On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote:


And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!


yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?

No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)

Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.

Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:21:03 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote:


And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!


yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?

No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)

Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.

Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't.

Good. He does make a fitting example however.
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.

Maybe it does.

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John
Worse than that. Krause wishes death to people he doesn't like. Tell me
any legitimate religion that sanctions death wishes.

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John


Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn
from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion
provides special training in that area.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:57:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John


Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn
from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion
provides special training in that area.

jiggle, jiggle....you're so friggin' easy, Krause!
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!
yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.
A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.
Maybe it does.

No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior.
--

John


That's funny. You don't look Jewish.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote:

And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?
No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less
about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept.
Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular
progressives.

Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;)
Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't
a religous concept.

If you're interested do some homework.

A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look
at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't
promote lying and name-calling.

Maybe it does.

No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior.
--
We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

John

On Dec 23, 3:33*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:54:31 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking
about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under
wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and
real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids
are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s
sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person,
and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama
clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very
expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how
the lemmings can be so hypocritical.

There is a small difference. *Sarah Palin was running for office. *
Michelle Obama is not.

No, the difference is the blunders Michelle made were left alone and
she was allowed to hide from the media who sent a bigger army to
Alaska to check out Palins church than they did to Chicago to check
out Ayers, that crazy white preacher, Reverend Wright, Rezko, and the
rest of the organized criminal and crim organizations the Obama's
represented and worked for... They they added to the fun by simply
making it up as they went along with Palin...

On Dec 23, 4:18*pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote:



And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a
few years back.
--
John

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will?

No, they are an arm of the DNC and thus have no accountability..