On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:45:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 05 May 2009 18:50:27 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...os-leaked.html

I recognize this whole thing about gay marriage may have you a little
confused. Truth is, girls are still a lot more attractive topless
than dudes, but thanks for the very pc link to what you've found to be
an attractive topless babe.

I will not disparage your choice since I eagerly endorse that beauty
is indeed in the eye of the beholder-- but please consider the
possibility that this link is slightly more satisfying...

http://thedirty.com/?p=157850

From what I understand about recent additions, this is pre-plastic.


She's also a class act and a smart cookie. I like her ..... ummmm style.

Eisboch

I don't understand why her high school classmates claim she's a skank
or why a modest Christian girl would want to pose for underware ads.

I think our definitions of smart cookie differ. She was smart enough
to take the free breast implants the pageant executives offered?

She was smart enough to set herself up as a spokesmodel for "not
opposite" marriage?

She was smart enough to make certain these photos of her wouldn't make
the press? If she poses for Playboy in a couple of years, will she
still be smart?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:45:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 05 May 2009 18:50:27 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...os-leaked.html

I recognize this whole thing about gay marriage may have you a little
confused. Truth is, girls are still a lot more attractive topless
than dudes, but thanks for the very pc link to what you've found to be
an attractive topless babe.

I will not disparage your choice since I eagerly endorse that beauty
is indeed in the eye of the beholder-- but please consider the
possibility that this link is slightly more satisfying...

http://thedirty.com/?p=157850

From what I understand about recent additions, this is pre-plastic.


She's also a class act and a smart cookie. I like her ..... ummmm
style.

Eisboch

I don't understand why her high school classmates claim she's a skank
or why a modest Christian girl would want to pose for underware ads.

I think our definitions of smart cookie differ. She was smart enough
to take the free breast implants the pageant executives offered?

She was smart enough to set herself up as a spokesmodel for "not
opposite" marriage?

She was smart enough to make certain these photos of her wouldn't make
the press? If she poses for Playboy in a couple of years, will she
still be smart?




Your conservatism is leaking.

Eisboch

On Tue, 5 May 2009 20:16:11 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:45:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 May 2009 18:50:27 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...os-leaked.html

I recognize this whole thing about gay marriage may have you a little
confused. Truth is, girls are still a lot more attractive topless
than dudes, but thanks for the very pc link to what you've found to be
an attractive topless babe.

I will not disparage your choice since I eagerly endorse that beauty
is indeed in the eye of the beholder-- but please consider the
possibility that this link is slightly more satisfying...

http://thedirty.com/?p=157850

From what I understand about recent additions, this is pre-plastic.


She's also a class act and a smart cookie. I like her ..... ummmm
style.

Eisboch

I don't understand why her high school classmates claim she's a skank
or why a modest Christian girl would want to pose for underware ads.

I think our definitions of smart cookie differ. She was smart enough
to take the free breast implants the pageant executives offered?

She was smart enough to set herself up as a spokesmodel for "not
opposite" marriage?

She was smart enough to make certain these photos of her wouldn't make
the press? If she poses for Playboy in a couple of years, will she
still be smart?

Your conservatism is leaking.

Eisboch

I do have traditional/conservative thoughts and freely admit it.

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Fake morals, fake Christianity, fake tits purchased behind the scenes
to enhance her odds. Most of these Xtians would mistake Jesus for a
liberal socialist and scream for his deportation.

On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 20:16:11 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:







"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:45:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 May 2009 18:50:27 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ge-opponent-to...

I recognize this whole thing about gay marriage may have you a little
confused. *Truth is, girls are still a lot more attractive topless
than dudes, but thanks for the very pc link to what you've found to be
an attractive topless babe.

I will not disparage your choice since I eagerly endorse that beauty
is indeed in the eye of the beholder-- but please consider the
possibility that this link is slightly more satisfying...

http://thedirty.com/?p=157850

From what I understand about recent additions, this is pre-plastic.

She's also a class act and a smart cookie. * I like her ..... *ummmm
style.

Eisboch

I don't understand why her high school classmates claim she's a skank
or why a modest Christian girl would want to pose for underware ads.

I think our definitions of smart cookie differ. *She was smart enough
to take the free breast *implants the pageant executives offered?

She was smart enough to set herself up as a spokesmodel for "not
opposite" marriage?

She was smart enough to make certain these photos of her wouldn't make
the press? *If she poses for Playboy in a couple of years, will she
still be smart?

Your conservatism is leaking.

Eisboch

I do have traditional/conservative thoughts and freely admit it.

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

You mean like you and your party fighting tooth and nail against my
constitutional rights? snerk


Fake morals, fake Christianity, fake tits purchased behind the scenes
to enhance her odds. *Most of these Xtians would mistake Jesus for a
liberal socialist and scream for his deportation.

As opposed to fake ethics, fake patriotism, fake science, and fake
tolerance?

You are funny a funny little troll...

On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

On May 5, 9:39*pm, wrote:
On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

They are not intelligent or honest enough to "see" that.. They
represent the worst America has to offer...

On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:39:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

I disagree.

I don't think you should own guns not meant for hunting or defending
one's property nor do I want to own guns other than for hunting or
defending my property.

I don't want people to be able to obtain guns through the gun show
loophole nor do I care to obtain guns through that manner.

I want women to have the right to determine what happens in their own
bodies.

I want to be free from warrantless wiretaps.

I want our elected officials to be held to the same standards to which
every citizen is held.

I want civil unions to carry the same legal weight that a civil
marriage carries.

I want our military to conduct themselves in keeping with conventions
and treaties to which we're a party and not take liberties with our
own laws in order to commit torture.

I want our government and military to stay out of the business of
religion and remain above endorsing any religion or way of life above
another.

I want citizens and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes,
eliminating tax loopholes and shelters that the well-founded and
corporations use to dodge taxes and shift the burden to
non-billionaires.

Can you cite any examples of what I want you to give up that I'm not
willing to give up myself or are you just a bag of wind?

Still funny?

jps wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:39:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 5, 8:42 pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.
Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

I disagree.

I don't think you should own guns not meant for hunting or defending
one's property nor do I want to own guns other than for hunting or
defending my property.

I don't want people to be able to obtain guns through the gun show
loophole nor do I care to obtain guns through that manner.

I want women to have the right to determine what happens in their own
bodies.

I want to be free from warrantless wiretaps.

I want our elected officials to be held to the same standards to which
every citizen is held.

I want civil unions to carry the same legal weight that a civil
marriage carries.

I want our military to conduct themselves in keeping with conventions
and treaties to which we're a party and not take liberties with our
own laws in order to commit torture.

I want our government and military to stay out of the business of
religion and remain above endorsing any religion or way of life above
another.

I want citizens and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes,
eliminating tax loopholes and shelters that the well-founded and
corporations use to dodge taxes and shift the burden to
non-billionaires.

Can you cite any examples of what I want you to give up that I'm not
willing to give up myself or are you just a bag of wind?

Still funny?


Thirdpoontang is a southern strategy racist. It's midweek, so he's busy
washing the stains out of the white sheet suit from last weekend's
merriment.

On May 5, 9:59*pm, jps wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:39:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

I disagree.

That's your right... and mine as well.

You should remember that it's already been shown that some of the most
avid anti-gun ultra-liberals have bodyguards that carry guns, or they
actually carry *themselves*. They want "joe public" to give up
theirs, while they keep their own guns around. It's not just a
conservative thing by any measure. Remember all those liberals in
obama's cabinet that didn't pay their taxes? They sure want us to,
eh?

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your
right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do
own a gun I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnell (with
armed bodygards)

"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the
government to rein in people's rights." - Bill Clinton (for effect)

Besides, my statement was mostly based on your actions and words here
over the last couple of months since you showed back up. You know,
when you're trying to act like you're superior, with a bigger house,
smarter wife, better screwdriver, and all that other BS you try to
spout. It gives us a glimpse inside your elitist "do as I say, not as
I do" mindset and attitude. harold was included because he owns guns,
but sides with you. No doubt, to a "T".

bunch of statements snipped

Hey, when you sober up you can make some sense. I agree, in
principle, with pretty much everything you stated. However, I don't
believe that you're being honest. You have presented yourself as
being far more radical both personally and in your beliefs, and the
fact that you dressed them up doesn't make *you* any more mainstream.
It's like putting lipstick on a pig, you know? Can't un-ring that
bell.

Maybe you just need to work on your presentation skills and honesty.
Try to keep the spittle down. :-

On Wed, 6 May 2009 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 5, 9:59*pm, jps wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:39:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 5, 8:42*pm, jps wrote:

It's typical that "neo-conservatives" want to restrict what others do
but reserve all freedoms for themselves.

Funny... you just described harold and yourself to a "T".

I disagree.

That's your right... and mine as well.

bunch of statements snipped

You're not funny and you didn't refute a single thing I said.

Again, you didn't refute a single thing I said. Can you hear that?

You didn't cite a single example of what I'd take from you that I'm
unwilling to live with myself.

You didn't even endorse the civil liberties you're supposedly
guaranteed by law.

You're no American. You're a wet sock that's molding in the hamper.