Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news:WsSdnWnEBJE7kyXXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@posted. gtinet...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.

Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html


This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.

In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H


Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?


Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 9/22/09 6:20 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.

Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html


This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.

In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H


Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?


Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.




Herring is playing word games...again. He thinks it makes him
look...clever.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:20:33 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news:WsSdnWnEBJE7kyXXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@posted .gtinet...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.

Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html


This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.

In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H


Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?


Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.


Learn to speak. I said no one served 'under' me.

I realize you're just pretending, but sometimes you should knock off
the pretense and be sensible.
--

John H

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.
Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html

This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.
In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H

Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?

Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.



™ is more professional!

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.
Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html

This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.
In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H

Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?

Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.



What the hell is the difference, dummy? Do you really need to know?

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

H the K wrote:
On 9/22/09 6:20 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:42 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:03:57 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I believe that no patriotic American would even entertain such a
notion
of harming a president.

Who said they were patriotic? Death threats against the President
are
up
400% over Bush's last year in office, and in Bush's last years, he
wasn't
very popular. Since Carter is always wrong, we know it can't be
racism.
So, it must be the Right has some un-American trash in it's midst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Service.html



This is called "Bush rationale" apparently.

In reverse...you went off the deep end over a picture of Air Force
One
with some black spots on it. Yet, I'll bet there was no outcry from
you over any of the Bush assassination depictions.

Wonder why? Surely not because you're a liberal friend of Harry's!
--

John H


Like I said, you sound like a four year old. I have some experience
with
them. You're obviously a lot older than that and sometimes you seem to
be
thoughtful, so I can only surmise you're just being mean for no reason
other than some perverse pleasure. Have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That's out Lt Colonel.
Could you imagine serving under him in the army?


Actually Donnie, no one served 'under' me in the Army, male or female.
Your comment was quite sexist and unnecessary.

You should apologize to the plum.
--

John H

Were you, or were you not in charge of people of lesser rank?
Don't play games with terminology.




Herring is playing word games...again. He thinks it makes him
look...clever.


You played the game - and lost.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 21-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

So then you think it's funny to shoot at planes with the presidential
seal

on them?

ONLY because no one knows what Pelosi's plane looks like.


Sickening. Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh mentality.

You must spend a lot of your time staring at the idiot box or in your car at
a drive through. Government "employee" or union member?

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On 21-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

So then you think it's funny to shoot at planes with the presidential
seal

on them?

ONLY because no one knows what Pelosi's plane looks like.


Sickening. Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh mentality.

You must spend a lot of your time staring at the idiot box or in your car
at
a drive through. Government "employee" or union member?

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.


?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that makes
you feel better.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.


?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery)


Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.


?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery)


Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????


Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Sep 22, 10:49*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...





On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office, you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? *That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. *And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have..
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? *BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...





On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?


Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Sep 23, 1:11*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Correct.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...





On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Steve ;-)

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Sep 23, 10:43*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": *Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Steve ;-)

President Bush had the highest government job in the land, so by your
definition, he is brilliant!!

Jack ;-)

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Correct.


Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...





On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Steve ;-)

LOL - Does it count if I *had* a union job? I ran a forklift a long time ago
and had to join. Yes, it's not a typical female job.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 10:43 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Steve ;-)

President Bush had the highest government job in the land, so by your
definition, he is brilliant!!

Jack ;-)

I never thought (well, mostly) that GWB was stupid. I thought he was an
&*shole, but not stupid.



--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Sep 23, 1:25*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

....
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?


The latter of course. lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 10:43 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you* put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status. You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member? BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Steve ;-)

President Bush had the highest government job in the land, so by your
definition, he is brilliant!!

Jack ;-)

I'd certainly like to be getting his deposit slip every month. And that's
nothing to say about the man, his politics, what he did, etc, etc, etc.

Just give me that deposit slip.

PLEASE!

Steve

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.
--

John H

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared
to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr.
Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.



Meta message - you can't come up with a logical argument.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

--
Dad loves his family, and he was a soldier. He wanted us all to remember
that...

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 9/23/09 9:52 PM, JustWait wrote:


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...



Your grief over your father's death is...underwhelming.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 23-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
*BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

"government employee" and "union member" would be insults to productive
citizens

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 23-Sep-2009, "SteveB" wrote:

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.


Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or
government job.

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is so deficient they have no choice but
to get a union or
government job.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 23-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union or

government job.

Steve ;-)

LOL - Does it count if I *had* a union job? I ran a forklift a long time
ago
and had to join. Yes, it's not a typical female job.

Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted
vehicle?????

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

wrote in message
...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.
--

John H


Pardon me, but I would say a lot better mannered. No offense to Harry of
course!

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On 23-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union
or

government job.

Steve ;-)

LOL - Does it count if I *had* a union job? I ran a forklift a long time
ago
and had to join. Yes, it's not a typical female job.

Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted
vehicle?????


Affirmative action? No. My dad was an executive at the company and wanted me
to get some real work experience.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 24-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted
vehicle?????


Affirmative action? No. My dad was an executive at the company and wanted
me
to get some real work experience.

Sorry, actually - I was just pulling your tail. Glad you did it.

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On 24-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and

rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

I'll go with the current description of chaos: http://www.usa.gov/

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:35:30 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

May the general public please forgive the 'rogue' prepositions in my
comments. I have too little time to proof these things adequately.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:35:30 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

May the general public please forgive the 'rogue' prepositions in my
comments. I have too little time to proof these things adequately.


Sadly...

--
Nom=de=Plume

Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
 

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.

I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But,
her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for
sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the
thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That
would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that
she means well, unlike Harry.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access