On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 01:56:06AM +0000, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:59:12 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:48:53 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:03:19 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:40:04 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 25, 12:57 pm, Cliff wrote:

You're
one of Harry's friends, Right? Why don't you keep your
intellectually dishonest fairy tales to your group.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
Ask Rush?

Why ask Rush, he didn't sign the declaration of war?

WHAT "declaration of war"??

Why not ask
Clinton and the rest of the dems, the leaders and intelligence
agencies of most of the countries in the free world, wouldn't suit
your agenda?

The ones that said "No "WMDs"?
Or like what the NIE said? The REAL one?


we don't need the crossposting
here...

And you would just as happily be ignorant, right? -- Cliff

Hummm, being accused of being ignorant by someone who is
intellectually dishonest? What does that mean? Answer, nothing.
snerk Have fun with Harry, he loves to make up stories, maybe you
all can have a contest...

Rush promotes brain rot.
--
Cliff


Rush Limbaugh slaps you ignorant, Kook Ade drinking liberals till
you cry! You can't refute him. You don't even try to argue with him
because you know he has the facts behind his arguments and you just
have your 'feelings' of inadequacy. I wish all you liberals would
crawl away and die somewhere.

Wow, where does one begin with the mistaken assumptions in the
previous paragraph? From Cliff's postings labeling Bush and his
unrestrained spending as "liberals" make that assumption unsound.

The term "liberal" refers to more than liberal spending policies.
Liberal (politically speaking) also means:

1) pro big government
2) pro big taxes on the rich and a free ride for the poor 3) not
understanding there is no such thing as a free ride 4) socialism
rather than capitalism
5) belief in every 'feel good' cause
6) pro abortion legislated force tax payers to foot the bill 7)
anti-religion legislated
8) Big Brother is the answer force tax payers to foot the bill 9)
anti-military and anti-war never understanding that without the
military and war they would be slaves
10) re-write history and teach liberal propaganda in the public
schools 11) tax AND spend
12) do as I say, not as I do
13) proudly bash the USA and the freedom it represents 14) openly hate
and openly express hate but label it a hate crime if somebody else
does it
15) happy to have liberal judges advance the liberal cause in the
courts by legislating from the bench
16) proudly bash the military and the commander in chief provided he
is not a liberal
17) give aid and comfort to terrorists and give them full
Constitutional rights
18) put lame environmentalist causes and little fishes like the snail
darter before progress for the human U.S. citizen 19) be against
progress and work to make everybody have a lower standard of living in
the name of the environment. 20) blindly believe any and all liberal
propagana such as human caused global warming 21) bring George Bush,
Dick Cheney and Haliburton into every discussion and show unbridled
hatred.
22) keep playing the race card but call others racists 23) socialized
medicine

"Liberal" also means supporting Civil Rights, the Constitution and Bill
of Rights. Therefore the term is semantically void as is modern the
derogative "conservative" which means economically conservative.


Duh! Wherever did you ever come up with these delusions.

Cease the pejoratives or this dialog is going to turn nasty.

Conservatives
believe in upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written with
consideration to what the founders really said. Sometimes this is called
the "originalist" view.

However "conservatives" like neocons, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle,
Rumsfeld, Poindexter, and the Republican party wiped their collective
asses with the Constitution when they presented, and had passed, "The
Patriot Act."

If you are registered Republican then you supported massive violations of
civil rights.

Liberals, on the other hand, view the Constitution and Bill of Rights as
living breathing documents to be interpreted and modified to fit their
agenda. They constantly take this issue or that issue to the courts in
an attempt to amend the Constitution via court order which is prohibited
by the Constitution.

Remember, I am discussing political liberalism and its tenets.

No, you're discussing a straw man. Learn the true definition of
"liberal" not your opinion.

There's more but you get the picture.

Secondly, as to arguing Limbaugh's rants, you didn't post one for
anyone to dissect and disprove so how can you claim that
"he[Limbaugh] has all the facts"?

And you didn't either. All you liberals do is call him names. It's
NEVER anything but name calling with you liberals. Rush's material is
freely available but one never sees a liberal posting it then refuting
it point by point using facts. You don't because you can't. He is
proven 98.8% right.

Not my issue, you brought it up claiming "You don't even try to argue
with him..." then fail to offer one issue to repudiate. It's your
issue and you've made a grandiose assertion without fact.

And you are arguing in circles. It is not up to me to post something
Rush said or wrote and then invite you liberals to refute it. It is up
to you to chose something and refute it so you can prove me wrong. Your
idiotic liberal thinking has you believing that it is MY job to prove
while it is your job to disprove. Get it?

Now you're weaseling out of your statement. If you cannot post a
Limbaugh statement that I've been unable to refute then you are evading.

Third, how did you come by your claim that unnamed posters have a
"feelings of inadequacy"? Do you know any of us? Which posters,
specifically, have a "feelings of inadequacy"? Show your work.

Feelings of inadequacy are easy enough to glean from the whinings of
liberals whose 'woe is me' attitudes are freely conveyed. I don't have
to know any of you personally to understand your modus operandi. Take
the global warming hoax. Those who buy into it do so because they feel
inadequate and want to engage in a little payback. They want to knock
down a notch or two those more affluent than themselves. They want to
punish the rich and they want to hurt big oil, big business, big
energy, big sugar, big pharmacy, big automobile, etc. because they
represent success and progress while the liberal knows his philosophy
represents failure and regression. (If *I* can't have it then nobody
else can either!)

Ah, it's your opinion. No fact.

Look around you. That's all the fact any rational being needs. Get a
clue.

Again, no facts, opinion on your part.

Forth, the only people crawling at this moment are the neocons and
bushbots who were severely bitch-slapped back into the 11th century
in the previous election.

Tell that to the almost 60 million people who did not vote for B.
Hussein Obama. The difference in the election was around 9 million
votes. This is not exactly a landslide for Obama, you know. Also you
can't be so stupid that you don't realize there is an ebb and flow to
these elections. You simply use it as a means to express your
bitterness and hatred. Typical liberal outlook, BTW.

Many of us didn't vote for Obama and are not ditto-heads. It was the
literate who did a mass-exodus from the Republican platform. Bush,
McCain and Palin lost the election, Obama didn't win. The repulsive
candidates put forth by the neo-Republican Party is the root of your
repudiation, not the love for Obama.

I agree with you here. The Republican Party has turned out to be way too
liberal and for that they deserved to be rejected.

Good call.

It almost amuses me to peek in this group from time to time to see
what people are saying about their government. Apparently your
culture has progressed to the point where the narrow confines of
left/right political thinking are all that remains for public debate.

Politicians on both sides could be assasinating their critics, and
indeed, raping and pillaging the countryside individually and
severally, and you dumb ****s would still be doggedly bitching to
each other about hanging chads while quietly passing notes under the
table.

Hey, don't ever get off your ass and actually do anything meaningful.
Your peers might not approve.

Consider your next posting carefully and provide legitimate,
certifiable, claims or it, too, will be shredded by logic, not
bull****.

If you think what you wrote represents logic then you are sadly
mistaken. It was nothing more than a demonstration of liberal
ineptitude and side-stepping.

Yet you still are unable to provide a single issue of Limbaugh's which
you claim I am unable to repudiate.

Not my job. You pick something and refute it. I'm sure you can google up
his website. Your contention is Rush is a liar. Yet you post no proof of
your assertion. Not my job, mon!

Yes, it is your job. You made the allegation that liberals couldn't
argue the facts as presented by Limbaugh, my paraphrase, so it is your
responsibility to show some Limbaugh assertions that I cannot refute.
Not common stuff, like "Democrats spend" but contentious claims.

You probably wouldn't know a contentious claim if it bit you in the
ass.

Your true kookiness is embodied in your "arrest Bush" nonsense.
Totally obsessed you are. Full of hate and dreaming of revenge. Sick,
dude, sick!

Yup, I freely admit being a patriot, not a loyalist, however it is not
revenge but principles which respect the Constitution, Bill of Rights,
law and justice. Neither Bush, nor you, can commit crimes in my name
and get away with it.

The full congress of the United States authorized, almost unanimously,
the president to go to war with Iraq.

Nope.

What phrasing. Imagine GWB on the ground in Iraq, engaging the forced
of evil. Surely he must be thinking of something else, or otherwise
he is deluded beyond reason.

Get a clue. Stop blaming it on the President. He could not have gone to
war without the approval of the congress. Be rational. If you're going
to blame then put the blame squarely on those who gave permission. Don't
shoot the messenger. It makes you look ignorant.

Heh, don't blame the criminal for his crimes. Sounds like what Limbaugh
whines about for drug users _after_ he's arrested.

Haven't you heard? The criminal is shaped by his genetics to have a
propensity towards anti-social behaviour, some more than others. When
a criminal offends it is an expression of his inner nature and he (the
person, not the chromosomes) should be dealt with in a civilized
fashion. We know that concentrated therapy is even today sometimes
capable of giving a person the ability to suppress their criminal
nature and thereby function as a contributing member of society. In
the future, with more advanced therapies, who knows? Centuries from
today we may even succeed in eliminating the criminal element from our
society forever.

I believe this is a laudable goal.

Look in the Constitution and see what it has to say about 'declaring
war.' It just might surprise you to find that there need be no formal
declaration of war and that what the Congress approved was tantamount to
a declaration of war as some sort of signed (imaginary) document.

Again, you've failed to provide a single cite.

Just opinion.

Stick with what you really know. Keep missing the point and passing
notes. It's what you're clearly good at.


Regards,

Steve

--
ACK ACK. ACK, ACK ACK ACK; ACK. ACK. ACK. ACK ACK ACK. ACK.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:59:58 +0000 (UTC), "Steve
wrote:

Heh, don't blame the criminal for his crimes. Sounds like what Limbaugh
whines about for drug users _after_ he's arrested.

Haven't you heard? The criminal is shaped by his genetics to have a
propensity towards anti-social behaviour, some more than others. When
a criminal offends it is an expression of his inner nature and he (the
person, not the chromosomes) should be dealt with in a civilized
fashion.

It's sad to see many US States spending more on jails than on
higher education.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:52:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:59:58 +0000 (UTC), "Steve
wrote:

Heh, don't blame the criminal for his crimes. Sounds like what Limbaugh
whines about for drug users _after_ he's arrested.

Haven't you heard? The criminal is shaped by his genetics to have a
propensity towards anti-social behaviour, some more than others. When
a criminal offends it is an expression of his inner nature and he (the
person, not the chromosomes) should be dealt with in a civilized
fashion.

It's sad to see many US States spending more on jails than on
higher education.

It's sad to see so many Democrats occupying prison cells.

Maybe that's why liberals want felons to have the right to vote.
--
John H

* Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them. *