 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:44:30 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 28, 9:24 am, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
Thank you Richard, I already knew most of those, but thank you for
posting them.
Now wait for the attacks....
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:16:28 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe08.ams2:
_opin24kristof.
Interesting. I am disappointed in my stingy fellow liberals.
I can't speak for them but I know that most of my charitable giving is
not through established organizations but directly to people and groups
in need. Of course, I lose tax breaks that way, but I like to see the
money go to solving problems in constructive (teach 'em to fish sort of)
ways.
I doubt I'm representative, but it's a datapoint.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:00:48 -0500, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe08.ams2:
Oooh! I know what you mean! I hated it when GW Bush used to do that!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Anna <...@lycos.com
On May 28, 11:00 am, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
☭Terry, the more you post the less I have to explain how evil liberals
are. You just demonstrate it so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:52:03 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Terry J. Wood" <...@216.168.3.30...
: "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net: @newsfe08.ams2:
:
: : :
: Oooh! I know what you mean! I hated it when GW Bush used to do that!!!!
============================
People seem to forget that the PRIMARY purpose of the Federal Government
is DEFENSE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:10:08 -0500, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe11.ams2:
Wouldn't it be great if they stuck to that, instead of doing what they
usually spend their time doing -- namely COLLECTING TAXES!!!!
Ask the victims, I mean the "recipients", of the first Federal Government
action, the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Those of us who were
directly affected (yes, I'm really, really, old) still resent the Feds for
having suppressed us and our simple corn byproduct!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:52:03 -0700, "Richard C."
<...@spamcop.net
That hasn't been true in over a hundred years.
-T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:29:29 -0700, Dan Abel <...@sonic.net
I thought it was more honest when the Cabinet Department was called the
Department of War. But in 1949, the name was changed to Department of
Defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabe...@sonic.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 14:04:27 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe11.ams2:
Not according to the founders.
"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the
public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the
supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever
has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this
object."
James Madison, Federalist Paper #45, explaining why the powers of the
Federal government must be more than simply the alliance of the States
for mutual defense.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 28, 9:24 am, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
Richard,
Although I skiimed them all, the Kristof article was the only one I
read carefully. You listed it twice, so I figured it was your main
exhibit. IMO, nothing has been proven.
Bear in mind also that I don't know what the 'correct' answer is,
don't know if the 'correct' answer is knowable, and don't give a hoot
what the 'correct' answer might be. I regard the whole matter as
incredibly stupid, because it's based on truly crazy (unstated)
assumptions as to what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean as well as
the equally crazy assumption that each of us is one or the other.
There's also the (unstated) assumption that a "charity" must be an
organization.
With that said, I thought Kristof was having a very bad day. He uses
the terms 'charitable causes' and 'charities' and 'nonprofits'
interchangably without ever even trying to make a distinction between
them. Yet, they are not the same. He'd know that if he did his own
tax returns. He assumes that gifts to any of the three help the
'neediest people at home and abroad' which simply is not true. As a
couple of quick examples, suppose I give a bundle to my co-op nudist
club to build a new clubhouse or whatever: it's a nonprofit, but
hardly a charity; it has darn few if any of the 'needy' and such needy
as their may be don't benefit in any direct way. Similarly for
donations to NAC and NEF: both are nonprofits, but only the latter is
tax deductable, and neither help the 'needy' in any direct way. Yet,
I'd regard them all as 'charitable causes' but not 'charities.' This
seems to me to be a case of 'figures never lie, but liars figure.'
It's all a meaningless statistical mishmash.
The distinction between 'privately charitable' and 'publicly
charitable' is also nutty. Person A gives to a private organization
which distributes the money; Person B votes to give to a public agency
which distributes the money. What's the difference? Person B may
well believe, usually correctly, that the public agency spends less on
overhead such that more of the proceeds go where they're intended to
go. Thus, Kristof's paragraphs on Europe make no sense to me. The
fact is, Europeans give more to the needy at home and abroad than
Americans do. The details of how that's accomplished are irrelevant.
Kristof claims that 'liberals protest that conservatives look good
only because they shower dollars on churches -- that a fair amount of
money isn't helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.'
Hmmmm. First, some 85% of Americans are religious and, last November
at least, a substantial majority of Americans voted 'liberal.' It's
thus fair to conclude that the majority of 'liberals' are religious
and contribute to religious organizations. Kristof admits that when
he says, "... religious liberals are as generous as religious
conservatives." Kistof also says that secular 'conservatives' are are
notably 'stingy.' He thereby kills his own case, but never bothers to
try to resolve the discrepancy between the so-called facts and his
conclusion.
I'd add that seculars, whether liberal or conservative, object not
only to the building of lavish spires by religious organizations who
claim to be helping the poor. We (I'm among them) primarily object to
using the funds to prosyletize (sp?). When the needy are forced to
sit through a lengthy sermon before they can get a meal or a bed, one
has reason to doubt the 'charitable' motivation of the so-called
charity.
I was also struck by the apparent impossibility of gathering good
data. Yet, without good data, the conclusions are pure malarkey. My
family contributes quite heavily to nonprofits, but how would anyone
know? The causes we support are typically NOT tax deductable,
although they are non-profits, so the contributions aren't included on
our tax returns. The same applies to direct contributions to people
in need. If we pay the rent of a family whose wage earners are
unemployed, or supply most of their food, how would anyone ever know?
There's a lot more I could say, but this is too long already. I'll
end as I started:
I don't know what the 'correct' answer is, don't know if the 'correct'
answer is knowable, and don't give a hoot what the 'correct' answer
might be. I regard the whole matter as incredibly stupid, because
it's based on truly crazy (unstated) assumptions as to what 'liberal'
and 'conservative' mean as well as the equally crazy assumption that
each of us is one or the other. I'm also dubious that good data is
obtainable.
Richard, I think you posted pure unadulterated baloney!
:-)
Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:47:56 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Jenny6833A <...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
Jenny,
Thanks for the analysis. I did not take the time to read any of them as
thoroughly as you did that one. But I was also suspicious of their
definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" as well as their definition
of "charitable giving." It makes sense.
But more basically, I wondered "why ask the question?" The point seemed
to be to dispel some idea that conservatives were heartless and stingy.
I don't think that. I think there are heartless and stingy people of all
political stripe. The policy questions I have issue with from
conservatives are more about what is more effective and necessary...what
is the best way to solve the problems, not whether or not they should be
solved.
I find things like this to be part of what is wrong with today's
political dialog. Too much finger pointing and not enough sleeve up-
rolling.
Thanks again.
(Your reply was long enough that it's probably worth a dozen or so
snipes from the Anna thing.)
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Zee <...@webtv.net
On May 29, 12:47 pm, Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dennis this is as OT as one can get....geesh.....jz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 20:58:35 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Lane <...@yahoo.com85.214.105.209:
After all the time Dick Cheney has spent creating the stereotype? How dare
they trash his legacy! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 08:41:42 -0400, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
Great post, Jenny. :-) My mind went "Ahhhh!" Clear thinking and fact
based reasoning; especially about being forthright when the facts just
are not there. You put the pundits to shame. ST
On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A
<...@aol.com
...
>Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:58:05 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 29, 10:33 am, Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
Richard, I warned you didn't I.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 23:55:13 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan MacKay <...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Actually, you warned against personal attacks. Jenny gave a thoughtful
and well presented counter argument.
You are free to offer your opinions as to why the specific points of her
argument are flawed. But, of course, you won't, because you don't argue
politics here. Instead, you just engage in character assaults and ad
hominem.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 08:05:19 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Lane" <...@85.214.105.209...
: :
: Jenny gave a thoughtful
: and well presented counter argument.
:
===========================
Actually she did not do any such thing.
All she did is waffle and obfuscate!
The facts are very clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 15:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe04.ams2:
The only fact is that you did not rebut her arguments you simply
dismissed them. Please cite examples of her alleged waffling (which I am
sure is not what you meant, as she was very determined in her
conclusion) and obfuscation.
You posted articles that you felt supported a point of view that you
hold. A polite and detailed rebuttal was offered. You have so far
declined to engage that rebuttal but dismiss it. If that is your final
word, you have lost the argument summarily.
(I know this discussion doesn't belong in this forum, but I get sooooo
tired of this drive-by punditry that mistakes personal attacks for
actual arguments, that I feel the need to call it out when it happens. I
promise I'll post a relevant topic soon...easy to do with spring in
Colorado finally giving way to the beginnings of summer.)
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:15:53 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Lane <...@yahoo.com85.214.105.209:
I believe I have found the person responsible for these personal attacks.
I've located his LinkedIN profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shut-up-you-idiot/11/330/457
It appears that he works for Google in India! And I was SURE he'd be an
American! It just goes to show you how far America has fallen in greatness.
We're losing out to other nations in ALL the important categories.
I blame our public schools!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.com
On May 30, 9:15 am, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Terry, why are you posting your own profile?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:33:08 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Lane" <...@85.214.105.209...
: "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net: $qP7...@newsfe04.ams2:
:
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: The only fact is that you did not rebut her arguments you simply
: dismissed them. Please cite examples of her alleged waffling (which I am
: sure is not what you meant, as she was very determined in her
: conclusion) and obfuscation.
:
: You posted articles that you felt supported a point of view that you
: hold. A polite and detailed rebuttal was offered. You have so far
: declined to engage that rebuttal but dismiss it. If that is your final
: word, you have lost the argument summarily.
:
: (I know this discussion doesn't belong in this forum, but I get sooooo
: tired of this drive-by punditry that mistakes personal attacks for
: actual arguments, that I feel the need to call it out when it happens. I
: promise I'll post a relevant topic soon...easy to do with spring in
: Colorado finally giving way to the beginnings of summer.)
:
==========================
I stated my position. I posted multiple links.
I do not think there is a need to respond to the outright denials of facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:02:06 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe15.ams2:
Those were not facts. They were opinions citing data that was not
thoroughly vetted. Do you believe every poll and survey you happen to
read? Or maybe just the ones that support your point of view?
Never mind, I already know the answer.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:04:31 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe29.ams2:
You haven't asserted anything yourself that I can prove right or wrong.
You have merely listed a list of factoids and op-eds by others. But,
okay, I surmise that your opinion is in line with those who have
asserted that the data present proves that "liberals donate less because
they consider the causes conservatives donate to to be government
functions."
I will stipulate that the people cited in the articles you listed are
properly categorized by their authors as liberal and conservative. (I
agree with Jenny, though, that not all citizens can be so easily
categorized.) For the sake of argument, I will accept that the
contributions they report on their tax returns are the only charitable
giving they have done. (That is, they did not give to any causes that,
for whatever reason, were not tax deductible, they did not donate time
to causes which, while valueable, could not be listed on tax returns and
did not directly provide aid to those in need. Note this is a
considerable concession, and made only for convenience. It is likely not
actually true.)
So what we are left with are a handful of politicians representing an
infinitessimally small portion of the population at large, completely
unrandom and completely too small to be representative. It is impossible
to infer, from this sample, anything about how most liberals or most
conservatives behave. It is utterly incapable of predicting how people
who do not identify as liberal or conservative (but may have certain
liberal and/or conservative positions) will behave.
Lastly, it says absolutely nothing about the motivations that any
particular person may have had in donating or not donating whatever they
did.
So, no doubt to your chagrin, I submit that there is not enough evidence
presented to justify the opinion that, as a rule, liberals donate less
than conservatives or that they do it because they think the causes
those donations would fund are government's responsibility.
Now, if you disagree with this and choose to tell me so, please explain
exactly where I am wrong. Simply insulting me, dismissing the words with
hyperbolic phrases like ("typical liberal blather") or otherwise not
sepecifically addressing my points will not suffice.
I will be interested to see what approach you decide to take.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 31, 9:55 pm, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
Don't you love the smoke and mirrors that the Liberals use?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 29, 4:55 pm, Lane <...@yahoo.com
No, she did not.
What I do is none of your business, if you don't like my postings do
like the others and killfile, go ahead stick your head in the sand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 04:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan MacKay <...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Let's she gave half a dozen paragraphs of actual comment on what was
presented. You said, um, "Watch out for the attacks" and "I warned you".
That you disagree with her analysis doesn't mean it wasn't thoughtful
and well presented. It was.
But it is easier to insult and disparage than to actually engage in
discussion about what you think might or might not have been right about
what was written.
When you do it in public, it is damn well my business and right to
comment on it. If I don't like your postings I will, if I so choose,
call you on them.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.com
On May 29, 9:41 pm, Lane <...@yahoo.com
No more than I expect from a Liberal Loon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:11:49 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan M <...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
Thank you for proving my point that you don't actually have the
capacity to argue on merit but only make personal attacks.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.com
On May 30, 10:11 am, Lane <...@yahoo.com
And the point I make is I don't come to Rec.Nude to argue Politics
with Liberal idiots.
I've said it before, but I guess you're just too danged dense to
understand plain English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 05:21:39 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan M <...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
I'm the dense one here? Really?
You have been the one being provocative and baiting others into
controversial topics then, when they happen to disagree with you, rather
than actually engaging them on the topic you proposed, just attacking
them as (horrors) liberal, idiots, or whatever.
You are as gone as the Anna thing. You are as dis-worthy and I likewise
feel empathy for any people in meatspace that don't have the same luxury
to be done with you.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:01:18 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 30, 10:21 pm, Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Provocative Topics"??
Would that be a reference to the "Political Debate" that Jenny
hijacked my simple Salute to our Fallen Troops into???
The one that you try to insist on trying to drag me into after I have
refused time and again??
I thought I'd made it sufficiently clear that I do not come to
Rec.Nude to debate "Politics", I come here to discuss or talk about
Nudism.
I have "Baited" no one.
Funny how you seem to be hellbent into turning Rec.Nude into your own
little "Political" debating group..
Hmmm, who is the "Troll" here???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 13:11:07 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan MacKay <...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
No, it would be a reference to this very thread in which you did bait
"liberals" by daring us to attack the original article, which, though
not posted by you, was political in nature.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 31, 6:11 am, Lane <...@yahoo.com
They did not need any "Baiting", Liberals are always on the attack
against true American Conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:41:51 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Lane <...@yahoo.com85.214.105.209:
You must be. You're still reading his posts. He's got you there! You can't
argue with THAT logic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:33:40 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Terry J. Wood" <...@85.214.105.209:
Fair enough. That problem has sense been fixed.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:04:35 -0700 (PDT), TheWhiteCockatoo <...@thewhitecockatoo.com
On May 31, 9:27 am, Dan M <...@rock.com
Dan,
In the last month, since you started posting on here again, you've
gone from someone who made some sort of sense to almost an "Anna"
clone.
Perhaps time to pull your head in and stop, what are now becoming all
too frequent, attacks on others who don't always entirely agree with
you.
I've just jumped on here for a quick look and see 3 threads, at the
top of the list, you've just posted in with a personal attack on
others in each one.
Seems I'm one of the very few not to have been attacked by you yet,
although maybe my turn now after this message. Thinking you're always
right and everyone else is always wrong never works in the real world.
Geez.... Even I've had some silly attacks from others here over the
years, but that doesn't mean I automatically disagree with everything
they say.
Time for a chill pill methinks for you Dan!
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
Ahh, but if you look you'll see that my victims share certain
commonalities.
They are "Little Tribers" or Liberals or in some cases both.
And both are fair game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:00:33 -0700 (PDT), TheWhiteCockatoo <...@thewhitecockatoo.com
On May 31, 10:55 am, Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
Which makes you just as discriminatory as, and no better than, them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 30, 6:00 pm, TheWhiteCockatoo <...@thewhitecockatoo.comwrote:
We all "Discriminate" against others in one way or another Tony, I've
never denied that.
I make it quite plain that I am a Conservative and have no Love for
RINO's or Liberals, as I harbour none towards people like The Little
Tribe who try to insist that others live by their Rules and
definitions.
I did not start the "Political" Thread, that was Jenny's hijack.
As to how I treat with others here, I did not initiate those either,
but neither do I back down.
G'Night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 01:23:17 -0700 (PDT), TheWhiteCockatoo <...@thewhitecockatoo.com
On May 31, 5:06 pm, Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
Now you have offended me Dan!
I absolutely abhor discrimination of any type in any way shape or
form, and by the same token have no time whatsoever for those who show
discrimination towards others.
Discrimination of any type totally disgusts me, so to suggest we all
discriminate against others is personally offensive to me in lumping
me in with those in your perfect world.
Tony
PS. Note - Not one word of attack towards you in this comment Dan. A
point can still be made without personal attack. (although not
attacking "Anna" is always difficult.)
PPS. In another thread you have said a number of times that someone
hijacked your thread. This is an open public forum where anyone has
the right to post and threads are posted obviously inviting comments
from others. To suggest someone might have hijacked "your" thread is
totally against what these forums are about. Use facebook, or
something similar, if you want to control all content. This aint the
place!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:44:04 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
TheWhiteCockatoo <...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
And it isn't as if we held a gun to the thread's head and made it drive us to
the liquor store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
Dan MacKay <...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
So, so long as someone is liberal, you don't have to bother actually
engaging them in actual conversation. They are, by definition, wrong,
and so worthy of your bile.
Lovely.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Lane
<...@yahoo.com
It's in the membership bylaws of the Great Big Tribe (TM). You too
could be one of them, but their decoder rings are faulty and they
don't have a very good cheer.
There are days when I really miss Mighty Cheef Dan.
-T.
(actually, they don't have any cheer at all)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:40:41 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
stin...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in news:vv3625h23g67btacu0j54ovos14hhdbb7l@
4ax.com:
Zvar fgvyy jbexf!
It's not a Bronx cheer, but it works for me! See below!
Peterd and Mighty Cheef Dan would just say to these guys, "Jung n Znebba!"
Hey, the official cheer looks pretty good even when encrypted by my LITTLE
TRIBE brand SECRET DECODER RING!
Terry "Rot-13 forever" Wood
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:57:05 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Terry J. Wood" <...@85.214.105.209...
: stin...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in news:vv3625h23g67btacu0j54ovos14hhdbb7l@
: 4ax.com:
:
: : : :
: :
: : :
: Zvar fgvyy jbexf!
:
================
As does mine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:07:42 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe19.ams2:
Vfa'g vg terng?
V'yy nyjnlf gernfher zl YVGGYR GEVOR oenaq FRPERG QRPBQRE EVAT!
Terry "Furrfu" Wood
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Grfgvat, grfgvat, grfgvat..... jryy qnlrz! Jbexf npebff cyngsbezf gbb!
Zvar'f n Pncgnva Zneiry irefvba. Nf n yngr pbzre urer, V zhfg unir
zvffrq gur Gevor qnlf. .... bu jryy....
Cuvy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:00:41 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
GSNP...@nospam.invalid wrote in news:1rva25peccj74chdhmn7jmr8p0ifmvrtms@
4ax.com:
V tbg zl evat sebz gur Whfgvpr Yrnthr:
uggc://jjj.fgng.bfh.rqh/~fcenatref/dhvm/whfgvpr_yrnthr.wct
(Gung'f ZR arkg gb ZVTUGL PURRS QNA, Qrsraqre bs Ahqvgl).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Tynq lbh gbyq zr. Vg'f uneq gb gryy jub'f n ahqvfg naq jub'f abg jura
rirelobql'f jrnevat pybgurf.
Avpr gvtugf, ol gur jnl yby!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:31:00 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
GSNP...@nospam.invalid wrote in news:fm1b259f7kanikmp7h4alm59jfoakfjki2@
4ax.com:
Fuuuuuuu! Qba'g gryy rirelbar!!! Jr'er jrnevat pbfghzrf orpnhfr jr'er va
QVFTHVFR!!! Vs jr jrer AHQR gura crbcyr jbhyq ERPBTAVMR hf!!!
Gur fnpevsvprf ahqvfg-fhcreurebrf zhfg znxr!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 08:47:01 -0400, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay
<...@sbcglobal.net
Yes she did. I reposted with my congrats so people can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:05:40 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.com
On May 30, 5:47 am, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
Of course you did, all the Liberal wingnuts got to stick together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:41:32 -0400, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:05:40 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.comwrote:
When we didn't, what happened under the Conservative Geniuses was:
- We were laid off so rich CEOs could cop huge bonus dollars
- Our retirements vanished while the filthy rich got filthier
- Our gov was caught napping on 9/11 with its dick out
- Our gov spent billions on Homeland and got caught again, by Katrina
- Our gov lied about Iraq and then attacked with terrible preparation
- When the military won, our gov was caught again with its pants down
- Our gov screwed our troops over in Iraq while corporations got rich
- Our gov created incentives to send our jobs to other countries
- Our National Debt went through the roof
- Rich Looks and Toxic Advertising replaced good work with spin polish
- Our auto companies were encouraged to drag their feet behind Honda
and Toyota rather than lead with the best engineering in the World
- Religious fantasies replaced rational thinking
- Our lead in green tech was deliberately quashed by our gov
- Our lead in bio-tech was deliberately quashed by our gov
- Our lead in batteries was allowed to be sidelined by Big Oil and
then by GM
- Our environment was left to fend for itself
- Our gov promoted torture, costing a thousand military lives
- Unregulated feigns seriously damaged our Energy (Enron),
Telecommunications (MCI), Mortgage and Banking Industries
- Health care costs went through the roof for similar reasons
- The credit card industry was left to run roughshod over us
- Our gov was caught napping once again by a flood, now of bad debt
- Our gov waited until it was so bad the housing industry collapsed
- You and I got stuck with the worst recession ever
Maybe some liberals are wingnuts, but the conservative geniuses that
the Republicans put in the last eight years took us from surplus,
strength and balance under Clinton to the worst economy, the weakest
military and the lowest esteem in memory under Bush.
Time to change, and this team better succeed, regardless of what label
some little snot may decide to place on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:32:50 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Stuffed Tiger <...@4ax.com:
Oh no, that's not true. This ALL happened right after Obama was elected.
Talk radio told me so. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:32:02 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Terry J. Wood" <...@85.214.105.209:
I notice that Richard never bothered to reply to my answer to his dare
to rebut his links.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:56:33 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Lane" <...@85.214.105.209...
: "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com: news...@85.214.105.209:
:
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: I notice that Richard never bothered to reply to my answer to his dare
: to rebut his links.
:
:====================================
I notice that you did not ever rebut mine with any facts - only opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:01:11 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe26.ams2:
Typical. Easier to dismiss than to engage. Done with you too.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:30:16 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Lane <...@yahoo.com85.214.105.209:
Don't dismiss Richard. He really is a good guy.
He's a conservative liberal nudist. That means while he registers
Republican, he liberally practices his naturism. Now if Dick Cheney had done
this he wouldn't have been so grumpy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:34:16 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Terry J. Wood" <...@85.214.105.209:
I actually have the sense that he is. Let me rephrase: I choose no
longer to engage in political discussion with him. I'm sure that
disappoints absolutely no one. :)
LOL
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:41:32 -0400, Stuffed Tiger
<...@NotAnAddress.com
<G
I agree with much of what you say, although I don't think America's
mindset could have foreseen 9/11. It was a game changer and
represented a shift in how we (America) see ourselves. Hubris is a
terrible sin, and America engages in it often.
I for my part, can no longer see the Republican party as representing
my values. I do not support lying to the electorate. I do not support
torture. I do not support pre-emptive strikes, based on faulty (likely
messaged) 'intelligence'. And, finally, I note that for a party
claiming to represent the "Religious Right", there is jack shit in the
Republican platform that feeds the hungry, houses the homeless, or
tends to the poor.
And yes, I'm a little fired up too. Off topic to boot. Sue me.
-T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:41:02 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
stin...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in
news...@4ax.com:
CNN reported a poll today that showed that 89% of self-identifying
Republicans were white.
They are doomed.
I wonder what the new party will be like? I might even be interested
(possibly).
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:02:49 +0000 (UTC), Lane <...@yahoo.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe26.ams2:
LOL. That some Republicans think Steele is the Democrats' worst
nightmare illustrates just how out of touch they are.
--
Lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:34:07 +0000 (UTC), "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Lane <...@yahoo.com85.214.105.209:
No, I think they're right about this. I have nightmares about Steele:
http://tinyurl.com/George-the-animal-Steele
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On Jun 3, 11:34 am, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Racist!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 08:04:10 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Dan MacKay" <...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:33 am, Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
: Richard, I warned you didn't I.....
=====================
Yep!
Denial and rationalization run deep, don't they.
Research the tax returns and charitable contributions for major Democrat
and Major Republican politicians; it shows my point clearly.
THAT is public record and it blows the "confusion" of liberal and
conservative away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:07:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan M <...@rock.com
On May 30, 8:04 am, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
Notice how al the Liberals are patting Jenny on the back even though
her response was so much Liberal drivel.
Oh well, it was expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 30, 8:04�am, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
What did I deny, besides the validity of the columnist's
presentation. If you actually read my post, you'd see that I did NOT
deny his conclusion, nor did I confirm it. I just said he hadn't made
a case. And, just where does rationalization come in?
First, whatever it might show would be a wild generalization. A
conclusion based on a sample of a few dozen politically prominent
people is NOT a random, statistically valid sample, and thus hardly
applies to 200 million, especially given that about 50% of them are
either independents or ticket splitters.
Second, as I pointed out, tax returns don't reflect all gifts and, for
many of us, don't reflect anywhere near the majority of our gifts.
Third, you're equating 'liberal' with registered Democrat and
'conservative' with registered Republican, which certainly isn't
accurate.
Fourth, none of your columnists ever tell us what they mean by
'conservative' or 'liberal.' Is it the dictionary definition? Or is
it the quite fuzzy Rush Limbaugh/Carl Rove definition? Or is it
something else?
Fifth, whatever definition one might choose, your columnists ignore
the fact that most voters are 'liberal' on some topics and
'conservative' on others.
Sixth, even talking about voters is statistically shaky because in the
good ol' USA somewhere around 40% of those eligible don't vote.
Seventh, a large share of voters don't vote on the basis of
candidates' conformance to whatever the voters' idea of liberal/
conservative might be. They vote on gut instinct or by whim -- as in
which candidate they'd rather have a beer with or which one they think
is more trustworthy.
Yeah
Not at all. See above.
:-)
Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:31:04 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Jenny6833A" <...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
: Fourth, none of your columnists ever tell us what they mean by
: 'conservative' or 'liberal.' Is it the dictionary definition? Or is
: it the quite fuzzy Rush Limbaugh/Carl Rove definition? Or is it
: something else?
=========================
I find it interesting that almost ALL conservatives (and many liberals)
know exactly what is meant
yet many other liberals claim to not know what is meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Edunnam <...@yahoo.com
On May 31, 5:31 pm, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
Makes it so much easier for them to make up their own definition
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:16:57 +0100, "David Looser" <...@btinternet.com
"Richard C." <...@newsfe15.ams2...
I find it interesting that the true meaning of the word "liberal" is almost
unknown in the US. It does NOT mean "socialist" let alone "communist".
David.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:06:16 -0400, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:16:57 +0100, "David Looser"
<...@btinternet.com
...
From an American English dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
Main Entry:lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation:\'li-b(?-)r?-?li-z?m\
Function:noun
Date:1819
1: the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of
Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom
from restraint and usually based on free competition, the
self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political
philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the
human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the
protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized: the
principles and policies of a Liberal party
also see
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
Of course, none of this matters because Republicans like Mr. Anna are
sure that words mean exactly what *they* choose them to mean, neither
more nor less (apologies to Lewis Carroll).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Anna <...@lycos.com
On Jun 3, 3:06 pm, Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com
By the way, my husband is no relation to Alice.
You know Alice Liddell, the little girl Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka
Lewis Carroll) was obsessed with.
He was not only a novelist but also a photographer.
Here is one of his many photos of Alice.
http://www.sodabob.com/Photos/Photographers/Carroll/Alice_Liddell.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:48:40 -0500, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Stuffed Tiger <...@4ax.com:
And who knows more about liberals and THE WORD than conservative pundit
STEPHEN COLBERT? On almost every show Stephen chooses "THE WORD" and
delivers a sermon, ummm, I mean an EDITORIAL, about it.
Here's Stephen stands up for Rush Limbaugh and discusses the concept of being
"SHAMELESS": http://tinyurl.com/Stephen-stands-up-for-Rush
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Anna <...@lycos.com
On Jun 3, 3:48 pm, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Who is Stephen Colbert?
Oh, you mean that guy who used to make fun of Bush.
Is he still around?
You have a real obsession with this guy don't you.
Almost like he is your cult leader.
Don't you know you can only serve one master and of course that one
master is
Obama.
So, until that comet comes or whatever just sip on that kool-aid of
yours and chant Yesss weee cannnnnn Yessss wee cannnn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
On Jun 3, 3:48 pm, "Terry J. Wood" <...@hotmail.com
Still calling a 'Comedian' a 'Pundit' I see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Anna <...@lycos.com
On Jun 4, 12:12 am, Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
Yeah, this is where the Left goes for it's "NEWS" these says.
Welcome to the Matrix!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Anna <...@lycos.com
On Jun 4, 12:12 am, Dan MacKay <...@sbcglobal.net
These days this is where the left gets it's news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:15:24 -0700, "Richard C." <...@spamcop.net
"Terry J. Wood" <...@216.168.3.30...
: Stuffed Tiger <...@NotAnAddress.com: news...@4ax.com:
:
: : : :
: And who knows more about liberals and THE WORD than conservative pundit
: STEPHEN COLBERT? On almost every show Stephen chooses "THE WORD" and
: delivers a sermon, ummm, I mean an EDITORIAL, about it.
:
: Here's Stephen stands up for Rush Limbaugh and discusses the concept of
being
: "SHAMELESS": http://tinyurl.com/Stephen-stands-up-for-Rush
:
============================
Are you still not aware that Stephen is NOT a republican nor a conservative?
He is a comedian! He attempts to make fun of Conservatives.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|