| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 news  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? |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 news 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 |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 news 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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 news 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 |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humor! Obama's low pass over Texas
|
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 news
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 |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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/ |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New Pass | General | |||
| Active Pass | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| HOW DO I BY PASS THE IGNITION KEY ? | General | |||
| OT - Another prediction comes to pass! | General | |||
| OT--Here's one bill that will never pass | General | |||
![Jack[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
