"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Bart wrote, On 5/29/2007 10:50 PM:
On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:
It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.
Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Frankly, I see far, far more hate coming from the conservatives than from
the liberals.


I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's.

Frankly, I don't like the use of the term; I think it should be reserved
for the true Nazis, so that we never forget who they were and what they
did.

However, there have been lots of cases where conservatives truly do
support the the Nazis and are worthy of the epithet. For example, recall
that Buchanan pushed Regan into giving the speech at Bitburg, and even
wrote the line about how SS troops were just victims. Even Rudi Giuliani
called him a Nazi when he tried to block the extradition of a
concentration camp guard.

And we shouldn't forget that a primary attribute of Nazis is that they
excluded anyone they didn't like from their society. Jews, Gypsies, Gays,
intellectuals and other groups were considered not worthy of being
Germans. Whenever I hear hate rhetoric, almost always from conservatives,
about how some people or group is "anti-American" or "not worthy of being
an American" the parallel to Nazi rhetoric is clear. The most obvious
case is the anti-gay rhetoric of the far right, which could have been
taken verbatim from Naxi literature.

Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?

I live in a hotbed of East Coast Liberalism, in fact I lived and/or worked
in Cambridge for most of my life, and I never once heard a grownup "bash"
anyone who served in the military (other than a general or two). This is
purely a fantasy of your sick imagination. The acts of a few kids does
not represent the feeling of half the country.

It is true that liberals bash the politicians who send kids off to die in
pointless wars. BTW, how many of the administration neo-cons ever served
in the real military? How many even remembered to show up at their
reserve meetings?

Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?

Again, the misguided acts of a handful of kids 40 years ago. Get over it!

All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Are your really going to tell us you don't feel hatred for Jane?

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.


The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
conservatives trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Republican Party.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

You, Joe. You're the one who took a random news story about vandals and
labeling it as the act of "liberals." This is about as profane as it
gets. Your hatred fills your every post. If you claim to be a
spokesperson for the conservatives, then you're claiming that they are all
as filled with hatred as you are.



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

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

Capt. JG wrote:



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism? Even
though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern. There
is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to believe it.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism? Even
though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern. There
is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is
that the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the
cause is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by
anyone with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern.
There is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to
believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is that
the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the cause
is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by anyone
with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

Uhhuh... well, according to you I guess.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern.
There is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to
believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is that
the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the cause
is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by anyone
with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

Uhhuh... well, according to you I guess.

This is your stock denial response. I'm surprised, however, that
Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, and Rove didn't make it in the stock response as
well.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern.
There is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to
believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is
that the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the
cause is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by
anyone with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

Uhhuh... well, according to you I guess.

This is your stock denial response. I'm surprised, however, that
Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, and Rove didn't make it in the stock response
as well.

Max



But they made it into yours! Hooorah! Thanks!!


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