On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:07?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:54?pm, John H. wrote:





On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?

Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.

So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ding ding ding.... and we have a winner... If no child left behind
works, the dems lose their voter base...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh please. Straight off a Limbaugh script.

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

Educated and intelligent people arrive at differing conclusions. If
they didn't all of that education would be wasted. The truly educated
don't ultimately migrate to the "One True Fact", but learn to use
their mental resources to think in a critical manner. Some people will
posit: "Those who disagree with me do so because they aren't very
bright." That's a laugh. What isn't very bright in an expectation that
all quality thought will lead to the same, lock step, conclusion.

Some of the educated who feel the urge to support a political party
will support the R's. Others will support the D's. Others will pick
and choose candidates from both parties and make personal, rather than
party dictated, decisions regarding issues.

The uneducated will support the party they think will do the most for them.
The Democrats make their points by telling the uneducated what they'll be
given - higher pay, better jobs, free health care, free college, free this
and free that.

What is your 'comparison' of left vs red states in terms of education
supposed to mean. The 'NCLBA' applied to all states.

Again, you're paying too much attention to Limbaugh. If, in fact, Limbaugh
said that, then Limbaugh got it right (and correct).
--
John H