John H. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:34:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"KotP-A" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:49:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Now then, how do I "feel" about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh, like Michael
Moore, is a propagandist. He resorts to informal fallacy. He is
puerile in his mockery of others. He is far from someone I would care
to emulate or revere. However, as much as I find Michael Moore to be
offensive, I don't begrudge him making his 'documentaries.' I have as
much license to rebut and refute his campaign of disinformation.
Similarly, I don't begrudge Limbaugh having an ownership stake in an
NFL team. I have license and the freedom to not watch a Ram's game,
should I choose.

Hopefully, I can tie all of this together to make it somewhat
sensible. What would Jesus do about Rush? He would forgive him.
Regardless of any comments by jps, that was well done!
These folks sport their royal double-standards in the melee of
political conversation, and when it's shown that it's nothing but tin
foil, they lose their emblematic moral dilemma post haste. They're
like dodge convertibles, if you know what I mean.

As weary as I was last night, though, when I wrote this, I'm surprised
I was able to articulate any cogent thought at all. :)

I haven't really been following this thread, but what they heck...
I think, from your subsequent paragraph, you should continue on that
track.

I am _not_ a football fan. I don't see the big deal with Rush buying a
team.
I believe the commissioner said that he (or was it other owners) would
block
it since owners are expected to not make inflamatory public statements.
Also, I'm not sure why Rush would want to buy a team... I heard someone
say
it's a perfect socialistic system, as the profits from TV are equally
divided. Perhaps Rush doesn't know this.. we wouldn't want his fat head to
explode! Ok, to give him some credit, he supposedly lost 85 lbs. recently.
lol

I think you don't know much about women.

Not your variety, that's for damn sure.

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.

Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.

Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.
Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

No. I don't think so unless he has insomnia.

In article , says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.
Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

No. I don't think so unless he has insomnia.

If you were Harry, would you be able to sleep at night? Either way the
use of the word "snerky" a while back, gave him away. Remember, everyone
and I do mean almost everyone had plonked Harry, and you know he can't
stand not being heard, even if it means he has to "play nice" for a
while... Still, it's better than last time when he flooded us with the
bedwetters from other groups...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.
Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

No. I don't think so unless he has insomnia.

If you were Harry, would you be able to sleep at night? Either way the
use of the word "snerky" a while back, gave him away. Remember, everyone
and I do mean almost everyone had plonked Harry, and you know he can't
stand not being heard, even if it means he has to "play nice" for a
while... Still, it's better than last time when he flooded us with the
bedwetters from other groups...


snerky snerky What a dufus.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 10/16/09 1:20 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
In , says...

Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.
Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

No. I don't think so unless he has insomnia.

If you were Harry, would you be able to sleep at night? Either way the
use of the word "snerky" a while back, gave him away. Remember, everyone
and I do mean almost everyone had plonked Harry, and you know he can't
stand not being heard, even if it means he has to "play nice" for a
while... Still, it's better than last time when he flooded us with the
bedwetters from other groups...


snerky snerky What a dufus.



Indeed, Scotty Ingersoll is either the dumbest poster here, or tied for
dumbest with his buddy Loogy. We also have, as you have noticed, a
motley collection of right-wing scumballs who seem terrified by your
presence here.

You go, girl!



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykaa4k7

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.
Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

GUYS, IT'S HARRY!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT???

No. I don't think so unless he has insomnia.

If you were Harry, would you be able to sleep at night? Either way the
use of the word "snerky" a while back, gave him away. Remember, everyone
and I do mean almost everyone had plonked Harry, and you know he can't
stand not being heard, even if it means he has to "play nice" for a
while... Still, it's better than last time when he flooded us with the
bedwetters from other groups...


snerky snerky What a dufus.

--
Nom=de=Plume

That's 'our freak'!

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.

Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

You sly fox. What you got up your sleeve? Does it have something to do
with www.nomdeplumeonline.com

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:56:56 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:42 -0400, Jim wrote:

Princess little feather is one of a kind. God doesn't make the same
mistake twice.

Princess Little Feather as you say isn't a female.

Not by a long shot.

Yeahbut, Prince Little Feather sounds kinda stupid and dorky.