Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:35:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.
Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.
If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

No, you are labeled a hypocrite, regardless, by the *other* or the
*other other* self-righteous side.....

Gene it is too bad that you have never asked me my views on organized
religion, you would be surprised by my views. When I question your rabid
views of religion you make the assumption that I am a fundie. You like
to come across as a live and let live type of person. Yes, when people
question your authority or your positions your behavior is often worse
than a fundie.

NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it
(still don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I
don't like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the
same exact thing with Obama.

If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only
speak up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in
opposition with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

You certainly aren't describing me. I speak up to Harry and his minion
all of the time.

I am not talking about Harry nor his minions.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:14:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:35:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.
Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.
If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

No, you are labeled a hypocrite, regardless, by the *other* or the
*other other* self-righteous side.....

Gene it is too bad that you have never asked me my views on organized
religion, you would be surprised by my views. When I question your rabid
views of religion you make the assumption that I am a fundie. You like
to come across as a live and let live type of person. Yes, when people
question your authority or your positions your behavior is often worse
than a fundie.

He does like to make assumptions about the religious beliefs of
others. He's never queried me either, yet he assumes I have beliefs he
knows nothing of.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:05:12 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:24:13 -0400, J. Leo
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:14:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:35:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.
Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.
If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

No, you are labeled a hypocrite, regardless, by the *other* or the
*other other* self-righteous side.....

Gene it is too bad that you have never asked me my views on organized
religion, you would be surprised by my views. When I question your rabid
views of religion you make the assumption that I am a fundie. You like
to come across as a live and let live type of person. Yes, when people
question your authority or your positions your behavior is often worse
than a fundie.

He does like to make assumptions about the religious beliefs of
others. He's never queried me either, yet he assumes I have beliefs he
knows nothing of.

Both of you have made allegations that I have made assumptions about
you. Please point to the post where I made any sort of assumption
regarding what or how you personally believe...

Go find any sentence of yours that contains the phrase 'you folks'.
I'm not doing the searching for you.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:19:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

I speak up to Harry and his minions
all of the time.

I used to, but it became obvious, that to say *anything*, was
somewhere between pouring water on a duck's back and fanning the
flames.

I always assumed that the *other* side would be smart enough to catch
on and "nip it in the bud;" sort of a one hand clapping scenario.

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

What else could it be?


You have conversations with Loogy. I don't. I avoid stepping "in it"
with most of the the non-boating or "rarely boats" slime in this
newsgroup, yet most of them are obsessed with me, even though I ignore
them.

This isn't a "boating" newsgroup anymore. Other than you and a couple of
others, with whom it is worthwhile to discuss boats? As I have stated
several times, I have no interest in the children or grandchildren of
people I don't know, or golf, or recipes for high cholesterol redneck
food, or homebrew beer, or travel trailers, or "back when we were young
and losing the war in Vietnam, et cetera.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:10:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:19:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

I speak up to Harry and his minions
all of the time.

I used to, but it became obvious, that to say *anything*, was
somewhere between pouring water on a duck's back and fanning the
flames.

I always assumed that the *other* side would be smart enough to catch
on and "nip it in the bud;" sort of a one hand clapping scenario.

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

What else could it be?


You have conversations with Loogy. I don't. I avoid stepping "in it"
with most of the the non-boating or "rarely boats" slime in this
newsgroup, yet most of them are obsessed with me, even though I ignore
them.

This isn't a "boating" newsgroup anymore. Other than you and a couple of
others, with whom it is worthwhile to discuss boats? As I have stated
several times, I have no interest in the children or grandchildren of
people I don't know, or golf, or recipes for high cholesterol redneck
food, or homebrew beer, or travel trailers, or "back when we were young
and losing the war in Vietnam, et cetera.

Don't contradict Gene, he doesn't cotton to it.

jps wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:10:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:19:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

I speak up to Harry and his minions
all of the time.
I used to, but it became obvious, that to say *anything*, was
somewhere between pouring water on a duck's back and fanning the
flames.

I always assumed that the *other* side would be smart enough to catch
on and "nip it in the bud;" sort of a one hand clapping scenario.

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

What else could it be?

You have conversations with Loogy. I don't. I avoid stepping "in it"
with most of the the non-boating or "rarely boats" slime in this
newsgroup, yet most of them are obsessed with me, even though I ignore
them.

This isn't a "boating" newsgroup anymore. Other than you and a couple of
others, with whom it is worthwhile to discuss boats? As I have stated
several times, I have no interest in the children or grandchildren of
people I don't know, or golf, or recipes for high cholesterol redneck
food, or homebrew beer, or travel trailers, or "back when we were young
and losing the war in Vietnam, et cetera.

Don't contradict Gene, he doesn't cotton to it.


I have to cut gene some slack, because, as you know, the "rules" require
each of us to maintain discussions with at least one fleeg* in this
newsgroup. Mine is JustHateaFreak...gene's must be loogy.





* fleeg a person with a flat-lined EEG.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Nobody was putting mustaches or swasticka's on Obama until Pelosi said
they were and she was called on it.. Only after did the pictures start
showing up but you can be sure it wasn't gradnma' and grandpa' who were
posting them. It was DNC operatives trying to save Pelosi's lying ass
again...

--
Wafa free since 2009

H the K wrote:
Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:19:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

I speak up to Harry and his minions all of the time.

I used to, but it became obvious, that to say *anything*, was
somewhere between pouring water on a duck's back and fanning the
flames.

I always assumed that the *other* side would be smart enough to catch
on and "nip it in the bud;" sort of a one hand clapping scenario.

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

What else could it be?


You have conversations with Loogy. I don't. I avoid stepping "in it"
with most of the the non-boating or "rarely boats" slime in this
newsgroup, yet most of them are obsessed with me, even though I ignore
them.

This isn't a "boating" newsgroup anymore. Other than you and a couple of
others, with whom it is worthwhile to discuss boats? As I have stated
several times, I have no interest in the children or grandchildren of
people I don't know, or golf, or recipes for high cholesterol redneck
food, or homebrew beer, or travel trailers, or "back when we were young
and losing the war in Vietnam, et cetera.


Can we count on you to keep your fat mouth shut on the topics that don't
interest you? Didn't think so.

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Nobody was putting mustaches or swasticka's on Obama until Pelosi said
they were and she was called on it.. Only after did the pictures start
showing up but you can be sure it wasn't gradnma' and grandpa' who were
posting them. It was DNC operatives trying to save Pelosi's lying ass
again...



It's Sunday morning. You should be in church instead of drinking O.J.
laced with your old stash of terpin hydrate.