>> Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remember
>> only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history gets
>> edited to suit ideology.
>
> Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
> conservative. I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> on the first Bush's watch??
>
> Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> voted for. From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. Interest
> rates were around 20% whenever he took office. The stock market took
> a huge crash. I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> ONE job within the store. It was that bad.
>
> Again, I was young, but how did he create that deficit? I think it
> was because he got tax cuts to be pushed thru. And, yes, he increased
> military spending but the military was in SHAMBLES. One thing the
> Federal Government IS responsible for is the military and it was in a
> state of disrepair whenever he came in (along with a lot of other
> things). (And to be fair, Ford got a broken government from Nixon and
> he fixed it pretty good, in retrospect, but he passed along a still
> impaired government to Carter who did his best to water it down before
> he passed it along to Reagan).
>
> Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. If I remember
> correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. In the end, it was
> CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
>
> And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> reaching across the aisle. Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
>
> You are right: it is amazing how people see only what they want to
> see and remember only what they want to remember.
President Reagan presented congress with a package that contained both
tax cuts and the corresponding budget cuts. I don't remember the reason
but the democrats wanted to pass the tax cuts first and then promise to
pass the budget cuts. As today the did not live up to their promise.
After the tax cuts became law. The democrats failed to live up to their
promise and did not pass the corresponding budget cuts. That is why the
deficit increased during the Reagan administration. Read your history.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7ed16504-8bb2-40e4-86dd-8e6ba5e487c5@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 9:54 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:39 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 9:24 am, Dave Balderstone
>
> > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > > hate speech.
> > > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > > > -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > > They played right into her media plan. Idiots. She'll be eating off
> > > this for years.
>
> > There was no plan, just $10,000.00 for entertainment fees. You give
> > her way too much credit.
>
> > "The students in Ottawa didn't want to hear what I had to say,
> > boohoo." will play well in Texas?
>
> > She's going to capitalize on the fact that we won't eat her shit? Wow,
> > she's desperate. I'm still wondering what the hell she was doing here
> > _other than_ her fee? Did she run out of crazy-capital in the US?
>
> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
> speech.
I can give you some examples of things you can't say in the US.
________________________________________________________
I'll bite.
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> -coulter-speech?bn=1
I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
have reached.
-=============================================
In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a Liberal.
If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while and a
Liberal will volunteer the information.
In news:[email protected],
Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On Mar 25, 1:09 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>>>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech
>>>> and hate speech.
>>>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>>>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>>>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>>
>>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>>> have reached.
>>> -=============================================
>>
>>> In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local
>>> to Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said,
>>> ask a Liberal.
>>> If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while
>>> and a Liberal will volunteer the information.
>>
>> I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very
>> loyal right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and
>> Limbaugh are
>> THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
>> exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
>> on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
>> on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
>> 'them'. ;-)
>>
>> ==========================================================
>>
>> They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any
>> more attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine
>> about them now and then.
>
> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions and hang off every bile-
> infused hate-speech word those brilliant minds gurgle over the
> airways? As I am firmly planted in the middle, I see far more ugly
> hate coming from the right than from the left. I mean threatening the
> families of congressmen who voted for ObamaCare?
Really?
I didn't realize that they(the right) had made a movie about the assination
of Obama, yet?
Is Michael Moore working on one?
I'm not condoning the threatenong of any public official, but the left is
equally guilty of hate.
They just sell it better
On Mar 26, 1:55=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 25, 1:09 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected].=
..
> > > On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech an=
d
> > > > hate speech.
> > > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shut=
s...
> > > > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > > I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> > > out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> > > have reached.
> > > -=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > > In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> > > Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a
> > > Liberal.
> > > If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while a=
nd
> > > a
> > > Liberal will volunteer the information.
>
> > I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
> > right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
> > THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
> > exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
> > on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
> > on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
> > 'them'. ;-)
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any mo=
re
> > attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine about the=
m
> > now
> > and then.
>
> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> NONE that I know.
Then who is their audience?
On Mar 24, 11:35=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > hate speech.
> > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. =A0In fact I can't figure
> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> have reached.
> -=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a Liber=
al.
> If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while and a
> Liberal will volunteer the information.
I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
'them'. ;-)
On Mar 26, 12:57=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >> Jack
> >> Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!http://jbste=
in.com
> > Calling people a twit seems a bit gay to me, Jack.
>
> Calling someone gay sounds like hate speech to me, at least north of the
> boarder.... =A0Watch out for those jack booted Mounties...
> --
> Jack
> Got Change: Democratic Republic =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Banana Republic!http:=
//jbstein.com
Uhhhmm.. noooo... I said it sounded gay. I did not call you gay. In
fact, I'm pretty sure that furry little sheep would be more to your
liking. Female, of course.
On Mar 25, 1:09=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > hate speech.
> > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts.=
..
> > > -coulter-speech?bn=3D1
>
> > I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> > out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> > have reached.
> > -=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> > Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a
> > Liberal.
> > If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while and=
a
> > Liberal will volunteer the information.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
> right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
> THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
> exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
> on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
> on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
> 'them'. ;-)
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any more
> attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine about them =
now
> and then.
Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
truth is, they tune in by the multi millions and hang off every bile-
infused hate-speech word those brilliant minds gurgle over the
airways? As I am firmly planted in the middle, I see far more ugly
hate coming from the right than from the left. I mean threatening the
families of congressmen who voted for ObamaCare? Activating the War
machine to please defense-contractor shareholders? (Like Cheney)
What has to stop is that constant attempt to keep people (here and the
US) divided by creating this partisan barrier, which really doesn't
exist but in the minds of the fanatics which swallowed that doctrine
hooker, line and sinker.
That barrier exists, that's clear to see... but why is it there? Why
is that needed?
LDosser wrote:
>
> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
> ===================================================
> NONE that I know.
Heh! You sound like the CBS reporter who famously said: "I can't believe
Nixon won! Nobody I know voted for him."
Fact is, Fox has the top six shows on cable. O'Reilly has, for example, more
viewers than #s 7, 8, & 9 combined.
On Mar 25, 4:30=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> > truth is, they tune in by the multi millions and hang off every bile-
> > infused hate-speech word those brilliant minds gurgle over the
> > airways? As I am firmly planted in the middle,
>
> How can you say that when you state you have them locked out?
>
> *****
> In fact, I have FOX
> on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
> 'them'.
> *****
>
> About the only hate I see comes from the left. =A0So much so, they've onl=
y
> killed 100 million or so of their own people in the last century.
>
> I see far more ugly hate coming from the right than from the left.
>
> Thats because you are a twit.
>
> I mean threatening the families of congressmen who voted for ObamaCare?
> Activating the War
>
> > machine to please defense-contractor shareholders? (Like Cheney)
>
> Yeah, you are far enough on the right... What a twit. =A0You should stick
> to your standard vitriolic invective, it suits you much better than
> attempts to make sense out of anything.
>
> > What has to stop is that constant attempt to keep people (here and the
> > US) divided by creating this partisan barrier, which really doesn't
> > exist but in the minds of the fanatics which swallowed that doctrine
> > hooker, line and sinker.
> > That =A0barrier exists, that's clear to see... but why is it there? Why
> > is that needed?
>
> Well, the difference from a free society vs. a socialist, control freak
> society is rather clear to see, unless you have your head up your
> collective ass.
>
> --
> Jack
> Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!http://jbstein.=
com
Calling people a twit seems a bit gay to me, Jack.
On Mar 26, 10:52=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> LDosser wrote:
>
> > Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
> > little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
> > skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
> > How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> > truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> > NONE that I know.
>
> Heh! You sound like the CBS reporter who famously said: "I can't believe
> Nixon won! Nobody I know voted for him."
>
> Fact is, Fox has the top six shows on cable. O'Reilly has, for example, m=
ore
> viewers than #s 7, 8, & 9 combined.
That explains all I need to know.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > hate speech.
> > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> have reached.
> -=============================================
>
> In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a
> Liberal.
> If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while and a
> Liberal will volunteer the information.
I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
'them'. ;-)
==========================================================
They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any more
attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine about them now
and then.
Robatoy wrote:
> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions and hang off every bile-
> infused hate-speech word those brilliant minds gurgle over the
> airways? As I am firmly planted in the middle,
How can you say that when you state you have them locked out?
*****
In fact, I have FOX
on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
'them'.
*****
About the only hate I see comes from the left. So much so, they've only
killed 100 million or so of their own people in the last century.
I see far more ugly hate coming from the right than from the left.
Thats because you are a twit.
I mean threatening the families of congressmen who voted for ObamaCare?
Activating the War
> machine to please defense-contractor shareholders? (Like Cheney)
Yeah, you are far enough on the right... What a twit. You should stick
to your standard vitriolic invective, it suits you much better than
attempts to make sense out of anything.
> What has to stop is that constant attempt to keep people (here and the
> US) divided by creating this partisan barrier, which really doesn't
> exist but in the minds of the fanatics which swallowed that doctrine
> hooker, line and sinker.
> That barrier exists, that's clear to see... but why is it there? Why
> is that needed?
Well, the difference from a free society vs. a socialist, control freak
society is rather clear to see, unless you have your head up your
collective ass.
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 25, 1:09 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > hate speech.
> > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > > -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> > out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> > have reached.
> > -=============================================
>
> > In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> > Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a
> > Liberal.
> > If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while and
> > a
> > Liberal will volunteer the information.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
> right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
> THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
> exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
> on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
> on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
> 'them'. ;-)
>
> ==========================================================
>
> They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any more
> attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine about them
> now
> and then.
Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
===================================================
NONE that I know.
Robatoy wrote:
>> Jack
>> Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!http://jbstein.com
> Calling people a twit seems a bit gay to me, Jack.
Calling someone gay sounds like hate speech to me, at least north of the
boarder.... Watch out for those jack booted Mounties...
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
>>> Calling people a twit seems a bit gay to me, Jack.
>> Calling someone gay sounds like hate speech to me,
> Uhhhmm.. noooo... I said it sounded gay.
OK, Inferring someone, or something they said sounds "gay" as if its a
bad thing, would be considered by some as hate speech, homophobes less
so...
Best you watch out for those jack booted Mounties prancing on horseback
to bust your sorry, left wing, homophobic ass...
--
Jack
ACORN: For democrats that just can't vote often enough!
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bf1e4c43-70c5-4934-8f79-0e94ebe869e5@l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 12:57 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >> Jack
> >> Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural
> >> Stupidity!http://jbstein.com
> > Calling people a twit seems a bit gay to me, Jack.
>
> Calling someone gay sounds like hate speech to me, at least north of the
> boarder.... Watch out for those jack booted Mounties...
> --
> Jack
> Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!http://jbstein.com
Uhhhmm.. noooo... I said it sounded gay. I did not call you gay. In
fact, I'm pretty sure that furry little sheep would be more to your
liking. Female, of course.
=========================================================
Sounds like hate speech, looks like hate speech ...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 26, 1:55 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 25, 1:09 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:86ff4162-9b8e-4aad-b74f-786f77038b94@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 24, 11:35 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > > On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > > hate speech.
> > > > We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > > > -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > > I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> > > out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> > > have reached.
> > > -=============================================
>
> > > In a word: Liberals. Were it not for Liberals, they would be local to
> > > Cincinnati. If you need to know what either of them has said, ask a
> > > Liberal.
> > > If you need to know where they or Palin are appearing, wait a while
> > > and
> > > a
> > > Liberal will volunteer the information.
>
> > I couldn't disagree more. Those types of talking heads have very loyal
> > right-wing followers. A LOT of followers. Rush, Palin and Limbaugh are
> > THE figureheads of the republican party. No wonder they have as much
> > exposure as they do. I spend a fair bit of time trying to dodge them
> > on the TV, I'm sure-as-hell not seeking them out. In fact, I have FOX
> > on parental lock-out lest I accidentally stumble upon one of
> > 'them'. ;-)
>
> > ==========================================================
>
> > They need your hatred to survive. No Republican I know pays them any
> > more
> > attention than that needed to listen to Liberal friends whine about them
> > now
> > and then.
>
> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
> ===================================================
> NONE that I know.
Then who is their audience?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the US, Liberals.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>>
>> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
>> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
>> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
>> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
>> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
>> ===================================================
>> NONE that I know.
>
> Heh! You sound like the CBS reporter who famously said: "I can't believe
> Nixon won! Nobody I know voted for him."
>
> Fact is, Fox has the top six shows on cable. O'Reilly has, for example,
> more viewers than #s 7, 8, & 9 combined.
>
And?
LDosser wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>>
>>> Now waitasec... I'm far enough to the right to be able to hate a
>>> little, but not far enough to the right to be joining up with any
>>> skinhead militias any time soon.. So stop the 'your' shit already.
>>> How can you say that Republicans pay only 'needed, attention' when
>>> truth is, they tune in by the multi millions
>>> ===================================================
>>> NONE that I know.
>>
>> Heh! You sound like the CBS reporter who famously said: "I can't
>> believe Nixon won! Nobody I know voted for him."
>>
>> Fact is, Fox has the top six shows on cable. O'Reilly has, for
>> example, more viewers than #s 7, 8, & 9 combined.
>>
>
> And?
And everybody knows that and that's what I'm trying to explain.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c3d44aff-2dbb-4d34-a1a2-4c28b492186e@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 4:46 pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was
> > > running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial
> > > problems
> > > to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy
> > > under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted,
> > > the
> > > economy prospered
>
> > Would this be the Reagan under whom the national debt went from $700
> > billion
> > to $3 trillion? The Reagan under whom America went from being the
> > world's
> > largest creditor to the largest debtor nation? The Reagan under whom the
> > trade deficit grew, and on whose watch the S&L Crisis occurred? The
> > Reagan
> > of whom his Secretary of the Treasury said, "In the four years that I
> > served
> > as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and
> > never
> > discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him
> > one-on-one....The President never told me what he believed or what he
> > wanted
> > to accomplish in the field of economics." That Reagan?
>
> > Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remember
> > only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history
> > gets
> > edited to suit ideology.
>
> Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
> conservative. I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> on the first Bush's watch??
>
> Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> voted for. From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. Interest
> rates were around 20% whenever he took office. The stock market took
> a huge crash. I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> ONE job within the store. It was that bad.
>
> Again, I was young, but how did he create that deficit? I think it
> was because he got tax cuts to be pushed thru. And, yes, he increased
> military spending but the military was in SHAMBLES. One thing the
> Federal Government IS responsible for is the military and it was in a
> state of disrepair whenever he came in (along with a lot of other
> things). (And to be fair, Ford got a broken government from Nixon and
> he fixed it pretty good, in retrospect, but he passed along a still
> impaired government to Carter who did his best to water it down before
> he passed it along to Reagan).
>
> Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. If I remember
> correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. In the end, it was
> CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
>
> And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> reaching across the aisle. Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
>
> You are right: it is amazing how people see only what they want to
> see and remember only what they want to remember.
That's all well and good, but can we get back to discussing how big a
douche-bag Ann Coulter is?
May a bit about Beck is allowed.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Brightboy.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rest my case!
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "LDosser" wrote:
>
>> I rest my case!
> ----------------------
> What case?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter, Beck
or Palin.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "LDosser" wrote:
>>
>> Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter,
>> Beck or Palin.
> ----------------------------
> Who?
Coulter, Beck or Palin.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "LDosser" wrote:
>
>> Coulter, Beck or Palin.
>
> Who cares?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
About those three? Not me. Except to the extent they keep the radical left
foaming at the mouth.
On 3/25/2010 12:08 AM, LDosser wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "LDosser" wrote:
>>
>>> I rest my case!
>> ----------------------
>> What case?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wait long enough and a Liberal will tell you something aboutmCoulter,
> Beck or Palin.
Put him in a corner and he will either start calling you names or try to
attacking your character.
Megan Kinzler wrote:
>
> Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
>
> The reason why the building the military was a big concern is because
> that is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible
> for--one of the few.
>
> I am going to say it again: you can get and do and be whatever the
> heck you want in this country, you just need to have the will do do it
> and want it and be it. Nothing that is worth it is easy. I hate to
> say it but you need to work for what you get. I am sorry there are so
> many people out there who need more money to pay for health
> insurance. I'm sorry there are so many people who are out of work. I
> am sorry for a lot of things but this bill was not the right thing nor
> was it the right time to do it.
>
> Answer me this: If this damn bill is so freaking good, why in the
> world are Obama and the rest of the high brass in Washington EXEMPTED
> from it? Why aren't they forced to use it? That is glossed over.
That's easy. If it smell like a pig then it must be a pig. The fact here is
there won't be enough doctors to deal with any of this bill.
>
> Answer me this, too: Why isn't there any cost savings in that bill?
> Real cost savings? Why didn't they work to reduce tort reform? You
> talk about crooks, don't tell me lawyers don't do their fair share of
> fleecing the health care system. Why didn't they look into intra-
> state portability to naturally increase competition? Why didn't they
> look into things like helping small business band together to buy
> health insurance at a lower price? Why rip it apart?
Another easy answer. The Dems and Obama's agenda is to destroy the Insurance
Companies in order to move to Single Payer or Govt.Option.
>
> And to keep this thread sort of on-topic like Robatoy said, Glenn Beck
> is an example of somebody who was a down and out drunk who got himself
> together and worked like a dog to get to where he is today. You may
> not like his viewpoints nor his mannerism but you have to give him
> kudos for remaking himself like a Phoenix.
My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right? When I look at the
folks the Pres. has surrounded himself with. I get a bit concerned that it's
all about a plan to fundamentally change this country for the worse. They
couldn't do it in the 60's when they wore tie/dye and no power. Now with
suits and ties and power watch out!!!!!
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz
RonB wrote:
> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
> have reached.
>
> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
Too many ball-less wonders up there.
--
Jack
Got Change: More Taxes! More Spending! More Debt!
http://jbstein.com
On 3/25/10 4:18 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>>> have reached.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>>
>> Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
>> she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
>> Too many ball-less wonders up there.
>
> According to one of the organizers there were 2000 protesters. Does
> that mean they should have beat the crap out of Coulter and the people
> that came to see her?
>
> Besides, what makes you think that all the people that came to see her
> actually support her views? The London audience didn't seem all that
> friendly.
>
Let`s see what happens in Calgary today.
They must know she is coming by now.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:27:29 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>Why were they in Iraq then when the bad guys were in Afghanistan and
>>Saudi Arabia?
>
> Iraq was unfinished business. After 911 there was no way to leave it
> unfinished.
Please tell us all what Iraq had to do with 9/11.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Evodawg wrote:
> My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right?
Simple solution is to do what Robocop does, stick your head firmly in
the sand, or some other appropriately dark spot, and lock Beck off your
TV. Or, you could just close your eyes, cover your ears and whistle
Dixie so you have no clue whats really going on.
When I look at the
> folks the Pres. has surrounded himself with. I get a bit concerned that it's
> all about a plan to fundamentally change this country for the worse. They
> couldn't do it in the 60's when they wore tie/dye and no power. Now with
> suits and ties and power watch out!!!!!
--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com
HeyBub wrote:
> B) Many nations
> count premature infant deaths as "stillborn." We don't.
The big reason for this is the hospitals get paid a TON more money if a
baby is live and then dies.
> A better metric is life expectancy after diagnosis. Here the U.S. stands WAY
> above most countries with most illnesses. For example, the five-year
> survival rate for breast cancer is better than 90% in the U.S. compared to
> 56% in the UK.
Yeah, but this is good for population control, right?
--
Jack
Obama Care: Efficiency of the DMV, compassion of the IRS!
http://jbstein.com
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2010-03-25 09:59:53 -0400, Upscale <[email protected]> said:
>
>> What's next, alien invasion?
>
> Plimouth Colonie was an alien invasion. The First People have a right to
> be pissed!
>
First People were exterminated by subsequent waves of Siberians.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> >hate speech.
> >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> Toy?
>
The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
don't want that kind over here.
We try to keep it clean here.
========================================================
Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:46:22 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>help. A better way to show disdain is to just not show up. That takes more
>courage than screaming or holding a sign in the street so you can get your
>own 15 minutes of fame.
Possibly, but just not showing up can be the tacit equivalent to
giving approval. You've heard the old saying "if you're not part of
the solution, you're part of the problem. There's always those unwary,
not experience enough or just plain gullible people who might
otherwise be swayed by people like Coulter if there's no real
objection to her appearing. And as I'm sure Coulter is aware, there's
always going to be some that show up which is all she needs.
I'm sure similar happens and has happened with young impressionable
Muslims. They may get drawn into what appears to be a social group and
exit out the other end as terrorists, all on the initial basis of
wanting to belong.
I for one (which is patently obvious considering my big mouth) believe
that to just stand by and not publicly speak out to something I find
objectionable is tantamount to giving my approval.
Hell, it might even be the wrong thing to do, but at least I'm trying
to do something more than just sitting idly by. It's the social
equivalent to watching a rape occur and doing nothing about it. I
won't let that happen.
On 3/26/10 9:13 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:33 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>>>>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>>>>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>>>>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>>
>>>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>>>> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>>>> Toy?
>>
>>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>>> don't want that kind over here.
>>> We try to keep it clean here.
>>
>> Uh, suuuure. Just a few questions:
>>
>> 1) Why was she invited?
>
> It was an agency booking for ther entertainment division.
>
>> 2) Why was she allowed to enter the country?
>
> Why not? It wasn't the country that rejected her, it was the local
> audience that did, and the cops stepped in to protect her.
>
>> 3) Why was it her own people who stopped the speech instead of your
>> cops?
>
> They stopped it on the advice ("we can't protect that douche-bag.")
> from local police.
>
>> 4) Why didn't the University Police keep the protestors from rioting?
>
> They didn't riot. They loudly proclaimed that they knew who she was.
>
>> Hmm, what else...?
>>
> I dunno, Larry, keep making them up though, you're still funny...
>
Sign held by a child in Calgary yesterday when she appeared there:
"I don't have a camel or a flying carpet, can you lend me your broomstick?"
BWAHAHAHAHA
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>>> have reached.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>> Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
>> she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
>> Too many ball-less wonders up there.
>
> According to one of the organizers there were 2000 protesters. Does
> that mean they should have beat the crap out of Coulter and the people
> that came to see her?
Sure seems to be what you freaks are advocating. I think the cops
should have taken care of the assholes trying to stifle free speech, if
they can't do it then you have to figure out a way to stop the
socialists bastards before they kill a few million of your people ala
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Pol Pot and the like.
> Besides, what makes you think that all the people that came to see her
> actually support her views? The London audience didn't seem all that
> friendly.
Don't really care what reason they had to listen to her, but they should
not of been prevented from hearing it by a pack of screaming left wing
socialists. Really though, I'm not too interested in what the Canadians
do, much more interested in what the socialists are up to in my country.
--
Jack
Got Change: big government =====> BIG GOVERNMENT!
http://jbstein.com
[email protected] wrote:
.
> The hundred or so who wanted to listen to her drivel should have just
> crossed the border into the USA where "hate" speech is still not only
> legal but commonplace
Correct, but its called "Free" Speech not "hate" speech so far in the
USSA.
What the Canucks do, other than slither over the boarder to get some of
our great medical care is not of much interest to me.
--
Jack
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:40 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Evodawg wrote:
>>> My hope is that Beck is wrong, but what if he's right?
>> Simple solution is to do what Robocop does, stick your head firmly in
>> the sand, or some other appropriately dark spot, and lock Beck off your
>> TV. Or, you could just close your eyes, cover your ears and whistle
>> Dixie so you have no clue whats really going on.
> So you worship and admire Beck. You can.
I don't worship anyone. Beck is great though, and so far, what he and
his team has uncovered and exposed for all to see awesome and
unchallenged, other than a few douche-bags calling him names and making
up shit about him. You don't know this because you have your collective
head stuck where the sun just don't shine.
Just that I don't subscribe to insane crazies like him.
Yeah, thats the ticket.
And that is MY choice.
Well yeah, so far. Is Beck on TV in your sorry ass country or has has
your government censored him as hate speech?
Are you, Jack, trying to MAKE me watch Glenn Beck?
Nope, you are a joke to me, I am trying to keep Free Speech alive so I
don't have to listen solely to Larry King, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and
other left wing, socialist organizations. Stick your head in the sand
all you want, but I want it to be by choice, not by some socialist,
collective government trying to control the people before the killing
begins.
--
Jack
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> don't want that kind over here.
Well long as they don't throw you this way, I'm good with it.
> We try to keep it clean here.
You can't, you need the great imperialist USA to keep you "clean",
otherwise yall'd be speaking German instead of French. Well the French
would also be speaking German so...
Not sure if anyone is gonna keep you "douche-bags" "clean" now... You
might want to brush up on your Spanish, or Arabic or hic, German!
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ======> God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-24 11:42:54 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
> said:
>
>> You still do not get what Glen Beck, the conservative movement and
>> others are saying.
>
> You might investigate Glenn Beck's past history before you accept his
> having your best interest at heart.
I don't care who's interest he has in his heart. I only care what
information he passes on to the unwashed masses via video and sound
clips and written text of the socialist/communist bastards that surround
the current president of the USSA. His past history doesn't matter,
the color of his skin doesn't matter, his sexual orientation doesn't
matter, how his mother died doesn't matter.
Here's a good place to start:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/index.html
I read some of the first part of it and found it extremely boring. I'd
rather just listen and watch him, and see if I find him useful and
interesting. So far, he is doing great!
For example, did I know Van Jones was a self-avowed Communist bastard?
Nope. Did I know ACORN was a left-wing, corrupt socialist/democratic
organization that illegally uses tax payers money to fund only
Democratic voter fraud, and then some? Nope, didn't even know ACORN
existed. Did I know about the anti-American socialist bastards Cloward
and Piven and their socialist agenda to break the US by spending it to
death? Nope. Did I know the philosopher Anita Dunn turns to most was
the mass murderer communist bastard MAO? Nope!
I could go on all day with the stuff Beck has brought to light, vividly
and expertly with sound, video and text of the socialists that are now
controlling the USA. None of this stuff was brought to light by the
government controlled media either, none of it, and none of it has been
shown to be false.
Thank you Glenn Beck.
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
Tyrone Tiews wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and
>>> occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion
>>> dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never
>>> did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
>> Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
>
> No apostrophe in its, Hey Bu'b.
Robocop is the village idiot... I mean village spell cop around here.
Mind your place!
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
http://jbstein.com
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-24 18:52:58 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> The singular goal of the United States was to prevent another attack
>> on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.
>
> Bullshit. The goal was to hand big bucks to big oil and friends. Mission
> accomplished.
Thank you very much Bush, my pension fund owns big oil. Also owned GM
and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama
you communist bastard.
--
Jack
Fight Socialism.... Buy a Ford!
http://jbstein.com
On 3/26/2010 1:09 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> Also owned GM
> and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama
> you communist bastard.
Making a lot of money for you, were they? :)
Good thing your fund included Ford...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
HeyBub wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>>> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>>> Toy?
>>>
>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>> don't want that kind over here.
>> We try to keep it clean here.
> There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the leader of a
> TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for "anti-government utterances."
Mark Lloyd, Obama's FCC czar thinks Chavez is doing a great job of
"cleaning" things up by removing freedom of speech. Perhaps when
Robocop gets tossed out of Canada by his comrades, they can toss him all
the way to Venezuela.
> Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by the
> government.
--
Jack
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> Actually, I'm quite sure there's a corollary to Godwin's Law about
> those who invoke "Socialism," or any variation on the word, repeatedly
> in their posts ;-)
Actually, Godwin's law wouldn't apply if you used the word NAZI in a
discussion about NAZI's.
> Although labeling IS easier than thoughtful and objective analysis.....
Labels are shorthand used in thoughtful and objective analysis rather
than long, tiring, repetitive descriptions.
For example, instead of labeling Obama as a "socialist", I could say
Obama, who favors a large, centralized government that controls the
means of production rather than capitalism, an economic system in which
investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution,
and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private
individuals.
I find it much better just to use a short, descriptive label. YMMV, so
suit yourself....
--
Jack
Got Change: More Government, More Taxes, Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 1:09 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Also owned GM
>> and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama
>> you communist bastard.
>
> Making a lot of money for you, were they? :)
They have over the years, and likely would have again, just like Ford.
> Good thing your fund included Ford...
Yes, Ford didn't take the "bailout" money, and the stock, after going
down to under $2 is up to around $11 the last I looked. Thanks for the
"bailout" Obama, you communist bastard... Can't say it enough...
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 1:09 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Also owned GM
>> and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama
>> you communist bastard.
>
> Making a lot of money for you, were they? :)
They have over the years, and likely would have again, just like Ford.
> Good thing your fund included Ford...
Yes, Ford didn't take the "bailout" money, and the stock, after going
down to under $2 is up to around $11 the last I looked. Thanks for the
"bailout" Obama, you communist bastard... Can't say it enough...
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 1:09 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Also owned GM
>> and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama
>> you communist bastard.
>
> Making a lot of money for you, were they? :)
They have over the years, and likely would have again, just like Ford.
> Good thing your fund included Ford...
Yes, Ford didn't take the "bailout" money, and the stock, after going
down to under $2 is up to around $11 the last I looked. Thanks for the
"bailout" Obama, you communist bastard... Can't say it enough...
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > >hate speech.
> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > Toy?
>
> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> don't want that kind over here.
> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> ========================================================
> Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
Klan statements.
==============================================================
Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "we
don't want that kind over here."
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f854667f-7b62-46b0-b3be-9aeab7ca49f2@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 8:15 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >> wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >> Toy?
>
> > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > don't want that kind over here.
> > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> There are parallels. The same day that Coulter was ejected, the leader of
> a
> TV network in Venezuela was thrown in jail for "anti-government
> utterances."
> Also, about the same time, Google left China for being reluctant to comply
> with edicts "against the public decency and morality."
>
> Canada is not the only country where wrongful speech is defined by the
> government.
Not "wrongful" speech, HATE speech. The US has hate-crime laws race,
religion, ethnicity (orientation etc.is some states) . What we have
done, is taken that one step further here that the verbal incitement
to do harm to those groups is covered also. Coulter's agent should
have known this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about a step further and have Hate Thinking laws? Just think, Canada
could be First!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 26, 10:50 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> > > >hate speech.
> > > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > > Toy?
>
> > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > don't want that kind over here.
> > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> > ========================================================
> > Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
>
> Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
> Klan statements.
>
> ==============================================================
>
> Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "we
> don't want that kind over here."
Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
===============================================================
Bigot Wing.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 26, 11:10 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 26, 10:50 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:3f6af5ee-2d76-4da6-b4ad-b9b85a84d9d4@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 26, 1:53 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:efaa62e5-8ddd-4a90-ae33-b96c04833961@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> > > > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> > > > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> > > > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech
> > > > >and
> > > > >hate speech.
> > > > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> > > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> > > > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> > > > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> > > > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> > > > Toy?
>
> > > The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> > > don't want that kind over here.
> > > We try to keep it clean here.
>
> > > ========================================================
> > > Sounds like something a Klansman would say.
>
> > Ya right. Nice try. Surely there must be a Godwin equivalent to the
> > Klan statements.
>
> > ==============================================================
>
> > Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the
> > "we
> > don't want that kind over here."
>
> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> ===============================================================
> Bigot Wing.
Right Wing then.
======================================================================
No, in fact most of them were Democrats. See Senator Robert Byrd, for
example.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 26, 11:26 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> Actually, they are cowards.
>
> Lew
Like I said....
-------------------------------------------
Your local block warden know you're typing all this hate speech?
Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:58:55 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Get your finger off the send button asshole.
Sure, but I thought I was a douche-nozzle?
Hard to keep up with you bigots.
--
Jack
Obama Care: Efficiency of the DMV, compassion of the IRS!
http://jbstein.com
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-26 14:55:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Labels are shorthand used in thoughtful and objective analysis rather
>> than long, tiring, repetitive descriptions.
>
> i.e., Jack Stein is a fucking waste of oxygen.
Translation: I have nothing worthwhile to say, but I'll say it anyway.
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-26 14:03:01 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
>
>> I read some of the first part of it and found it extremely boring.
>> I'd rather just listen and watch him, and see if I find him useful and
>> interesting. So far, he is doing great!
> Nothing like an open mind, Jack. And yours is nothing like an open mind.
Lets see, is my mind closed because I went to your link and found it
incredibly boring, or because rather than simply read someone else's
opinions, I also go to the source and see and hear for myself? Perhaps
if I locked Beck off my TV I'd have an opened mind, you know, like your
buddy Robocop...
BTW, the link you posted was well written, I'm just not interested in
the least about Becks past, where he grew up, what his parents were like
and so on... I'm only interested in the info he brings me that the left
wing media completely ignores, over and over and over.
--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
>>>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>>>> don't want that kind over here.
>>>> We try to keep it clean here.
>>> ==============================================================
>>> Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the "we
>>> don't want that kind over here."
>> ===============================================================
>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>> Bigot Wing.
>
> Right Wing then.
>
> "Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
> is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
> the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
> further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
> violence and intimidation. "
Germany had a famous left wing, socialist leader of the National
Socialist German Workers' (NAZI) party that hated people because of
their race. I'd say the KKK is more of a left wing, Hitler like
socialist group than an individual loving, freedom loving right wing
group. I know the KKK hates blacks and jews, not sure if they also
believe in total government control like the Nazi's.
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
LDosser wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to
>> the > "we
>> > don't want that kind over here."
>>
>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>>
>> ===============================================================
>> Bigot Wing.
>
> Right Wing then.
> ======================================================================
> No, in fact most of them were Democrats. See Senator Robert Byrd, for
> example.
Or George Wallace, also a democrat. Repuglicans, like Everett Durkson,
actually got the civil right act of 1964 passed whilst the socialist
party of Wallace and Byrd stood in the doorways.
--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
>>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>> They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
>
Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> rolling donut about who what the Klan is.
Damn, and here I thought it was *you* that brought it up?
> there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> shit on somebody's lawn.
So, not only are you a homophobe, but a flaming sexist as well. I'm
starting to think you only get along with white Canadian granite heads?
Good to know!
> The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> No biggie.
No biggie to a bunch of left wing, socialist, homophobic, sexist bigots
I reckon.
> I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
> up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
> slurs.
Several years ago the KKK, mostly unheard of in these parts, for some
reason decided to have an outside rally. No one invited them, and
everyone wondered who the hell came up with this idea, since the KKK was
never liked much in these parts, or seen for that matter, ever. I
wondered if the KKK even still existed.
Well, I was wrong, a flock of I think 3 or 5 douche-bags showed up, and
about 100 protesters protesting the KKK and about 200 cops, mostly
black, protecting the crowd of 3 supposed klansman... We recognize free
speech in this country, and it is a big deal, regardless of who is doing
the speaking, and to most of us, free speech IS a big deal.
I guess you could come here and call a woman a "coont" if you wish, but
doesn't sound like you are allowed that freedom in the great white
north? Better watch for those cute little Mounties in jack boots
hunting down hate speech...
Good luck!
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ======> God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>>Jack Stein wrote:
>>> Get your finger off the send button asshole.
>> Sure, but I thought I was a douche-nozzle?
> You DO have a problem with that moniker....ROTFLMAO
More of a problem keeping up with the worthless vituperative invective
spewing from upscale vs yours.
--
Jack
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
http://jbstein.com
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>>>>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>>>>> don't want that kind over here.
>>>>> We try to keep it clean here.
>>>> ==============================================================
>>>> Sounds Exactly like something a Klansman would say, right down to the
>>>> "we
>>>> don't want that kind over here."
>>> ===============================================================
>
>>> Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
>>> Bigot Wing.
>>
>> Right Wing then.
>>
>> "Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan,
>> is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2] in
>> the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and
>> further the interests of White Americans of Protestant faith by
>> violence and intimidation. "
>
> Germany had a famous left wing, socialist leader of the National Socialist
> German Workers' (NAZI) party that hated people because of their race. I'd
> say the KKK is more of a left wing, Hitler like socialist group than an
> individual loving, freedom loving right wing group. I know the KKK hates
> blacks and jews, not sure if they also believe in total government control
> like the Nazi's.
Add Catholics to the list.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 27, 8:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
shit on somebody's lawn.
The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
No biggie.
I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
you?
.
.
.
...didn't think so...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, we do have that right.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 27, 6:44 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 27, 8:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> > They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
>
> Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
> there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> shit on somebody's lawn.
> The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> No biggie.
>
> I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
> up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
> slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
> his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
> Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
> you?
> .
> .
> .
> ...didn't think so...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, we do have that right.
Exercise it then.
--------------------------------------------------------
Why?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:863a1363-60ae-4442-811f-f92568a84868@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 12:11 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 27, 6:44 pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Mar 27, 8:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > > Are Klansmen right wing or left wing?
>
> > > They were all Democrats. Is that, perhaps, a clue?
>
> > Rightwing democrats. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a
> > rolling donut about who what the Klan is. The bottom line is that
> > there were some people who didn't think it was a good idea that some
> > crazed coont oozed in via the entertainment channels just so she could
> > shit on somebody's lawn.
> > The chick is nuts and some canadians put their beer down long enough
> > to explain to her that we really didn't want to put out too much
> > energy guaranteeing her safety. So they cancelled her 'performance'.
> > No biggie.
>
> > I wonder what would happen if we sent a comedian in Tim Burton make-
> > up, like Coulter, down to the US and showered the audience with racial
> > slurs. Weren't some of Michael Richards appearances cancelled after
> > his infamous rant? Just TRY to make a 'n'-word joke in the 'Freedom-Of-
> > Speech' USA. You have the 'right' to call a black man a 'n***r' don't
> > you?
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > ...didn't think so...
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Actually, we do have that right.
>
> Exercise it then.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Why?
Same reason as Coulter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And what did she say that was?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Hence the "boll weevil Democrats" (yes, including Rob't Byrd). It has
> nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing (though most of them were
> clearly right-wingers).
The right, (the real right, not the right portrayed on lame, left wing
network TV) stands for the individual and individual freedom and the
more right you are, the more towards anarchy, not slavery, you get. The
left, (the real left, not the left portrayed on lame, left wing TV)
stands for government control, and the more left you get, the closer you
get to totalitarian dictators, like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro
and so on. Those that persecute the individual based on race or
religion, or any other mob rule is not anywhere close to being on the
right, but solidly, soundly and emphatically on the left.
This is why the left wing, socialist bastards have had little trouble
decimating the black family in the US to insure they would remain weak,
broke and dependent on Big Brother to survive.
Thats how it is.
--
Jack
The smallest, most vulnerable minority group is the Individual.
http://jbstein.com
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-27 09:30:19 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> said:
>> I have nothing worthwhile to say, but I'll say it anyway.
> First thing you've written that I can agree with.
New at this aren't you?
--
Jack
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion!
http://jbstein.com
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
>>> The right, (the real right, not the right portrayed on lame, left wing
>>> network TV) stands for the individual and individual freedom and the
>>> more right you are, the more towards anarchy, not slavery, you get. The
>>> left, (the real left, not the left portrayed on lame, left wing TV)
>>> stands for government control, and the more left you get, the closer you
>>> get to totalitarian dictators, like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro
>>> and so on. Those that persecute the individual based on race or
>>> religion, or any other mob rule is not anywhere close to being on the
>>> right, but solidly, soundly and emphatically on the left.
>>>
>>> This is why the left wing, socialist bastards have had little trouble
>>> decimating the black family in the US to insure they would remain weak,
>>> broke and dependent on Big Brother to survive.
> Ackshooly, I think it's Kool-Aid, not water the man's been drinking.
> Meaning the Kool-Aid served up by the Mainstream Media
Jack has never drunk from the Mainstream Media fountain of Kool-Aid.
For example, find someone in the mainstream media that will acknowledge
that Hitler was a left-wing socialist.
> Couple of misteaks in Jack's response: he meant *anarchism*, not
> anarchy, as the ultimate extrapolation of personal liberty,
I meant anarchy, a society absent of government or law, the absence of
government control. You can use anarchism if you like, it would not
change anything said.
and this political believe really belongs on the far left, not the far
right
Thats what the Kool-Aid drinkers would have you think, but its wrong.
Dictators and Socialists like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and the
like are 180° opposite of anarchy. You can put Anarchy on the right,
dictators and socialists on the right if you want, or try to mix them up
like the left has been trying to do, like Stalin is on the left, Hitler
on the right, but that boat doesn't float.
> (although there is some overlap here with right-wing libertarianism: I
> know because as a committed leftie, I have a definite libertarian streak
> myself).
Libertarians are firmly, and solidly on the right, anarchy side of the
line. Nothing about Libertarians believe a strong, centralized
government should control the individual.
> While there are undoubtedly some strictly doctrinaire lefties who would
> love to turn the U.S. into a working model of the Soviet Union (e.g.,
> the Maoists, Socialist Worker's Partiers (SWaPpers), and others), these
> are *by far* a tiny minority of what passes for the Left in the U.S.
Really? I think our current President is trying to do this. He has
surrounded himself with anti-American socialists and communists, (Van
Jones, Anita Dunn, et al)and even uses communist lingo calling them
Czars. He has been systematically spending the US into economic
collapse, ala the left wing, socialists Cloward and Piven. He has taken
over most of the auto industry, the health industry, banking, education
and pretty much is an out of control communist in a country formally
based on the individual.
> Apparently Jack has never heard of, nor would he understand, such
> concepts as "democratic socialism" (I'm sure he would just dismiss this
> as a simple contradiction in terms).
Jack's far more interested in how a socialist dictator like Hitler could
be considered on the right side of the spectrum, where anarchy clearly
resides, or a libertarian, like you say you are, could be on the left,
where total government control (totalitarianism) resides?
To someone steeped in the mythology of the Triumph of Capitalism over
Degenerate
and Evil Communism, this is understandable.
I know that in just the last 100 years, left wing, socialist dictators
like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and others have killed over 100
million, mostly their own people trying to control things. The triumph
of Capitalism is hardly mythical, and has served this country well. So
well in fact, we are wanting to build walls to keep people out, not in.
But it's interesting that so much of the rest of the
> world doesn't agree with this analyis, which should indeed make one
> wonder if it isn't something in the water ...
Well, seems much of the world sees the Triumph of Capitalism by the
looks of the number trying to get in, and about no one trying to get out.
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Some
> are locked in time, back to an age when "This is the way it
> is...because THIS is the way it is." was doctrine.
You must be referring way back when Walter Crankcase, the left wing
propagandist ran the 6:00 news along with Dan Blather?
> It is a huge task trying to understand one's political leanings
> because so many people will try to pigeon-hole what your views are.
Actually, it is difficult to understand one's political leanings when
the left wing socialist bastards try to keep things as convoluted as
possible. Socialist Dictator Adolf Hitler being on the right side of
the spectrum where anarchy resides is a blatant example.
> "You think this.. therefore you must be a xxxxx"
> Glad to see someone with a more 'planetary' vision. It is a big,
> diverse world, and we belong to all of it.
Have the Hate Speech police been to your door yet? I suspect they would
not like your gay bashing homophobic and sexist rhetoric much up there
in the great white north.
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Some
> are locked in time, back to an age when "This is the way it
> is...because THIS is the way it is." was doctrine.
You must be referring way back when Walter Crankcase, the left wing
propagandist ran the 6:00 news along with Dan Blather?
> It is a huge task trying to understand one's political leanings
> because so many people will try to pigeon-hole what your views are.
Actually, it is difficult to understand one's political leanings when
the left wing socialist bastards try to keep things as convoluted as
possible. Socialist Dictator Adolf Hitler being on the right side of
the spectrum where anarchy resides is a blatant example. Even a twit of
you modest intellect can surely see that total control and no control
are on different ends of the spectrum, right?
> "You think this.. therefore you must be a xxxxx"
> Glad to see someone with a more 'planetary' vision. It is a big,
> diverse world, and we belong to all of it.
Have the Hate Speech police been to your door yet? I suspect they would
not like your gay bashing homophobic and sexist rhetoric much up there
in the great white north.
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> Jack has never drunk from the Mainstream Media fountain of Kool-Aid.
>> For example, find someone in the mainstream media that will
>> acknowledge that Hitler was a left-wing socialist.
>
> Y'know, most of the Nazi historical revisionists (the ones who try to
> convince us that the Holocaust never happened, or that it "wasn't as bad
> as they say it was") are repugnant shitheads. You're just koo-koo with
> your version of events.
My version is Hitler was a socialist dictator that is firmly on the side
of total government control. Are you denying Hitler was a dictator?
Are you denying the leader of the National Socialist Party was not a
socialist? WTF are you talking about the Holocaust never happened? Who
in this thread said anything about that, other than fucking socialist
bastards, including Hitler, have killed dead over 100 million people,
mostly their own citizens in their quest to rule the individual.
>>> Couple of misteaks in Jack's response: he meant *anarchism*, not
>>> anarchy, as the ultimate extrapolation of personal liberty,
>>
>> I meant anarchy, a society absent of government or law, the absence of
>> government control. You can use anarchism if you like, it would not
>> change anything said.
> Do you even know what anarchism is? I doubt it. Hint: it's *not* the
> same thing as anarchy.
Well, I used the term anarchy, and as explained, anarchy denotes a
society absent of government or law, the absence of government control.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, Che Guevara and the gang
are 180° from a position of anarchy.
> Read something by a guy named Kropotkin for more information.
http://dictionary.reference.com
Communism: a system of social organization in which all economic and
social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated
by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Anarchy: a state of society without government or law.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental
control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
"Anarchist Communist" is like Fat Skinny guy.
>>> (although there is some overlap here with right-wing libertarianism:
>>> I know because as a committed leftie, I have a definite libertarian
>>> streak myself).
>>
>> Libertarians are firmly, and solidly on the right, anarchy side of the
>> line. Nothing about Libertarians believe a strong, centralized
>> government should control the individual.
> Well, duh! That was my point. But congratulations for picking up on that.
I picked up on you being a committed "fat guy" with a definite streak of
"skinny"... You can replace "fat" and "skinny" with "Left" and
"Libertarian" if you wish.
>>> While there are undoubtedly some strictly doctrinaire lefties who
>>> would love to turn the U.S. into a working model of the Soviet Union
>>> (e.g., the Maoists, Socialist Worker's Partiers (SWaPpers), and
>>> others), these are *by far* a tiny minority of what passes for the
>>> Left in the U.S.
>>
>> Really? I think our current President is trying to do this. He has
>> surrounded himself with anti-American socialists and communists, (Van
>> Jones,
>
> So I guess you missed the part where the Obama administration threw Van
> Jones under the bus after he was attacked by the right-wing echo-chamber
> press? (I know all about Van Jones, by the way, being from the Bay Area.)
So you knew he was a self-avowed communist. Are you thinking Obama
didn't know he was a communist when he appointed him green jobs czar?
>> Anita Dunn, et al)and even uses communist lingo calling them Czars.
>
> They (the White House) don't use the term "czar": that's a MS press usage.
>
>>> Apparently Jack has never heard of, nor would he understand, such
>>> concepts as "democratic socialism" (I'm sure he would just dismiss
>>> this as a simple contradiction in terms).
Yeah, I know that the democratic party has been usurped by the
socialists, if thats what you meant.
>> Jack's far more interested in how a socialist dictator like Hitler
>> could be considered on the right side of the spectrum, where anarchy
>> clearly resides, or a libertarian, like you say you are, could be on
>> the left, where total government control (totalitarianism) resides?
> So you really believe that because the Nazis called themselves "national
> socialists" that they were socialists? Really?
I think because the Nazis believed in a strong, centralized government
(dictatorship) that controlled the means of production with an Iron
Grip, that they were socialists. The fact Hitler was the leader of the
National Socialist Party of Germany doesn't detract any from my belief,
really!
> And do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
Only when appropriate.
--
Jack
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Have the Hate Speech police been to your door yet? I suspect they would
>> not like your gay bashing homophobic and sexist rhetoric much up there
>> in the great white north.
> Sorry if offended your lifestyle, Jack... but I really don't have a
> problem with that.
Your words are homophobic and sexist. Whether I have a problem with
that doesn't matter as much as does the Canadian Hate Speech police have
a problem with that. Be careful and good luck!
--
Jack
Acorn: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fa0df11a-f31c-4deb-ad1a-7c1d7d0d6c06@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 6:15 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DGDevin" wrote:
> > I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
> > produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>
> With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
> strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
> programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
>
> Lew
The collapse of the USSR being attributed to Reagan was more smoke and
mirrors. He was sitting in the chair, and working towards that
collapse, but much of the work was done before he even finished his
last B movie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the work was done by the Politburo.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:34:41 -0700, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:fa0df11a-f31c-4deb-ad1a-7c1d7d0d6c06@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>On Mar 28, 6:15 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "DGDevin" wrote:
>>> > I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
>>> > produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>>>
>>> With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
>>> strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
>>> programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>>The collapse of the USSR being attributed to Reagan was more smoke and
>>mirrors. He was sitting in the chair, and working towards that
>>collapse, but much of the work was done before he even finished his
>>last B movie.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Most of the work was done by the Politburo.
>
> Star Wars and Reykjavik got them to bankrupt themselves.
Helped. And I did my part by doing Star Wars stuff for a couple years.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Charlie Self
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Mar 25, 4:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
>>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>>
>>> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>>> > >hate speech.
>>> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>>>
>>> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>>> > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>>>
>>> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
>>> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
>>> > Toy?
>>>
>>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
>>> don't want that kind over here.
>>> We try to keep it clean here.
>>
>>C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
>>is useful only to her agent and bankers.
>
> Charlie, her agent and bankers are making money because people want to
> hear what she has to say, both live and in print. How many of her
> books are bestsellers, hmm? More than one somebody wants her info.
>
> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
You Jest! Surely!!
She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
On 4/4/2010 8:32 AM, Elrond Hubbard wrote:
> "LDosser"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>>
>>
>> You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>> She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> With a personality that's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen guard and one of
> them Apocalypse ponies.
Not a thing wrong with her appearance, as for the rest, that's what gags
and restraints are for. The trouble is she'd probably like it.
Especially if one wore a yarmulke while taking her.
"Elrond Hubbard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>>
>>
>> You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>> She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> With a personality that's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen guard and one of
> them Apocalypse ponies.
>
Starvation!
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> I said:
>>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>
>>You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>
> You wouldn't want this?
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=JNP4220.jpg
> or this:
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg
> I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=gun.jpg
> And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
>
I rest my case!
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c93ba7d5-5fd3-4e59-a37b-edf5db600a25@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 4, 1:28 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Charlie Self
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>On Mar 25, 4:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:23 -0400, the infamous Robatoy
> >>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>> > >Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>
> >>> > >I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech
> >>> > >and
> >>> > >hate speech.
> >>> > >We'll miss you, Ann.
>
> >>> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
> >>> > >-coulter-speech?bn=1
>
> >>> > Your activists prevented 400 some people from hearing a speech they
> >>> > wanted to hear. What kind of freedom do you want in your country,
> >>> > Toy?
>
> >>> The freedom to throw a hate-monger douche-bag out of the country. We
> >>> don't want that kind over here.
> >>> We try to keep it clean here.
>
> >>C'mon, man. Be reasonable. Douche bags can actually be useful. Coulter
> >>is useful only to her agent and bankers.
>
> > Charlie, her agent and bankers are making money because people want to
> > hear what she has to say, both live and in print. How many of her
> > books are bestsellers, hmm? More than one somebody wants her info.
>
> > I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>
> You Jest! Surely!!
>
> She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
More to the Seabiscuit side, I'd say. The first time I saw her, I
thought she'd stolen that facial shape from an old buckskin riding
horse I'd had.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL!!
Charlie Self wrote:
> Their reason for existence is bucks, nothing else. They are not
> patriots any more than a Wall Street banker getting a 100 million
> dollar bonus for screwing up our economy is a patriot.
Oh and Barny Frank and Dodd are and have no guilt associated with screwing
up the economy? If it wasn't for them forcing banks to give loans to low
life's that could never afford them, the bad paper would have never been
packaged with good loans and sold, eventually causing the crash when the low
life's started defaulting in droves. Anyone with a brains knew real estate
was way over priced and a crash would come soon. I sold my house at a super
high price just before the crash. Guess I'm not a Patriot because I profited
on my ability to see what was about to happen. Oh btw I bought a bigger
house for 1/2 of what it would have sold for a few years back. Guess I fall
into the category of Wall Street. Sell High, Buy Low!!!!
Getting Tired of Fucking Obama and the Dems. (Marxists) making it a crime to
make a profit, when the fucker has all these fat cats in his back pocket.
Get fucking REAL
Rich
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz
On 4/29/2010 11:25 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 29, 11:02 am, Evodawg<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> Their reason for existence is bucks, nothing else. They are not
>>> patriots any more than a Wall Street banker getting a 100 million
>>> dollar bonus for screwing up our economy is a patriot.
>>
>> Oh and Barny Frank and Dodd are and have no guilt associated with screwing
>> up the economy? If it wasn't for them forcing banks to give loans to low
>> life's that could never afford them, the bad paper would have never been
>> packaged with good loans and sold, eventually causing the crash when the low
>> life's started defaulting in droves. Anyone with a brains knew real estate
>> was way over priced and a crash would come soon. I sold my house at a super
>> high price just before the crash. Guess I'm not a Patriot because I profited
>> on my ability to see what was about to happen. Oh btw I bought a bigger
>> house for 1/2 of what it would have sold for a few years back. Guess I fall
>> into the category of Wall Street. Sell High, Buy Low!!!!
>>
>> Getting Tired of Fucking Obama and the Dems. (Marxists) making it a crime to
>> make a profit, when the fucker has all these fat cats in his back pocket.
>> Get fucking REAL
>> Rich
>
> You cuss like a liberal.
That right there's funny. :-)
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 4, 5:32Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:28:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
>> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> > I said:
>> >>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>>
>> >>You Jest! Surely!!
>>
>> >>She's a cross between a Bergen-Belsen survivor and Seabiscuit.
>>
>> > You wouldn't want this?
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=JNP4220.jpg
>> > or this:
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=silver-dress.jpg
>> > I kinda like tall, skinny girls.
>> >http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=gun.jpg
>> > And girls who aren't afraid of guns.
>>
>> Well, that and the fact that she's smiling. Â Libs don't see much of that
>> in their women.
> Cite, please.
OK, you asked for it:
<http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/helen.jpg>
<ll4humor.com/images/files/Scary Hillary Clinton.jpg>
<culture.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/rosie051.jpg>
<http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/27/mn_iraq_benjamin.jpg>
Compare and contrast
<http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/images/BarbaraBush.jpg>
<http://www.oldredoldten.com/assets/Laura_Bush.jpg>
<http://bitsblog.florack.us/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/ham_mary_katharine.jpg>
It's not just the looks, it's the attitude. Most liberal women, even when
smiling come across as angry with the world and circumstances. The
conservative women may be unhappy with current circumstances, but are
engaged and enthusiastic in fixing those circumstances.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:34:41 -0700, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:fa0df11a-f31c-4deb-ad1a-7c1d7d0d6c06@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 28, 6:15 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "DGDevin" wrote:
>> > I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
>> > produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
>>
>> With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
>> strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
>> programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
>>
>> Lew
>
>The collapse of the USSR being attributed to Reagan was more smoke and
>mirrors. He was sitting in the chair, and working towards that
>collapse, but much of the work was done before he even finished his
>last B movie.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Most of the work was done by the Politburo.
Star Wars and Reykjavik got them to bankrupt themselves.
On 2010-03-24, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
> hate speech.
> We'll miss you, Ann.
I see The Sperm Dumpster got a taste of her own.... well, you know.
nb
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:15:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> I liked Reagan, but anyone pretending some of his policies didn't
>> produce regrettable consequences isn't really paying attention.
>
>--------------------------------------
>Reagan was no friend of anyone earning less than $250K/yr.
You're a liar, too. When we were looking at our first house we were looking
at an >18% mortgage. By the time we closed (later that summer) it was down to
14% and within two years under 10%. *THAT* was Reagan finally getting the
reigns on the last hopey-changey thing; Carterism.
>With the exception of the collapse of the Soviet empire, his was
>strictly a smoke and mirrors job to systematically destroy the social
>programs of the previous 50 years while expanding the national debt.
Good, and he certainly wasn't alone.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:13:17 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>RonB wrote:
>
>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>> have reached.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>
>Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
>she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
>Too many ball-less wonders up there.
The hundred or so who wanted to listen to her drivel should have just
crossed the border into the USA where "hate" speech is still not only
legal but commonplace
Tyrone Tiews wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>>
>>> The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading
>>> and occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two
>>> trillion dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And
>>> they never did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
>>
>> Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
>
> No apostrophe in its, Hey Bu'b.
Arghh! You're right.
It's okay, though. According to the rule of Conservation of Apostrophes,"
for every wrong apostrophe placement, there is another that is incorrectly
omitted.
Still, that doesn't absolve me of the self-imposed sanction of sitting in
the corner for an hour.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:01:09 -0400, the infamous Steve
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 2010-03-25 17:25:03 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> said:
>
>> OBTW, http://fwd4.me/6jn was a hoax. The guy's probably DNC
>> registered.
>
>You did not read far enough:
>
>> Don't miss the fine print at the bottom:
>> Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape
>> and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof
>> that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like
>> this to spread lies and misinformation.
Oh, but I did read that. Why do you suppose I suggested that he's a
bleedin' Demonrat?
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only
> cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they
> spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects.
And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in
Afghanistan, if anywhere.)
> The financial industry will stabilize and return to its historic growth
> rate.
Over what period do you define it's "historic growth"? Obviously its
recent growth rate (before the recent collapse) was unsustainable.
Chris
On 03/25/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> I cannot imagine anyone missing her or Beck. In fact I can't figure
>> out why either one of them have reached the level of prominence they
>> have reached.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it says a lot about the state of our society.
>
> Agreed. What should have happened is the 1000 that wanted to hear what
> she had to say should have stomped the shit out of the 100 that didn't.
> Too many ball-less wonders up there.
According to one of the organizers there were 2000 protesters. Does
that mean they should have beat the crap out of Coulter and the people
that came to see her?
Besides, what makes you think that all the people that came to see her
actually support her views? The London audience didn't seem all that
friendly.
Chris
Upscale wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:58:55 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Get your finger off the send button asshole.
Some people need to hear something several times before it sinks in. That's
all.
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:36:18 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> I'm not a fan of hers, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed.
>------------------------------------------
>That hard up, huh?
I'll bet you REALLY like her, Lew. Every word she utters makes you
shudder. You poor, poor Dems. You wish your "leaders" had her
millions of followers. <wink>
--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent,
but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> President Reagan presented congress with a package that contained both tax
> cuts and the corresponding budget cuts. I don't remember the reason but
> the democrats wanted to pass the tax cuts first and then promise to pass
> the budget cuts. As today the did not live up to their promise. After the
> tax cuts became law. The democrats failed to live up to their promise and
> did not pass the corresponding budget cuts. That is why the deficit
> increased during the Reagan administration. Read your history.
What color is the sky on your planet?
"Megan Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
Didn't see it yet, don't make assumptions without evidence.
>The reason why the building the military was a big concern is because
> that is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible
> for--one of the few.
News flash: this is no longer a largely agrarian society with a population
of two and a half million. Government has grown because we have a bigger
and more complex society--you don't have to like it, but that's the way it
is. If it bothers you enough then move to Somalia, they've done a dandy job
of getting government off their backs over there.
> I am going to say it again: you can get and do and be whatever the
> heck you want in this country, you just need to have the will do do it
> and want it and be it.
Hogwash, there are millions of people who are born so far behind the
eight-ball that's it's amazing they survive at all, and many don't. Some
people are able to drag themselves out of the deepest holes with hard work
and some luck, others never get lucky. Go tell some single mom working two
jobs to keep her kids fed and clothed that she just isn't trying hard
enough, then get ready to run.
> I am sorry there are so
> many people out there who need more money to pay for health
> insurance. I'm sorry there are so many people who are out of work. I
> am sorry for a lot of things but this bill was not the right thing nor
> was it the right time to do it.
I'm sorry the cost of health insurance has doubled in the past fifteen
years, I'm sorry health insurance companies absorb far more for
administrative overhead than in any other industrialized nation, I'm sorry
our taxes and our insurance premiums go to pay for ER treatment for the
uninsured instead of regular clinic treatment which is far cheaper, I'm
sorry Americans pay more for health care than anyone and yet have shorter
life expectancy that people in many wealthy nations....
Not the right time to do it? How many people are you prepared to see die
until you figure it's the right time?
The German army historically kicked the crap out of every European army they
met in part because they taught their officers and NCOs that in a bad
situation the worst thing you can do is nothing--better to try something
risky than just sit there and wait for some Russian to walk up and drop a
grenade down your shirt collar. You can't outwait trouble, you have to do
something about it.
So while I think the health care bill is flawed, and needs plenty of repair,
waiting another year or two, or five, or ten, simply wasn't an option.
Nixon wanted universal health insurance provided by employers, and that was
forty years ago. The system is broken, it handicaps American business with
crippling employee health coverage (it cost GM $1,200 less to build a
vehicle in Canada because they have govt. health insurance there), it kills
and sickens millions of Americans who can't afford insurance, it bankrupts
hundreds of thousands Americans every year. The Republicans controlled
Congress for a decade, and what did they do for health care other than an
unfunded prescription drug program that prevents Medicare from negotiating
lower drug prices as the VA does? We're supposed to leave it up to those
clowns?
> Answer me this: If this damn bill is so freaking good, why in the
> world are Obama and the rest of the high brass in Washington EXEMPTED
> from it? Why aren't they forced to use it? That is glossed over.
You're surprised that politicians take care of themselves? Have you only
recently arrived on this planet?
> Answer me this, too: Why isn't there any cost savings in that bill?
There are, not enough in my view, but the CGO says it will reduce the
deficit. Republicans love to quote the CGO when they agree with it, lately
they're less eager to do so--what a surprise.
> Real cost savings? Why didn't they work to reduce tort reform?
I thought Bush's proposal for malpractice lawsuit reform was a good start,
though I felt his cap was too low. If you ended up in wheelchair for life
with a feeding tube in your stomach because of a surgeon's blunder would you
figure only five hundred grand would cover that? However I agree that
really breathtaking punitive damages are counter-productive, awards should
be limited to actual costs of medical care, loss of wages and a reasonable
amount for pain and suffering, not awards running into the tens of millions
of dollars that primarily enrich lawyers.
> You
> talk about crooks, don't tell me lawyers don't do their fair share of
> fleecing the health care system. Why didn't they look into intra-
> state portability to naturally increase competition?
You mean the way banks became able to pick and choose which state they would
base their credit card operations in so they could find a state that allowed
any interest rates the banks wanted, any fees and penalties they wanted?
Sure, that worked out great for the consumer, didn't it. The former
governor of Delaware has said he thought it was a fine idea at the time
because of all the banks that set up shop there; later, when he realized it
allowed the banks to fleece Americans he had a change of heart--too late.
> Why didn't they
> look into things like helping small business band together to buy
> health insurance at a lower price? Why rip it apart?
You mean the co-ops Obama wanted?
> And to keep this thread sort of on-topic like Robatoy said, Glenn Beck
> is an example of somebody who was a down and out drunk who got himself
> together and worked like a dog to get to where he is today. You may
> not like his viewpoints nor his mannerism but you have to give him
> kudos for remaking himself like a Phoenix.
Glenn Beck is someone with a history of doing anything to get ahead with no
regard for the harm he causes, and that hasn't changed since he sobered up.
I do not admire someone who will lie through his teeth and pander to
people's fear and prejudices in order to make money. I don't like it when
Michael Moore does it, and I don't like it when Beck does it. I've tried
watching Beck several times but I can't do so for long, he is so
transparently phony, and his overheated rhetoric is so childish (the
bulletin board with the pictures of Mao and Obama and Stalin side by side)
that it's like a bad comedy. It's depressing as hell to think that millions
of Americans are taken in by that little creep.
But considering that Harris just did a poll in which one in four Republicans
surveyed said they believe Obama may be the Antichrist, I guess we shouldn't
be surprised that Beck is able to find millions of angry morons to buy his
line of bullshit.
busbus wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:19 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Megan Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
>>
>> Didn't see it yet, don't make assumptions without evidence.
>>
>
> Okay, well, here is part of it. It is about taxes/redistribution of
> wealth but it gets my point across:
>
>
> ...Lastly, I wanted to SCREAM whenever I heard Obama say "his" health
> care bill would provide FREE doctor visits, FREE prescriptions, FREE
> shots, FREE (fill in the blank).
>
> NOTHING IS FREE!
>
> It irritates me whenever I hear people say that the "rich" people
> SHOULD pay more taxes. THEY DO!!! Both in percentage and in sheer
> dollars. And even if the percentages were the same, the sheer dollars
> would still be a lot higher.
>
> The progressive liberal say that is is only FAIR the "rich" should pay
> more. We all want to be fair, but what does fair mean?
>
> Suppose four guys go out to lunch, and split the check four ways. Is
> that fair? Suppose one had a tuna sandwich, and another had lobster?
>
> Well, maybe it would be fair to say that each pays for what he eats?
> But suppose one of the guys makes $100,000 a year and the others make
> only $50,000. Would it be fair to say the one who makes the big bucks
> should pay twice what the others do, regardless of what he eats,
> because he makes more?
>
> If it were you, you probably wouldn't think it was "fair" to ask your
> friend to pay for your meal, though an increasing voting bloc feels it
> is very fair to ask other people to pay for things they want.
>
It's time for the Fair-Fair Tax. Here's how it works:
Suppose, in round numbers, the national budget is $6 trillion and there are
300 million folks. That means each person pays a tax of $2,000. Period.
Simple. Understandable. Easy to implement.
But, you may ask, what about the person who doesn't HAVE $2,000?
Well, they could contribute one unit of blood platelets each month for which
the government would credit them $200. Sort of a federal withdrawal plan. In
ten months they'd have their taxes paid for the year!
But, you may protest, what about a single mother of four, each under the age
of five? She'd be responsible for $10,000! She can't contribute that much
blood and draining toddlers is an outrage!
True, trying to get that much blood from Miss Danniellaip Turnip would be
absurd...
She could contribute a kidney.
The government would credit her with, say, $50,000 and she'd have the taxes
for herself and her brood paid for five years. This, along with standard
platelet contributions, should cover her tax liability for about seven
years.
Yeah, you say. What then? You can't take her OTHER kidney! Of course not;
that would be nuts.
At the end of eight years (or probably before), she could contribute a
cornea. That would be worth, oh, another four or five years.
By then her brood will be off making babies of their own and she can drop
back to the normal plan.
On Mar 24, 9:19=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Megan Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Well, I see you didn't attempt to answer my other post.
>
> Didn't see it yet, don't make assumptions without evidence.
>
Okay, well, here is part of it. It is about taxes/redistribution of
wealth but it gets my point across:
...Lastly, I wanted to SCREAM whenever I heard Obama say "his" health
care bill would provide FREE doctor visits, FREE prescriptions, FREE
shots, FREE (fill in the blank).
NOTHING IS FREE!
It irritates me whenever I hear people say that the "rich" people
SHOULD pay more taxes. THEY DO!!! Both in percentage and in sheer
dollars. And even if the percentages were the same, the sheer dollars
would still be a lot higher.
The progressive liberal say that is is only FAIR the "rich" should pay
more. We all want to be fair, but what does fair mean?
Suppose four guys go out to lunch, and split the check four ways. Is
that fair? Suppose one had a tuna sandwich, and another had lobster?
Well, maybe it would be fair to say that each pays for what he eats?
But suppose one of the guys makes $100,000 a year and the others make
only $50,000. Would it be fair to say the one who makes the big bucks
should pay twice what the others do, regardless of what he eats,
because he makes more?
If it were you, you probably wouldn't think it was "fair" to ask your
friend to pay for your meal, though an increasing voting bloc feels it
is very fair to ask other people to pay for things they want.
Let=B4s take another example.
Suppose 100 adults with jobs live on your street. And you get
together and decide that it would be wonderful if you had a new
playground that would cost about $10,000. So you vote and the new
playground wins.
Then you have to vote how much each person should chip in to buy the
playground, and the vote goes like this:
- Five of the adults are charged a total of $6,000 for the playground
*everyone* will use.
- Another 45 of the adults have to get together and chip in an
additional $3,700.
- And the last 50 adults have to pool their resources and come up
with $300 between them.
Is that fair? (That was the US tax code in 2006.)
Well, President Obama and his Social Democrat Party said no way is
that fair.
Those five people have to come up with a lot more money than just
$6,000, so the 45 pay less, and the 50 who were paying $300 now pay
nothing.
Under that help-the-rich guy George Bush and the Republicans in 2006,
5% of Americans=97those with incomes over $153,000, paid 60% of the
taxes, while the bottom 50% of Americans paid 3%. (IRS figures.)
Once more than 50% of the public pay nothing, what is to stop them
from voting to take everything from those who pay more?
And all in the name of being fair...
> >The reason why the building the military was a big concern is because
> > that is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible
> > for--one of the few.
>
> News flash: this is no longer a largely agrarian society with a populatio=
n
> of two and a half million. =A0Government has grown because we have a bigg=
er
> and more complex society--you don't have to like it, but that's the way i=
t
> is. =A0If it bothers you enough then move to Somalia, they've done a dand=
y job
> of getting government off their backs over there.
>
What I am saying is give the States the power they used to have. That
is the way the founding fathers wanted it and how they created it and
warned many, many times against the Federal Government gaining too
much power--like it has. And this latest fiasco made it worse. You
don't have to like it but that is the way it is. ;o)
> > I am going to say it again: you can get and do and be whatever the
> > heck you want in this country, you just need to have the will do do it
> > and want it and be it.
>
> Hogwash, there are millions of people who are born so far behind the
> eight-ball that's it's amazing they survive at all, and many don't. =A0So=
me
> people are able to drag themselves out of the deepest holes with hard wor=
k
> and some luck, others never get lucky. =A0Go tell some single mom working=
two
> jobs to keep her kids fed and clothed that she just isn't trying hard
> enough, then get ready to run.
>
MORE hogwash. The opportunity is there. And, to make another point,
if that single mother is so far in the hole there is ALREADY
governmental safety nets for her AND the kids and not just health care
insurance.
As far as luck is concerned, you make your own luck. I know you don't
like that but it is true.
And why are some of these people so far behind the eight ball?
Weren't a fair-sized number of them born to people who were already
living on public assistance? For all their lives? And guess what?
They are already receiving health care! Or are you talking about the
millions of illegal aliens who are living here?
I can sort of predict what will happen: You will play the silly race
card and that is not it at all. That is all I am going to say about
that if the race card is played because I have learned you cannot talk
to somebody who puts their fingers in their ears saying "la, la, la,
la, la...I can't heeear you."
Or are you going to use that silly woman in Ohio who said she was
afraid she would lose her house because the Cleveland Clinic would not
treat her? Don't forget, the Cleveland Clinic assured that she would
be eligible for assistance and wouldn't lose her house--always was
eligible.
I am saying the opportunity is there. This is another example of
redistributing the wealth. You can rationalize it all you want but
that is all it is.
> > I am sorry there are so
> > many people out there who need more money to pay for health
> > insurance. =A0I'm sorry there are so many people who are out of work. =
=A0I
> > am sorry for a lot of things but this bill was not the right thing nor
> > was it the right time to do it.
>
> I'm sorry the cost of health insurance has doubled in the past fifteen
> years, I'm sorry health insurance companies absorb far more for
> administrative overhead than in any other industrialized nation, I'm sorr=
y
> our taxes and our insurance premiums go to pay for ER treatment for the
> uninsured instead of regular clinic treatment which is far cheaper, I'm
> sorry Americans pay more for health care than anyone and yet have shorter
> life expectancy that people in many wealthy nations....
>
And this health care bill help contain the costs? I don't think it
does; all it does is spread the pain among more people.
Another problem is that we issue TOO MUCH health care. Doctors issue
more tests and are far too conservative because they are afraid of
getting sued. People use the emergency room to get a couple stitches
or a runny nose. And I do not think the only reason for longer life
expectancy is health care.
> Not the right time to do it? =A0How many people are you prepared to see d=
ie
> until you figure it's the right time?
>
> The German army historically kicked the crap out of every European army t=
hey
> met in part because they taught their officers and NCOs that in a bad
> situation the worst thing you can do is nothing--better to try something
> risky than just sit there and wait for some Russian to walk up and drop a
> grenade down your shirt collar. =A0You can't outwait trouble, you have to=
do
> something about it.
>
> So while I think the health care bill is flawed, and needs plenty of repa=
ir,
> waiting another year or two, or five, or ten, simply wasn't an option.
> Nixon wanted universal health insurance provided by employers, and that w=
as
> forty years ago. =A0The system is broken, it handicaps American business =
with
> crippling employee health coverage (it cost GM $1,200 less to build a
> vehicle in Canada because they have govt. health insurance there), it kil=
ls
> and sickens millions of Americans who can't afford insurance, it bankrupt=
s
> hundreds of thousands Americans every year. =A0The Republicans controlled
> Congress for a decade, and what did they do for health care other than an
> unfunded prescription drug program that prevents Medicare from negotiatin=
g
> lower drug prices as the VA does? =A0We're supposed to leave it up to tho=
se
> clowns?
>
Passing a bill that has no specifics and to make it law just to build
it later is a bunch of bull crap. Also, we do not know how many
backroom deals were made and how much all that pork will cost us. The
Democrats, Obama in particular, said everything will be done in the
open. Nothing was. And you want me to trust the liberals? Nope.
> > Answer me this: If this damn bill is so freaking good, why in the
> > world are Obama and the rest of the high brass in Washington EXEMPTED
> > from it? =A0Why aren't they forced to use it? =A0That is glossed over.
>
> You're surprised that politicians take care of themselves? =A0Have you on=
ly
> recently arrived on this planet?
>
So here you are more or less saying that there IS a better way and it
is what those pricks gave to themselves, huh? In other words, they
will more or less be the only ones who will be able to keep their
health care insurance while the rest of us are herded into the corral
of their choice.
> > Answer me this, too: Why isn't there any cost savings in that bill?
>
> There are, not enough in my view, but the CGO says it will reduce the
> deficit. =A0Republicans love to quote the CGO when they agree with it, la=
tely
> they're less eager to do so--what a surprise.
>
How the hell will it reduce the deficit whenever it will add to it
eight times more than it will save? You can realize all those savings
just by issuing REAL tort reform and making policies portable.
> > Real cost savings? =A0Why didn't they work to reduce tort reform?
>
> I thought Bush's proposal for malpractice lawsuit reform was a good start=
,
> though I felt his cap was too low. =A0If you ended up in wheelchair for l=
ife
> with a feeding tube in your stomach because of a surgeon's blunder would =
you
> figure only five hundred grand would cover that? =A0However I agree that
> really breathtaking punitive damages are counter-productive, awards shoul=
d
> be limited to actual costs of medical care, loss of wages and a reasonabl=
e
> amount for pain and suffering, not awards running into the tens of millio=
ns
> of dollars that primarily enrich lawyers.
>
Now a Republican did do *something* good? I don't follow you all the
time.
> > You
> > talk about crooks, don't tell me lawyers don't do their fair share of
> > fleecing the health care system. =A0Why didn't they look into intra-
> > state portability to naturally increase competition?
>
> You mean the way banks became able to pick and choose which state they wo=
uld
> base their credit card operations in so they could find a state that allo=
wed
> any interest rates the banks wanted, any fees and penalties they wanted?
> Sure, that worked out great for the consumer, didn't it. =A0The former
> governor of Delaware has said he thought it was a fine idea at the time
> because of all the banks that set up shop there; later, when he realized =
it
> allowed the banks to fleece Americans he had a change of heart--too late.
>
No, think CAR insurance and HOME insurance and LIFE insurance. Why
not health insurance? Do not mix apples and bowling balls comparing
health insurance and banks.
> > Why didn't they
> > look into things like helping small business band together to buy
> > health insurance at a lower price? =A0Why rip it apart?
>
> You mean the co-ops Obama wanted?
>
Not government co-ops. Geesh. Keep the government the hell out.
> > And to keep this thread sort of on-topic like Robatoy said, Glenn Beck
> > is an example of somebody who was a down and out drunk who got himself
> > together and worked like a dog to get to where he is today. =A0You may
> > not like his viewpoints nor his mannerism but you have to give him
> > kudos for remaking himself like a Phoenix.
>
> Glenn Beck is someone with a history of doing anything to get ahead with =
no
> regard for the harm he causes, and that hasn't changed since he sobered u=
p.
> I do not admire someone who will lie through his teeth and pander to
> people's fear and prejudices in order to make money. =A0I don't like it w=
hen
> Michael Moore does it, and I don't like it when Beck does it. =A0I've tri=
ed
> watching Beck several times but I can't do so for long, he is so
> transparently phony, and his overheated rhetoric is so childish (the
> bulletin board with the pictures of Mao and Obama and Stalin side by side=
)
> that it's like a bad comedy. =A0It's depressing as hell to think that mil=
lions
> of Americans are taken in by that little creep.
>
> But considering that Harris just did a poll in which one in four Republic=
ans
> surveyed said they believe Obama may be the Antichrist, I guess we should=
n't
> be surprised that Beck is able to find millions of angry morons to buy hi=
s
> line of bullshit.
He is not the Antichrist because he is supposed to come from somewhere
in Europe. :o) Of course, Obama is trying to make us into a western
European nation and no way do I want to live in such a place. The
easy thing to say is to move out but I would rather stay and fight.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:01:20 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article
><0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da2a1@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
><"[email protected]"> wrote:
>
>> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
>> speech.
>
>*SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
>Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
Here, too, unfortunately.
If people don't want to hear something, why do they turn up at the
event? No, they wanted to make sure than nobody heard it. Intolerance
like that is ugly and the supporters of that ilk should be ashamed.
Where's the hate _now_, huh? (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Toy.)
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
In news:6b57bbd3-0cd2-45e7-aa54-4a7e985ca216@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com,
Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On Apr 15, 8:42 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
> That article makes an interesting point about free speech. " I can say
> what I what, but don't record it because I can't be held accountable."
It's also a lesson in free choice, If you don't like her, don't go.
Pretty simple, huh?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4fb9f295-919e-4e2e-9061-2e16db53ea0b@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>
So, just who is stupid?
From the article:
She has reportedly raked in $12 million since last July for speaking
engagements, television contracts and sales of her bestselling book, Going
Rogue.
Her book alone netted a $1.25 million retainer from HarperCollins. On Fox,
she appears as a pundit and hosts her own Real American Stories show and TLC
will soon broadcast an eight-part series called Sarah Palin's Alaska.
Jack Stein wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> .
>> The hundred or so who wanted to listen to her drivel should have
>> just crossed the border into the USA where "hate" speech is still
>> not only legal but commonplace
>
> Correct, but its called "Free" Speech not "hate" speech so far in the
> USSA.
But don't you agree that how a person "feels" is paramount? Don't you want
everybody to feel good?
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:39:35 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Apr 16, 10:16 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/y2npvdg
>>
>> Well, I guess it's time to reengage the gmail filter. I don't want to
>> keep being exposed to the hate and bigotry coming down from CA...
>
>Then stop sending that shit up here.
Hey, YOUR people book OUR people. Get over it. Some of your people
like "that shit" and the last I heard, our northern states don't
border on the Republic of Toy.
---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:38:25 -0700 (PDT), the infamous "Dr. Deb"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 24, 8:15 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Imagine this in polite, embracing and apologetic Canada.
>>
>> I guess we have defined the difference between freedom of speech and
>> hate speech.
>> We'll miss you, Ann.
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/784403--safety-fear-shuts...
>> -coulter-speech?bn=1
>
>Having been following the "Hate Speech" monstrosity in Canada, there
>is one thing that is rather obvious. If one is on the Left, one can
>make charges of "Hate Speech" against someone who has said something
>you "consider" offensive. The really odd thing is, the gate does not
>seem to swing both ways. Odd that, or maybe not.
Bingo. Typical liberal opinions are absolutely a one-way street.
Their actions are always allowable but conservatives are railed at for
doing exactly the same thing. Poor Robatoy turns into everything he
hates about Ann Coulter when he talks about her. Ain't _that_ a
pisser for him? <vbg>
Look at the picture of the protestors. Who has hate, them or Ann?
http://fwd4.me/JTN Interestingly enough, what Robatoy wrote was
almost verbatim what I read in the original story that accompanied
this photo in the Globe & Mail. I guess we know where he got his
talking points.
Sorry, Toy, but a spade's a spade. (No, Lew. That was meant in a
totally non-racial way. Would you lay off already? ;)
--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> She sold her soul for money. She's just another Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/
> O'Reilly shill yakking about God, Guns, Guts blasting their way into
> the hearts of the toothless BillyBobs of society. They will buy
> anything.
Sure, that is true, but if offered, how many here would do the same? Many
more that will ever admit it.
> . Not only doesn't Palin have anything worthwhile to say,
> she's riding the coattails of Tina Fey.
True to, but I wonder if Fey will take advantage of it come closer to
election time. It did give her a lot of notoriety also.
Robatoy wrote the following:
> On Mar 25, 2:49 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:01:20 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <0eb0ed99-bb97-4b03-9aed-4d28009da...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> <"[email protected]"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We always knew that you (Canuckistanis) had no no stomach for free
>>>> speech.
>>>>
>>> *SOME* of us do. But scratch a political science professor at a
>>> Canadian university and you'll find a Marxist.
>>>
>> Here, too, unfortunately.
>>
>> If people don't want to hear something, why do they turn up at the
>> event? No, they wanted to make sure than nobody heard it. Intolerance
>> like that is ugly and the supporters of that ilk should be ashamed.
>> Where's the hate _now_, huh? (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Toy.)
>>
>>
> I don't think anybody was trying to prevent anybody from listening to
> her shit. I DO think they just wanted that hate-monger to leave us-the-
> fuck alone
And how to do that? Why we'll just prevent her from speaking by making
it unsafe for her to appear.
You'll notice that only the liberals resort to this action.
Conservatives complain after the fact.
> and go back to where she came from, that place where they
> lap up her scuz.
>
> "The name is Bond. James Bond."
> "The name is Stein. Not Einstein."
>
>
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
"busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:094ef15c-b48d-41ec-a3a3-17610bc52a8c@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> Ain't it amazing how people see only what they want to see, and remember
> only what they want to remember? Left or right it's the same, history gets
> edited to suit ideology.
> Yup, Reagan was the first conservative who wasn't necessarily a FISCAL
> conservative.
That's not what Reagan said, he claimed the ballooning federal deficit was
the single biggest disappointment of his presidency.
> I may be way off, but I thought the S&L crisis happened
> on the first Bush's watch??
You are way off. The consequences extended into Bush 41's presidency, even
Clinton's, but it hit while Reagan was in office. It turned out that
deregulation that allowed S&Ls to do things formerly only banks could do--
but without the regulations banks are subject to--wasn't such a great idea.
Come to think of it, sweeping deregulation (or an existing lack of
regulation) often seems to precede a massive economic crisis--ain't it
amazing how it works out like that?
> Now, I was young back then but Reagan was the first president I ever
> voted for. From what I can remember, we were in a bad way. Interest
> rates were around 20% whenever he took office. The stock market took
> a huge crash. I remember standing in line a local McDonald's where
> the line of people went around the building one-and-a-half times for
> ONE job within the store. It was that bad.
I recall. I liked Reagan, but I'm not willing to pretend some of his
policies didn't cause a lot of problems further down the road.
> Let's think a bit......seems to me he is not allowed to make law
> himself, so he had to have Congress pass it for him. If I remember
> correctly, he did this with a DEMOCRATIC Congress. In the end, it was
> CONGRESS who created the deficit, not Reagan himself.
Not exactly. Reagan's power lay in his ability to peel away enough
Democrats from their party that in combination with Republicans they could
move legislation through Congress against the wishes of the party which
actually had a majority. But it's the White House that proposes budgets,
and the President who signs legislation, or vetoes it if he thinks it's a
bad idea. So there is no way to credibly claim that the staggering increase
in the federal debt over Reagan's presidency is something he had no control
over.
Yes, rebuilding the military was a valid concern, but so was kickstarting
the economy, and health care. Why does military spending get a pass when
economic stimulus or keeping Americans out of the Emergency Room is
automatically something not worth borrowing for?
> And in the end, is was the DEMOCRATIC-ONLY CONGRESS who pushed this
> monstrosity called Health Care thru and there was absolutely *NO*
> reaching across the aisle. Gee, no wonder why people are angry.
Kind of hard to reach across the aisle when the folks on the other side have
only one thing on their minds: the next election. It might amuse you to
read up on the tactics the Republicans used to pass prescription drug
legislation back in 2203, then get back to me about pushing through
legislation without reaching across the aisle.
> You are right: it is amazing how people see only what they want to
> see and remember only what they want to remember.
Yup, thanks for confirming my theory.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:25:01 -0500, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/26/2010 8:13 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Man, you're hot for her.
>
>ROTFL. Fine line between doth protest too much ... :)
I just knew _someone_ would catch that and play it for what it was. ;)
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
Robatoy wrote:
> You must have found some innocuous Youtube shorts of her then. I also
> don't hate her, I don't think she should be exporting HER hatred to
> Canada. Get it? It is HER hatred I despise. Her Right Wing Hatred.
> Don't hate the hater, hate the hatred.
Ah, that's the difference. In the U.S. we harken to the notion that the
antidote to unacceptable speech is more speech, that only the free exchange
of ideas, no matter how repugnant they may seem, is the best way to solve a
problem. We believe in dissent for the sake of the task. Or at least we have
a heritage of thinking along those lines...
In Canada, little children are brought up to believe that impure thoughts
are evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. They grow to adulthood
conflicted and ambivalent, infected with a government-imposed
manic-depressive brain stem.
A carney operator was once asked "How do you find 'wild men' who bite the
heads off chickens?" His answer was simple: "You don't FIND 'em, you grow
your own!"
And your qualification that you don't hater HER, only her views, is
disingenuous. Her views ARE her! Without them, she'd be just another
good-looking, rich, blonde - of which there are many in the conservative
movement.