DSK wrote in message news:gsuPc.3626$vp.3264@bignews2.



Slave owning, KKK'n, oilfield trashin, military wackos, fire and
Brimstone bible thumpin, pea brained, ****** bashing, witch
burning..people looking to hop on a gravy chain by starting
wars....That's truly how you see republicans?

Sheeeze you have some issues to deal with....This is 2004 not 1960

Did Kerry pay you to write that extreme propaganda? Our did you steal
it from M. Moore?

Joe

Joe wrote:
....That's truly how you see republicans?

That is how I see some Republicans because that is how they are.

There are some Democrats who are just as bad, but not as many and
nowhere near as loud-mouthed about it.


Sheeeze you have some issues to deal with....This is 2004 not 1960

Meaning what? That it's well past the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?

Got news for you, Joe, some things never change.


Did Kerry pay you to write that extreme propaganda?

It is not propaganda, it's the truth. Did you like it? Maybe I should
change jobs.

Anyway, considering that one reason you support Bush is that he kills
large numbers of rag-heads, you should be proud to be a member of at
least some of the groups I mentioned.

DSK

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:33:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:
....That's truly how you see republicans?

That is how I see some Republicans because that is how they are.

I'll suggest a compromise. I was watching the Tonight Show last week
when Michael Moore was on and he made the fair point that he doesn't
consider the kinds of folks you are describing as Republicans, because
there are some "good Republicans." His term for these folks was
"Hatriots" (rhymes with Patriots). I think he is right. In the same
way that much of AM Talk Radio is really "hate radio" these days, all
aimed as the evil "liberals", this has become the means by which the
Republicans cling to power, even in the face of elections where they
can't win popular support. They have a great PR campaign going 24/7
convincing the kinds of folks you are describing that they are all
fighting against the evil (insert target group
here...minority/gay/Godless/liberal, etc) together. In the meantime,
their policies are benefitting the ultra-rich while screwing the
middle class and the poor. Now those ultra-rich..those are
Republicans





There are some Democrats who are just as bad, but not as many and
nowhere near as loud-mouthed about it.


Sheeeze you have some issues to deal with....This is 2004 not 1960

Meaning what? That it's well past the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?

Got news for you, Joe, some things never change.


Did Kerry pay you to write that extreme propaganda?

It is not propaganda, it's the truth. Did you like it? Maybe I should
change jobs.

Anyway, considering that one reason you support Bush is that he kills
large numbers of rag-heads, you should be proud to be a member of at
least some of the groups I mentioned.

Funny how 85% of the people that saw the
O'Reilly--Moore debate came away thinking
less of Moore.

Anyone who even considers what Moore says
is worth repeating, loses credibility.


"felton" wrote
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:33:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:
....That's truly how you see republicans?

That is how I see some Republicans because that is how they are.

I'll suggest a compromise. I was watching the Tonight Show last week
when Michael Moore was on and he made the fair point that he doesn't
consider the kinds of folks you are describing as Republicans, because
there are some "good Republicans." His term for these folks was

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:33:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

way that much of AM Talk Radio is really "hate radio" these days, all
aimed as the evil "liberals", this has become the means by which the
Republicans cling to power, even in the face of elections where they
can't win popular support. They have a great PR campaign going 24/7
convincing the kinds of folks you are describing that they are all
fighting against the evil .........

in case you have not noticed, so does the left.
WNYC comes to mind, for one example.
gf.

Except for when he cites the facts, which is most of the
time, I agree with you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Funny how 85% of the people that saw the
O'Reilly--Moore debate came away thinking
less of Moore.

Anyone who even considers what Moore says
is worth repeating, loses credibility.


"felton" wrote
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:33:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:
....That's truly how you see republicans?

That is how I see some Republicans because that is how they are.

I'll suggest a compromise. I was watching the Tonight Show last week
when Michael Moore was on and he made the fair point that he doesn't
consider the kinds of folks you are describing as Republicans, because
there are some "good Republicans." His term for these folks was

DSK wrote in message .. .
Joe wrote:
....That's truly how you see republicans?

That is how I see some Republicans because that is how they are.

There are some Democrats who are just as bad, but not as many and
nowhere near as loud-mouthed about it.


Sheeeze you have some issues to deal with....This is 2004 not 1960

Meaning what? That it's well past the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?

Got news for you, Joe, some things never change.


Did Kerry pay you to write that extreme propaganda?

It is not propaganda, it's the truth. Did you like it? Maybe I should
change jobs.

Anyway, considering that one reason you support Bush is that he kills
large numbers of rag-heads, you should be proud to be a member of at
least some of the groups I mentioned.


If they are AlQueida rag heads, or Saddams murdering torturing rag
heads then you are correct, that is one reason I support Bush and our
troops. Id rather kill them before they kill us.

And I do support domestic production of Oil vs being held hostage by
the Saudis.

Joe










DSK

On 3 Aug 2004 10:27:08 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:53:18 GMT, felton said:

You really should read Richard Clark's book, "Against All Enemies".

Clark might have some credibility if he hadn't self-destructed by testifying
one way at non-public hearings, and a different way at public hearings in
order to sell his book. Unfortunately, he's joined Joe Wilson and Sandy
Berger in the cast of wannabes who never will be because they think
Americans will believe their fairy tales.


I have read his book and heard his public testimony. Perhaps you
could enlighten me on some of his "non-public hearings." I assume you
were in attendance.

Unfortunately, he apologized to the country and the victims, which
is more than Bush and company can tolerate. He also told the
truth, which is another sin in Bu****'s eyes, apparently.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:53:18 GMT, felton said:

You really should read Richard Clark's book, "Against All Enemies".

Clark might have some credibility if he hadn't self-destructed by
testifying
one way at non-public hearings, and a different way at public hearings in
order to sell his book. Unfortunately, he's joined Joe Wilson and Sandy
Berger in the cast of wannabes who never will be because they think
Americans will believe their fairy tales.

Dave was the little scrap dog they keep in the car to ward off
Democrats.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug 2004 10:27:08 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:53:18 GMT, felton said:

You really should read Richard Clark's book, "Against All Enemies".

Clark might have some credibility if he hadn't self-destructed by
testifying
one way at non-public hearings, and a different way at public hearings in
order to sell his book. Unfortunately, he's joined Joe Wilson and Sandy
Berger in the cast of wannabes who never will be because they think
Americans will believe their fairy tales.


I have read his book and heard his public testimony. Perhaps you
could enlighten me on some of his "non-public hearings." I assume you
were in attendance.