"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
You really need to get some perspective, Doug. I've obviously gotten
seriously under your skin by calling you a liberal.

Not really. But you have proved yourself a serious knee-jerk fascist
whacko.

Only from your viewpoint of retaliatory vitriol. Whether I think you truly
are a liberal is irrelevant--what is relevant is that I enjoy the hell out
of yanking your chain, your rancorous responses are so predictable. I hope
your puppet strings never break.

I further hope you never burst a cerebral arteriole, your face must be so
livid and bloated as you pound out a response to my accusations.

BTW when are you going to produce a quote of my supposedly liberal views?

Why should I. See my first paragraph above.

... So you speak
derogatorily of me in the second person whenever you can.

Not really. I speak of you truthfully, the few times I mention you.

People who know me (not those of you who chest thump on Usenet) would
disagree with your assessment. But that, too, is irrelevant. You are the
"King" of the derogatory ad hominem attack, and it does amuse me.

... Your sour grapes
are most unbecoming a self-purported intellectual, such as yourself.

When did I ever "purport" myself to be an intellectual?

Every time you touch the keys, contradicting this person's contention,
expanding on that person's knowledge of an historic event, bloviating with
reckless abandon. You are a legend in your own mind.

... Can
you spell 'equanimity?'

Yes. Why, are you afraid you spelled it wrong?

We're making progress. Now, can you define it, or better yet, apply it to
yourself?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Sheesh... welfare has nothing to do with compassion or need, emergency
rooms have no interest in healing people, there should not be a safety
net for the disabled and elderly. What a humanitarian! Why you're just
like your heros Bu**** and Chumpy.

As such programs are applied by democrat candidates, compassion and/or need
have little to do with anything. They are a means to an end for such
politicians--to get elected. Of course the rhetoric emanating from their
mouths would lead one to believe they are the most sensitive and
compassionate beings in the galaxy. Of course we all know how politicians
lie to get elected, don't we. :-)

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
Well spoke, Max. Perhaps folks are waking up to the fallacy of "I'm
gonna
give you something and the other fellah is gonna pay for it."

Dave means well spoken, but he can't type well.

Ganz, for you to point up others' misspelling and typos is akin to bin Laden
accusing others of terrorism.

Doubtful, considering that the democrats depend upon just such a
philosophy
in order to get elected. The last election should have taught them
something, but the dem learning curve appears to be uncannily flat these
days.

What I've learned is that there are a lot of people in this country
who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, not even their
****wifes**** and children.

Dave: should we? Ah, it's not worth the trouble.

Jon: Compassion comes in all forms in this country. Some "compassionate"
people want to give the needy what they need. Other "compassionate" people
want to help the needy obtain what they need through their own
resourcefulness and abilities. Both are compassionate, but the philosophy
of aid is quite different, often diametrically opposed. Just because one
philosophy or the other doesn't fall within your paradigm of humanity
doesn't mean it's wrong.

Birds ultimately throw their young out of the nest in order to force them to
learn to fly and become self-sufficient. They could just continue to bring
them worms, at least until the parents die, but that wouldn't accomplish
much in the long run, would it?

Max

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Sheesh... welfare has nothing to do with compassion or need, emergency
rooms have no interest in healing people, there should not be a safety
net for the disabled and elderly. What a humanitarian! Why you're just
like your heros Bu**** and Chumpy.

As such programs are applied by democrat candidates, compassion and/or need
have little to do with anything. They are a means to an end for such
politicians--to get elected. Of course the rhetoric emanating from their
mouths would lead one to believe they are the most sensitive and
compassionate beings in the galaxy. Of course we all know how politicians
lie to get elected, don't we. :-)

Were you born stupid or did something happen to you along the way?
What difference does it make who administers the welfare for it to be
a compassionate act?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Not really. But you have proved yourself a serious knee-jerk fascist
whacko.

Maxprop wrote:
Only from your viewpoint of retaliatory vitriol.

Vitriol? Hardly. Just pointing out the facts.

... Whether I think you truly
are a liberal is irrelevant--what is relevant is that I enjoy the hell out
of yanking your chain, your rancorous responses are so predictable. I hope
your puppet strings never break.

I further hope you never burst a cerebral arteriole, your face must be so
livid and bloated as you pound out a response to my accusations.

Not likely. I could not care less.



BTW when are you going to produce a quote of my supposedly liberal views?


Why should I.

In other words, you're full of ****. You're just a pro-Bush
Bobsprit/BittyBill.

DSK

OzOne wrote in message

Max, your spouting is rarely accompanied by anything other than your
opinion.

Could you tell me how you came to this statement

" Theworking poor, the union workers, the so-called disenfranchised
poor and
minorities, who all voted for Kerry,"

Kerry pandered to the above groups. Pandered? Hell, he spent mega-millions
courting union members/workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. He
practically lived there. And the dems have always pandered to the working
poor and the truly poor, promising increases in the minimum wage, welfare
perks, socialized health care, and other entitlements. As for minorities, W
garnered a larger percentage of black and Hispanic voters this go-round than
in 2000. He got roughly 11%, up from roughly 7%, according to several media
sources.

The above is not opinion, rather fact. I have no interest in wasting time
searching out a resource for you to verify this, but it doesn't take an
Einstein to know that what I've contended is true. Some of the above has
been detailed by numerous media sources, but of course you probably wouldn't
see them, hanging off the bottom of the globe as you are.

BS? One man's BS is another's axiom. That applies to you, too.

Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:03:46 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Dave" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:20:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
said:

It's the ones with passports that voted for W, Mr. Steven Hawking.
The
working poor, the union workers, the so-called disenfranchised poor
and
minorities, who all voted for Kerry, don't have the means to travel.

Wait a minute, Max. You left out a few folks. The trial lawyers, the
guvmint
workers, the teachers, the Hollywood moguls......

I wasn't attempting to be all-inclusive; only to point up the fallacy of
Oz's contention that conservative Americans don't travel abroad. Of
course
Oz is still convinced that only those with IQs below 35 voted for W.

Max

Max, considering that only about 22% of US citizens have passports,
I'd think that it would be fair to assume that few Americans travel
abroad.

That's one in five. How does that compare with other countries?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Were you born stupid or did something happen to you along the way?
What difference does it make who administers the welfare for it to be
a compassionate act?

You really should read Bill O'Reilly's book, "Who's Looking Out For You."

It's full of mountains of truth, much unpleasant, but truth nonetheless. If
you truly believe the government is looking out for the poor, the
disadvantaged, or even YOU, you are unquestionably more stupid than I've
suspected heretofore.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Gee dad, I didn't ****ing ask you did I.

This is Usenet, you ignorant putz. You didn't have to.

Jon: Compassion comes in all forms in this country. Some
"compassionate"
people want to give the needy what they need. Other "compassionate"
people
want to help the needy obtain what they need through their own
resourcefulness and abilities. Both are compassionate, but the
philosophy
of aid is quite different, often diametrically opposed. Just because one
philosophy or the other doesn't fall within your paradigm of humanity
doesn't mean it's wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? The only thing BushCo is
compassionate about is his big-business friends. He bends over for
them all the time, but is only interested in reeming the rest of us.

What a brilliant answer. The above paragraph had nothing to do with Bush.
You are so monofixated with hatred toward Bush that you are unable to
separate philosophical discussions from W.

Birds ultimately throw their young out of the nest in order to force them
to
learn to fly and become self-sufficient. They could just continue to
bring
them worms, at least until the parents die, but that wouldn't accomplish
much in the long run, would it?

What a load of crap!

If you have kids, I pity them. No doubt you'll house, clothe, feed, and
finance them until you and your spouse run out of money, patience, or time.
And ultimately they'll be worthless leaches on society. Good work, idiot.

Max

wrote in message

ALL Americans with an IQ below 35 voted for Bush.

It surprises me to learn you, too, voted for him. Interesting.

Max