On Sep 21, 1:59*pm, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:27 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:07 am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:49 am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:50 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:05 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:00 pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
news:03ncb5hqbp27k9j58lgh7003r356b2fkem@4a x.com...
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg
Maybe Texas should suceed before Obama racks up too much debt. *Already a
world record for one idividual to rack up so much debt.
courtesy of the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the
middle class take it in the shorts
Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you didn't end up
so "middle class".

as i said, the rich hates the middle class.
That's not what you said.
sure you did. i left your words intact above. what do you wish to
retract or deny?
My comment was about what *you* wrote, not what I wrote.

what you wrote was that if i was smart i wouldn't be middle class.
those are your words, not mine

* You wrote
"as i said, the rich hates the middle class", but that was not what
you had previously written. *Your previous statement was "courtesy of
the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the middle class
take it in the shorts" *That says nothing about hate of anyone.

this is what you wrote. i can understand why you're embarrassed:

* Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you
didn't end up
so "middle class".

At first I thought your non sequitur responses were deliberate
attempts to obfuscate the issue. *I'm starting to believe that your
inability to follow a thread in a logical manner is intrinsic to your
nature.

i quoted you, verbatim, above. so, again, i ask:

what's wrong with being middle class? you right wingers seem to think
it's a sign of failure.

Too many Repubs think the only thing worth pursuing is wealth.


after all, jesus was rich, right?

wrote:

One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them.


I knew there was an explanation for the huge disparity in the reported
numbers of teabaggers- birthers-deathers-racists in DC for the
demonstration. I thought the rightie-racists were simply lying but I see
you looked up all the necessary logical terms to explain their bull****.



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

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:59 pm, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:27 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:07 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:49 am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:50 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:05 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:00 pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg
Maybe Texas should suceed before Obama racks up too much debt. Already a
world record for one idividual to rack up so much debt.
courtesy of the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the
middle class take it in the shorts
Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you didn't end up
so "middle class".
as i said, the rich hates the middle class.
That's not what you said.
sure you did. i left your words intact above. what do you wish to
retract or deny?
My comment was about what *you* wrote, not what I wrote.
what you wrote was that if i was smart i wouldn't be middle class.
those are your words, not mine
You wrote
"as i said, the rich hates the middle class", but that was not what
you had previously written. Your previous statement was "courtesy of
the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the middle class
take it in the shorts" That says nothing about hate of anyone.
this is what you wrote. i can understand why you're embarrassed:
Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you
didn't end up
so "middle class".
At first I thought your non sequitur responses were deliberate
attempts to obfuscate the issue. I'm starting to believe that your
inability to follow a thread in a logical manner is intrinsic to your
nature.
i quoted you, verbatim, above. so, again, i ask:
what's wrong with being middle class? you right wingers seem to think
it's a sign of failure.
Too many Repubs think the only thing worth pursuing is wealth.


after all, jesus was rich, right?


These right-wing Repubs claim to be Christian but they have nothing in
common with the life and teachings of the guy they claim as savior. If
anything, they are the antiChrist.



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

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:06:08 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 21, 1:59*pm, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:27 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:07 am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:49 am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:50 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:05 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:00 pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
news:03ncb5hqbp27k9j58lgh7003r356b2fkem@4a x.com...
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg
Maybe Texas should suceed before Obama racks up too much debt. *Already a
world record for one idividual to rack up so much debt.
courtesy of the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the
middle class take it in the shorts
Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you didn't end up
so "middle class".

as i said, the rich hates the middle class.
That's not what you said.
sure you did. i left your words intact above. what do you wish to
retract or deny?
My comment was about what *you* wrote, not what I wrote.

what you wrote was that if i was smart i wouldn't be middle class.
those are your words, not mine

* You wrote
"as i said, the rich hates the middle class", but that was not what
you had previously written. *Your previous statement was "courtesy of
the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the middle class
take it in the shorts" *That says nothing about hate of anyone.

this is what you wrote. i can understand why you're embarrassed:

* Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you
didn't end up
so "middle class".

At first I thought your non sequitur responses were deliberate
attempts to obfuscate the issue. *I'm starting to believe that your
inability to follow a thread in a logical manner is intrinsic to your
nature.

i quoted you, verbatim, above. so, again, i ask:

what's wrong with being middle class? you right wingers seem to think
it's a sign of failure.

Too many Repubs think the only thing worth pursuing is wealth.


after all, jesus was rich, right?

You're correct on this one;

NAS John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with
the glory which I had with You before the world was.

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

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:10:14 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:

One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them.


I knew there was an explanation for the huge disparity in the reported
numbers of teabaggers- birthers-deathers-racists in DC for the
demonstration. I thought the rightie-racists were simply lying but I see
you looked up all the necessary logical terms to explain their bull****.

Harry, you seem to be wrong about quite a few things. One of those
things that you can add to your list is that I "looked up all the
necessary logical terms." And another one that I haven't looked up
and appears to be the fallacy of choice with you (and others) is the
ignoratio elenchi. If you have any intellectual curiosity on this
matter you may do a search of the term in conjunction with Aristotle's
name.

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

On Sep 21, 1:31*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:27*pm, Jack wrote:





On Sep 21, 11:07*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:49*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 21, 7:50*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:54*pm, Jack wrote:

On Sep 20, 6:05*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message

.. .

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg

Maybe Texas should suceed before Obama racks up too much debt. *Already a
world record for one idividual to rack up so much debt.

courtesy of the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the
middle class take it in the shorts

Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you didn't end up
so "middle class".
as i said, the rich hates the middle class.

That's not what you said.

sure you did. i left your words intact above. what do you wish to
retract or deny?

My comment was about what *you* wrote, not what I wrote.

what you wrote was that if i was smart i wouldn't be middle class.
those are your words, not mine

Those aren't my words.


**You wrote

"as i said, the rich hates the middle class", but that was not what
you had previously written. *Your previous statement was "courtesy of
the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the middle class
take it in the shorts" *That says nothing about hate of anyone.

this is what you wrote. i can understand why you're embarrassed:

* Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you
didn't end up

so "middle class".
At first I thought your non sequitur responses were deliberate
attempts to obfuscate the issue. *I'm starting to believe that your
inability to follow a thread in a logical manner is intrinsic to your
nature.

i quoted you, verbatim, above. so, again, i ask:

what's wrong with being middle class? you right wingers seem to think
it's a sign of failure.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being middle class. You're
the one that was complaining about it, not me. I just observed that
if it's so bad being you, that *you* are the only one that could do,
or should have done, something about it.

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:10:14 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:

One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them.

I knew there was an explanation for the huge disparity in the reported
numbers of teabaggers- birthers-deathers-racists in DC for the
demonstration. I thought the rightie-racists were simply lying but I see
you looked up all the necessary logical terms to explain their bull****.

Harry, you seem to be wrong about quite a few things. One of those
things that you can add to your list is that I "looked up all the
necessary logical terms." And another one that I haven't looked up
and appears to be the fallacy of choice with you (and others) is the
ignoratio elenchi. If you have any intellectual curiosity on this
matter you may do a search of the term in conjunction with Aristotle's
name.


Ahh, but I know the terms...I don't have to look them up. I'm a liberal
arts grad, after all.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:43:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg
--

John H


I don't see what that's funny. Basically, it's making light out of
assassinating a president. When would this ever be funny.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I seem to vaguely remember something about a movie regarding the
assassination of President Bush. Does my memory fail me, or is that
correct? I think it is hilarious, and I KNOW it's a joke. Do you know
how I KNOW it is a joke? If he had really flown low over Texas, the
plane
would be a pile of smoking rubble. Texans are better shots than that.

Steve



I think you're just sick and should get some help.

You don't believe Texans can shoot better than that?
--

John H


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


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:10:14 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:

One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them.

I knew there was an explanation for the huge disparity in the reported
numbers of teabaggers- birthers-deathers-racists in DC for the
demonstration. I thought the rightie-racists were simply lying but I see
you looked up all the necessary logical terms to explain their bull****.

Harry, you seem to be wrong about quite a few things. One of those
things that you can add to your list is that I "looked up all the
necessary logical terms." And another one that I haven't looked up
and appears to be the fallacy of choice with you (and others) is the
ignoratio elenchi. If you have any intellectual curiosity on this
matter you may do a search of the term in conjunction with Aristotle's
name.


Ahh, but I know the terms...I don't have to look them up. I'm a liberal
arts grad, after all.

Wonderful! Perhaps you can help me, Harry, in determining the
correctness of this syllogism:

Harry is a liberal arts grad.
Harry doesn't have to look up definitions of particular informal
fallacies.
All Liberal Arts grads diligently study "logic."

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

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:10:32 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:10:14 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:

One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them.

I knew there was an explanation for the huge disparity in the reported
numbers of teabaggers- birthers-deathers-racists in DC for the
demonstration. I thought the rightie-racists were simply lying but I see
you looked up all the necessary logical terms to explain their bull****.

Harry, you seem to be wrong about quite a few things. One of those
things that you can add to your list is that I "looked up all the
necessary logical terms." And another one that I haven't looked up
and appears to be the fallacy of choice with you (and others) is the
ignoratio elenchi. If you have any intellectual curiosity on this
matter you may do a search of the term in conjunction with Aristotle's
name.


Ahh, but I know the terms...I don't have to look them up. I'm a liberal
arts grad, after all.

Wonderful! Perhaps you can help me, Harry, in determining the
correctness of this syllogism:

Harry is a liberal arts grad.
Harry doesn't have to look up definitions of particular informal
fallacies.
All Liberal Arts grads diligently study "logic."

Permit me to clarify the syllogism:

Harry is a Liberal Arts grad.
Harry doesn't have to look up definitions of particular informal
fallacies.
Ergo, all Liberal Arts grads diligently study "logic."

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