Hehehe. Good one.

The answer is "no", however.


"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:deCbb.404985$Oz4.195994@rwcrnsc54...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I don't think jerking *each other* off will do that.

snip
You have a lot of experience in this?

Mark Browne

No, anyone who wants to discuss Ashcroft in a boat forum is welcome to do
so, and you can effectively criticize any of the administrations policies
for whatever reason you want to, the theory just states that whenever
someone calls someone a Nazi's or Communists, it normally means they feel
that they are losing the argument and are using these fear tactics as a last
ditch effort to win the argument. If you read NG often, you will see it
does have validity.



"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:ekCbb.405017$Oz4.196831@rwcrnsc54...

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:QCAbb.549925$uu5.91282@sccrnsc04...
Chuck,
Conservative do not necessarily think or believe any thoughts in unison,
but
it appears that the Republican Party might try to use issues and
political
messages in a more focused method than the Democratic Party.

I do believe there is a NG theory that you can always tell when someone
believes he has lost an argument, he begins to call the other side a
Communist or a Nazi. It is way to early in the campaign for you to give
up.

snip
It would seem that this little theory give the current administration a
special advantage in newsgroup discussion - "you must be losing ; you
claim
we are a bunch of Nazis!" That pretty much limits effective criticism of
Ashcroft's activities!

Mark Browne

Chuck,
Conservative do not necessarily think or believe any thoughts in unison, but
it appears that the Republican Party might try to use issues and political
messages in a more focused method than the Democratic Party.

I do believe there is a NG theory that you can always tell when someone
believes he has lost an argument, he begins to call the other side a
Communist or a Nazi. It is way to early in the campaign for you to give up.



Allow me to clarify. I didn't call anybody a communist- but I did note a
certain similarity between the concept that one has to love the current leader
and his agenda to be considered a "patriot" and the regulation of thought and
expression for the supposed benefit of the state in certain countries not so
very long ago.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
Before 3 days ago, I have not heard of Weasly ( ), but if jps likes
him he has to be one dumb dude.

From what I have read in the past 3 days, he seems like he is another

Ross
Perot, a successful man, who can go over the edge. I don't believe
anyone
in either party (with the exception of jps) views him as a serious
candidate. He will be a great flash in the pan.

Well, you guys with the (political) party hats on figure out who you're
going
to run and then the rest of us will start looking seriously at the
finalists.

Let's see: Republicans? Probably going to stick with the current dude.
Won't
need to spend too much time speculating how he would run the country if
(re)elected.

Democrats? They have their work cut out for them this time around. Every
vote
counts the same, and the conservatives have done a far more effective job
of
organizing the thoughts and attitudes of the rw constituency. It's a basic
weakness of liberalism. Liberals say: "Go ahead and think whatever you
want, as
long as it doesn't hurt somebody else." No F'n wonder the left is all over
the
map!

Conservatives do have the handle on this thing. They tend to say: "Think
like
this, exactly, or you are not patriotic and can't be considered a true
American! In our binary world you're either 110% behind George Bush or you
support the terrorist overthrow of the US." Doesn't do much for
independent
thought, but then again who needs independent thought if it causes the
party to
lose focus? ((Didn't we used to hear that such a statement was a
dangerous
idea from Eastern Europe?))




http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Chuck,
While you may hear the idea expressed in this NG or the talk shows by a few
people, most thinking conservative or liberals do not feel that one's
political ideology effects one ability to be a "patriot" or one's love of
country. A few radical talking heads might express that view, but it is
still a small percent of the citizen. To use the viewpoint of a few
conservatives as a representative viewpoint of the majority of conservatives
would the same as assuming that the majority of liberals would endorse the
antagonistic attitude, the "I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder"
as expressed by jps, basskisser and Harry. Neither of these extremes are
representative of the majority. If I was a betting man, I would bet that a
large percent of the views expressed in this and other NG are not necessary
the viewpoint of the author, but a very effective way of trolling.





"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
Conservative do not necessarily think or believe any thoughts in unison,
but
it appears that the Republican Party might try to use issues and
political
messages in a more focused method than the Democratic Party.

I do believe there is a NG theory that you can always tell when someone
believes he has lost an argument, he begins to call the other side a
Communist or a Nazi. It is way to early in the campaign for you to give
up.



Allow me to clarify. I didn't call anybody a communist- but I did note a
certain similarity between the concept that one has to love the current
leader
and his agenda to be considered a "patriot" and the regulation of thought
and
expression for the supposed benefit of the state in certain countries not
so
very long ago.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
Before 3 days ago, I have not heard of Weasly ( ), but if jps
likes
him he has to be one dumb dude.

From what I have read in the past 3 days, he seems like he is another

Ross
Perot, a successful man, who can go over the edge. I don't believe
anyone
in either party (with the exception of jps) views him as a serious
candidate. He will be a great flash in the pan.

Well, you guys with the (political) party hats on figure out who you're
going
to run and then the rest of us will start looking seriously at the
finalists.

Let's see: Republicans? Probably going to stick with the current dude.
Won't
need to spend too much time speculating how he would run the country if
(re)elected.

Democrats? They have their work cut out for them this time around.
Every
vote
counts the same, and the conservatives have done a far more effective
job
of
organizing the thoughts and attitudes of the rw constituency. It's a
basic
weakness of liberalism. Liberals say: "Go ahead and think whatever you
want, as
long as it doesn't hurt somebody else." No F'n wonder the left is all
over
the
map!

Conservatives do have the handle on this thing. They tend to say:
"Think
like
this, exactly, or you are not patriotic and can't be considered a true
American! In our binary world you're either 110% behind George Bush or
you
support the terrorist overthrow of the US." Doesn't do much for
independent
thought, but then again who needs independent thought if it causes the
party to
lose focus? ((Didn't we used to hear that such a statement was a
dangerous
idea from Eastern Europe?))




http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

While you may hear the idea expressed in this NG or the talk shows by a few
people, most thinking conservative or liberals do not feel that one's
political ideology effects one ability to be a "patriot" or one's love of
country. A few radical talking heads might express that view, but it is
still a small percent of the citizen.

The talking heads who regurgitate this rubbish are wildly successful. Ann
Coulter's book accusing all liberals of being "traitors" sold how many million
copies? Too many people without the time and energy to think for themselves are
too eager to repeat the latest whiz-bang sound byte as a substitute for
legitimate opinion.

The largest audiences in the country are listening to right wing radio. It
would be hard to convince me that most of those listeners don't generally agree
with the sentiments expressed. All too many of them are quick to repeat, word
for word, the latest slogan circling the bowl. Emotional arguments develop when
people from one side or the other cannot logically support their opinions, and
cannot do so because the opinions have been handed to them rather than
developed through a normal process.

If there's going to be any choice in the next election, it will have to be
provided by the D's. The R's are sticking with the horse that pulled the cart
to this point.

Too darn bad the R's don't have a candidate like the guy who gave the following
speech. Comparing this speech to the current, miserable state of civic
discourse is really shocking. There is a lot more emotional energy these days,
more bitterness and rancour than before. Again, I think it's because many
people haven't done the homework to understand *why* they have a certain
opinion, they believe what they are told is best for the country.
That observation applies to the left as well as the right.

I like the following Republican's comments about controlling government
spending:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/projects/...pages/reagan1s
u.html

He was concerned about a "trillion dollar debt." How times have changed. We're
paying a significant portion of that much every year in interest alone on the
current debt. :-(

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

According to Howard Fineman in the current Newsweek magazine, it almost
happened...but the Republicans weren't interested. Clark was hurt that
they
didn't want him. I guess another waffling, untruthful, pompous ass, former
Rhodes scholar from Little Rock didn't appeal to them.

But a nincompoop with no sign of intelligence from Texas did?

The Republicans are only interested in those who'll fall in line.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Actually, the typo was the last "l" that I inadvertently put at the end of
Weasly...a play on the name Wesley...and a more appropriate name for such
a
weasel.

Let's see, you support a guy who needlessly puts our kids at risk in a
ficticious war but you're against a military man who's commited to using
military force as a means of last resort.

Who's a flip flopping weasel in the equation?

"Snafu" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Snafu" wrote in message
nk.net...
Getting back to this (dumb a$$) statement:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Leadership doesn't mean stepping on your subordiates to get to the
head
of
the chow line it means getting out in front of them when the bullets
are
flying and showing them where to go.

General Clark WAS out there where the bullets flew in Vietnam. Here's
a
snippet from his bio:
"As an infantryman in command of a mechanized company, Clark saw
combat
in
Vietnam and was wounded four times in action, while fighting against
the
Viet Cong. During his Vietnam service, Clark received the Purple Heart
and
a
Silver Star."
(Source: http://www.draftclark.com/biography.shtml)

John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Start along with
three
Purple Hearts. Your point is?


WTF?!? Are you even dumber than GWB? You're questioning Clark's
leadership
ability, and I'm pointing out that he possesses exactly the qualities that
you say a leader needs.



Maybe those purple hearts were from getting shot by his own charges?
According to reports, he was not an admired general in the Losovo campaign
as well as almost starting WW III with the Russians over an airport.
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Actually, the typo was the last "l" that I inadvertently put at the end
of
Weasly...a play on the name Wesley...and a more appropriate name for
such
a
weasel.

Let's see, you support a guy who needlessly puts our kids at risk in a
ficticious war but you're against a military man who's commited to using
military force as a means of last resort.

Who's a flip flopping weasel in the equation?


The guy that said last Thursday "I probably would have voted for the
resolution", and then stated last Friday "I would not have voted for the
resolution". I've heard of problems with short-term memory and with people
having "senior moments" before...but in 24 hours?

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Snafu wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Snafu" wrote in message
nk.net...
Getting back to this (dumb a$$) statement:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Leadership doesn't mean stepping on your subordiates to get to the
head
of
the chow line it means getting out in front of them when the
bullets
are
flying and showing them where to go.

General Clark WAS out there where the bullets flew in Vietnam.
Here's a
snippet from his bio:
"As an infantryman in command of a mechanized company, Clark saw
combat
in
Vietnam and was wounded four times in action, while fighting against
the
Viet Cong. During his Vietnam service, Clark received the Purple
Heart
and
a
Silver Star."
(Source: http://www.draftclark.com/biography.shtml)

John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Start along with
three
Purple Hearts. Your point is?


WTF?!? Are you even dumber than GWB? You're questioning Clark's
leadership
ability, and I'm pointing out that he possesses exactly the qualities
that
you say a leader needs.



If Clark were a Republican, Bert would be standing at attention and
saluting.


According to Howard Fineman in the current Newsweek magazine, it almost
happened...but the Republicans weren't interested. Clark was hurt that they
didn't want him. I guess another waffling, untruthful, pompous ass, former
Rhodes scholar from Little Rock didn't appeal to them.




Whatever Clark is, he's certainly more qualified to be POTUS than the
thrice-arrested, drug-snorting, alcoholic, anti-intellectual piece of
unadulterated crap now occupying the White House.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.