On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:26:56 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:00:37 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

...combined with a, more or less, conservative (Newt Gingrich, et. al.)
Congress with a choke-hold on Clinton.

Interesting stat around that time. If you look at the 5 years before
the takeover, the average increase over the next 5 years was about 3/4%
lower (year to year increase). The next 5 years, it was back up to what
it was before the takeover. GOP's fiscal restraint lasted only until
they found out how much it could be spending other's money. After that
it was Katy bar the door as both sides starting shovelling out with both
hands.

Which is why I wrote "more or less, conservative" rather than "Republican".

" wrote:

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:13:03 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Perot had ALL his money in municipal bonds.

Try that today. The AMT would kill ya'.

Nope. Munis are exempt from AMT except for some private activity bonds.
-- Doug

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW, the relevancy is "free speech" as it relates to DWTS including
viewer voting in their show,besides demonstrating how "progressives"
don't actually KNOW what they're commenting upon,but just rattle off
liberal "talking points" they got from the liberal media.


Has the liberal media been covering the mind control implant scandal?


Again youreply with no intelligent comment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

I used to live in Delaware and remember meeting Mr. Biden when I was
in middle school. He was a Senator then, and I'm 40 now, so you do
the math on his experience.

Experience at WHAT? All that shows is that he's been a "career
congressman".Never done anything else.
And useful idiots would have that sort make our laws,REPRESENT us!
Insanity.

Wow. Nice comparison there. You compare a lifelong senator to an

OF COURSE,-you- would se no problem with a "lifelong Senator".


unknown k00k

A Governor of Alaska,someone who has run a business,REAL experience.

whom is clearly not ready (nor ever will be) to step-up
should the need arise.

As if BIDEN could "step up".

You compare a man who spent his whole life in
service to his constituents to some air head psychopath that shoots
wolves from a helicopter. That ain't huntin', that's killing for
sport.

Or thinning the herd,getting rid of dangerous predators that cost farmers
their valuable livestock. this shows your ignorance.

A MAJOR reason the US is SO screwed up at present.
One would think that a 40 yr old would have more sense.

It took GWB 8 years to royally **** the country into the worse shape
it's been in since the Great Depression. GWB inherited a budget
SURPLUS, we all know he left with our debt at an all-time high.

Again you show your ignorance;there was no "budget surplus".
AND,it was DEMOCRATS who screwed the economy with their loan fiasco and
theri refusal to do anything about it. Barney Franks and Chris Dodd.


Some dude like you wants to know why Obama can't bring back the
Clinton days back fast enough! Remember then? We were respected in
the International Community back in those days.

Obama was also a Senator, I think that
gives him the edge on how Federal Government operates.

you mean the guy who voted PRESENT -so- many times".the people of Illinois
shoudl ask for his salary to be returned,he certainly did not do his job
there.


Not that
being able to see Russia on a clear day, and serving a partial term
as Governor of a state with a population about equal to that of
Waco, TX (and it's 50 mile radius) doesn't have anything to offer.

What OTHER "real world" experience does Biden have? None.
Has he -ever- had a real non-public job? Run any business? No.
Neither has Comrade Obama.

I'm not going to dignify that comparison because it's not even fair to
compare the two.

What do you keep on about "real world" experience? Would you be
happier if Obama selected the pizza guy?


and your comment about "able to see Russia on a clear day" attributed
to Palin is hilarious,as that was a Saturday Night Live TV SHOW
creation,and here YOU are quoting it as Palin's words.

Yeah, that's called parody. SNL writers couldn't top what she really
said, so they paraphrased it.

Yet YOU accepted it and CITED it as Palin's own words! and you see nothing
worng with that and attempt to minimalize it,to excuse it away.Dishonest.

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your
foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?


PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign
country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we
have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was--
kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy
credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors
are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive
of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for
example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very
important when you consider even national security issues with Russia
as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United
States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just
right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to
make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation,
Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our
state.

Alaska also has military dealings with the Russians,from intercepting
Russian bombers headed towards US airspace,Alaska in particular.The
Governor would be dealing with some of that too.

shakes head

I bet her college grades were better,too.Except that Comrade Obama
HIDES his college records and papers.

You bet? How bold of you.

Easy bet,because COMRADE OBAMA HIDES his records. Why is that?


That's his purgative.

"purgative" or "prerogative"?

It was the spell checker taunting me.

If your employer asked to see your transcripts
would you comply?


I'm not a public employee,and not running for public office,and no one
is questioning my education.
But prospective employers can look up my education,there's nothing
hidden.

ALL the other Presidents have had open records.

ALL of them? IN CAPS? Are you sure about that? What about Bush's
military record, should that be public too?

Much of it -is- public. what is classified is not.


Yet people say Comrade Obama is "brilliant" and "smart" yet there's no
evidence for that. His records are hidden,kept away from the public.

No evidence? He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law
School, does it really matter what his grades were?

Ask any employer about that.also what courses were taken.
Comrade Obama probably took basketweaving classes,and was "affirmative
action" too.

You can't fake
those degrees, especially in the climate he came up in. He *earned*
his degree. Can you say the same thing with 100% certainty about GWB?

FAR better than you can about Comrade Obama. Bush's records are OPEN.




And "useful idiots" like you don't wonder why.

Awww. I must of hit a nerve, Palin-lover. Now you're down to
name-calling.

If it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck,walks like a duck,it is a
duck.

Hey, it could be worse I guess. You could come down a step and call
me a non-useful idiot.

not much difference,really.


If the Mainstream(Old) Media had investigated and reported on POTUS-
candidate Obama as deeply and thoroughly as they did
**VP-candidate** Palin AND her family,Comrade Obama would never have
been elected.

Uh, huh. Keep telling yourself that.

It's TRUE.

Boo-hoo.

The Old Media dug DEEP into Palin -AND her family-,had hundreds of
people chasing down everything they could,but for Comrade
Obama,everything he said was blindly accepted,no in-depth research by
anybody. The Old Media was "in the tank" for Comrade Obama.

And I'll counter that one by pointing out the group that started out
pretty large, and took a reeeeeeeeally loooooooooong time to thin out
all but the completely insane. 'The Birthers'

I have yet to see a real,FULL Hawaiian BC of Comrade Obama's.
all I've seen is the COLB that anyone can get.

Hawaiian state law allows children born outside Hawaii to get valid
Hawaiian birth certificates (S. 338-17.8)

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon
application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director
of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided
that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal
parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of
Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal
residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption
of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health
in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of
health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may
deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth
certificates and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by
rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


Even Faux News was hot on the story for a while, just hoping that
Photoshopped Kenyan birth certificate would "fly". Hahahaha.....

I am not alone in my decision.

all that says it that there's a lot of fools out there.

Obviously. How many fools did the decision to hire-on Palin have to
go through?

I'm registered Independent.

Lol. Impossible, that's an oxymoron. This is not to be confused with
the word 'moron', idiot.

Laugh all you want,and keep on ignoring FACT.
It just further destroys your credibility.

so much for your blind ASSumptions.

I like your CAPS KEY handy work. I'm going to try and be more like
you.

and I would have never selected McCain for Republican POTUS candidate.

Not if you wanted the Republican Party to win. I think they (Repugs.)
took a dive on purpose. They don't know how to fix the mess their
esteemed ex-leader left behind, so it's really best to sit this one
out. That way people like you get to bitch and moan as the former
Administration's economic disaster starts to -really- be felt by many.
It will take until the end of Obama's term for the economy to start
to show growth, at least that long.

He's a RINO.

If you say so. I could care less what affiliation he claims. You're
supposed to see it that way too, a real "Registered Independent"
snicker would.

You're an IINO.

It's just that there's no electable alternative to the Republicans.
although that appears to be changin,with the advent of the Tea Party.

For goodness sake, the Republicans better find a better candidate
than her. She was the reason I "got off the fence" when deciding
whom to vote for.

FYI,Palin was the VICE presidential candidate,McCain was
POTUS-candidate. Considering all the verbal garbage Senator and now VP
Joe Biden has spouted,your comments about Palin really look
ridiculous.

No genius. My logic prevailed after taking into account the age of
Senator McCain and his questionable health status. Hell, I wouldn't
put it past the Palin gang to plot an ASSassination ----(I did it!)
to gain the "Throne".

Conspriacy theories don't do for your "credibility".
McCain survived years of Hanoi's prisons,he's not going in the near future.

No,but any rational person can see that socialist policies(such as the
Democrat Party espouse) DO NOT WORK. It's Communism on the lay-away
plan.

sigh Please turn off Faux News for an hour and get a brisk walk to
clear your
head.

"Faux News",how cute.


But you keep your "progressive" blinders on.

I am not affiliated with any party, please try to keep up.


You write/cite like a "progressive" and believe all the same nonsense of
theirs,that makes you a "progressive".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

G. Morgan wrote in
m:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Well hell! Let's just call Palin's daughter an Affirmative Action
dancer. :-)

Let's call her a whore!


Now who's name-calling?
and you don't even know her or anything about her.

I know she was an unwed pregnant teen, too stupid to take a pill or
make the goofball boyfriend wear a wrapper.

Oh,that makes her a "whore"?
Wow,you're SO "tolerant".

Hateful,actually.but that's typical of "progressives".


If she wasn't being watched it would be another one of those sad,
"Prom Night Dumpster Babies" incidents.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

maybe the show's PRODUCERS "rigged" it,to boost ratings,but "Palin and
pals" don't have that ability.

After all,it's the RPODUCERS who include telephone voting in the
scoring,and it's been that way for *several seasons*.

but since it's a PALIN,some folks are biased.
More of that "progressive" hate.


Wait for it everyone! Jim's gonna blow a gasket and blame it all on
the jooooos next. The jooo PRODUCERS that CONTROL all of the LIBERAL
MEDIA!! Right Jimmy??




Duh,the PRODUCERS control their product;the show.
It's the choice of the NETWORK to air the show,but once a show is
contracted,they don't see what every episode is before it airs.

Boy,you sure are bigoted too,with your "jooo PRODUCERS" comments.
(that you erroneously read into what I posted. But,again,that's typical of
"progressives".That are what they accuse others of being or thinking. It's
inference;"I'm like that,so they must be too".)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


Wow. Nice comparison there. You compare a lifelong senator to an



You compare a man who spent his whole life in
service to his constituents to some air head psychopath that shoots
wolves from a helicopter. That ain't huntin', that's killing for
sport.

Or thinning the herd,getting rid of dangerous predators that cost farmers
their valuable livestock. this shows your ignorance.
That is also the way that the US Parks Service people sometimes do it
for herd thinning purposes.



No,but any rational person can see that socialist policies(such as the
Democrat Party espouse) DO NOT WORK. It's Communism on the lay-away
plan.

sigh Please turn off Faux News for an hour and get a brisk walk to
clear your
head.

"Faux News",how cute.
I applaud your restraint for not suggesting he should turn off MSDNC.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Jim Yanik wrote:

Duh,the PRODUCERS control their product;the show.
It's the choice of the NETWORK to air the show,but once a show is
contracted,they don't see what every episode is before it airs.

Wow, you really are a ****ing moron.

You don't think every show has a "compliance director" (censor) assigned by the
network to filter every (pre-recorded) show? Even live broadcasts are censored
now by delaying the transmission 8 seconds or so in case of an "F-bomb".

Boy,you sure are bigoted too,with your "jooo PRODUCERS" comments.
(that you erroneously read into what I posted.

Nah, I merely illustrated what you were really thinking. You're afraid the
President is a Nazi. You feel controlled by the jooos and their 'frightening
grip' on the mass-media. And to add salt in the wound, your whole way of
politics and once reliable power-base of good ole' boys is nearing it's
well-deserved and long overdue, death.


But,again,that's typical of
"progressives".That are what they accuse others of being or thinking. It's
inference;"I'm like that,so they must be too".)

You can keep calling me a "progressive" all you want. It won't make it true
because you keep repeating it.

The psychological term you think you know is called "projection". And since
you misused the word "inference", I have provided the definition below as a
courtesy.

inference: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical
judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather
than on the basis of direct observation

Jim Yanik wrote:

Oh,that makes her a "whore"?

Yeah. But it's not her fault. It's a consequence of negligent parenting.

Wow,you're SO "tolerant".

No I'm not, most people irritate the **** out of me.

Hateful,actually.but that's typical of "progressives".

Maybe if you keep calling me a progressive I'll morph into one!?

Jim Yanik wrote:

Again youreply with no intelligent comment.

None was necessary when yours looked so ****ing stupid.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Yet YOU accepted it and CITED it as Palin's own words!

No I didn't, dip****. Here is exactly what I wrote, and you'll note there are
no quotation marks in my original sentence.

::G. Morgan -
"Not that being able to see Russia on a clear day, and serving a partial term as
Governor of a state with a population about equal to that of Waco, TX..."

and you see nothing worng with that

Nope. Hang on knuckle-dragger, I'm going to help you out.

::Jim Yanik:
"and your comment about "able to see Russia on a clear day" attributed to
Palin is hilarious,as that was a Saturday Night Live TV SHOW creation,and
here YOU are quoting it as Palin's words."

I didn't quote her words, see now? I noticed you put the phrase in quotes when
replying though. Let's have a look at what I *did* post that directly quoted
the witch (below). Please, read what she said very carefully, and tell me if
anything Palin said makes a single bit of sense to you.

I'm serious, I can't understand what she is even saying. Read her incoherent
statements and tell me exactly why SHE brought up Russia and what exactly she is
babbling about. And what "trade missions" did your hero orchestrate?

::G. Morgan
"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign
policy
experience. What did you mean by that?


PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country,
Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada.
It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't
know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign
countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in
Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the
Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important
when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his
head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where
do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska
that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very
powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to--
to our state. "

and attempt to minimalize it,to excuse it away.Dishonest.

Sorry Charlie, I just re-posted what I wrote so you can scrutinize it harder.

Also, Couric asked the question because Palin earlier came up with this
priceless one:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here
in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." --ABC News interview, September 11, 2008.

So I really don't see where you get off calling me "dishonest", Jimmay.

On 12/4/2010 4:50 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Jim wrote:

Yet YOU accepted it and CITED it as Palin's own words!

No I didn't, dip****. Here is exactly what I wrote, and you'll note there are
no quotation marks in my original sentence.

::G. Morgan -
"Not that being able to see Russia on a clear day, and serving a partial term as
Governor of a state with a population about equal to that of Waco, TX..."

and you see nothing worng with that

Nope. Hang on knuckle-dragger, I'm going to help you out.

::Jim Yanik:
"and your comment about "able to see Russia on a clear day" attributed to
Palin is hilarious,as that was a Saturday Night Live TV SHOW creation,and
here YOU are quoting it as Palin's words."

I didn't quote her words, see now? I noticed you put the phrase in quotes when
replying though. Let's have a look at what I *did* post that directly quoted
the witch (below). Please, read what she said very carefully, and tell me if
anything Palin said makes a single bit of sense to you.

I'm serious, I can't understand what she is even saying. Read her incoherent
statements and tell me exactly why SHE brought up Russia and what exactly she is
babbling about. And what "trade missions" did your hero orchestrate?

::G. Morgan
"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign
policy
experience. What did you mean by that?


PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country,
Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada.
It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't
know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign
countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in
Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the
Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important
when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his
head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where
do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska
that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very
powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to--
to our state. "

and attempt to minimalize it,to excuse it away.Dishonest.

Sorry Charlie, I just re-posted what I wrote so you can scrutinize it harder.

Also, Couric asked the question because Palin earlier came up with this
priceless one:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here
in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." --ABC News interview, September 11, 2008.

So I really don't see where you get off calling me "dishonest", Jimmay.


Couric is my hero for having a camera shoved up her tailpipe on live
television and staying perky through the whole experience. I could
see her verticuli from my house. :-)

TDD

Kurt Ullman wrote:

You compare a man who spent his whole life in
service to his constituents to some air head psychopath that shoots
wolves from a helicopter. That ain't huntin', that's killing for
sport.

Or thinning the herd,getting rid of dangerous predators that cost farmers
their valuable livestock. this shows your ignorance.

That is also the way that the US Parks Service people sometimes do it
for herd thinning purposes.

If the park service does it for a reason they see fit, that is one thing.

When someone does it for entertainment, it shows cold bloodlust. Killing for a
thrill, that's it. She's not even going to use the carcass.

Have you ever seen video of how it's done? The wolf is scared ****less as a
giant chopper relentlessly pursues him/her. It can take 10 minutes or more of
chasing the animal around at low altitude to get a kill; the deafening noise,
the instant blizzard created by the rotor-wash, the sounds of shots fired (and
some maybe hitting). It's absolutely animal torture! It's disgusting that a
human can take joy from killing an animal after extensively torturing it. That
is what Palin is.

I'm sure the park service has a "cleaner" way to pick them off, since the wolves
must be such a burden to that small, cramped, land mass.

Also, since the guy selling helicopter rides has to make it "fun", it's better
to let the animal suffer as long as possible for maximum profits. A quick
ground shot from 500 yards is way too simple, and the ****ing wolf doesn't even
know it's coming that way. What kind of lame conservation measures are those?

This thread is like herpes and AIDS. Will never go away.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:08:25 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Again youreply with no intelligent comment.

None was necessary when yours looked so ****ing stupid.

You mean, "none was possible".

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Yet YOU accepted it and CITED it as Palin's own words!

No I didn't, dip****. Here is exactly what I wrote, and you'll note
there are no quotation marks in my original sentence.

::G. Morgan -
"Not that being able to see Russia on a clear day, and serving a
partial term as Governor of a state with a population about equal to
that of Waco, TX..."

and you see nothing worng with that

Nope. Hang on knuckle-dragger, I'm going to help you out.

::Jim Yanik:
"and your comment about "able to see Russia on a clear day" attributed
to Palin is hilarious,as that was a Saturday Night Live TV SHOW
creation,and here YOU are quoting it as Palin's words."

I didn't quote her words, see now? I noticed you put the phrase in
quotes when replying though. Let's have a look at what I *did* post
that directly quoted the witch (below). Please, read what she said
very carefully, and tell me if anything Palin said makes a single bit
of sense to you.

I'm serious, I can't understand what she is even saying. Read her
incoherent statements and tell me exactly why SHE brought up Russia
and what exactly she is babbling about. And what "trade missions" did
your hero orchestrate?

::G. Morgan
"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your
foreign policy
experience. What did you mean by that?


PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign
country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we
have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was--
kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy
credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors
are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive
of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for
example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very
important when you consider even national security issues with Russia
as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United
States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just
right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to
make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation,
Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our
state. "

and attempt to minimalize it,to excuse it away.Dishonest.

Sorry Charlie, I just re-posted what I wrote so you can scrutinize it
harder.

Also, Couric asked the question because Palin earlier came up with
this priceless one:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from
land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." --ABC News interview,
September 11, 2008.

NOT the same thing as you cited. and yes,it was a cite,even if you didn't
use quotes.

So I really don't see where you get off calling me "dishonest",
Jimmay.





Easy;you're trying to dodge your own post;that IS "dishonest".
you know what you meant when you typed those words about Palin "can see
Russia on a clear day."

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Oh,that makes her a "whore"?

Yeah. But it's not her fault. It's a consequence of negligent
parenting.

Wow,you're SO "tolerant".

No I'm not, most people irritate the **** out of me.

Hateful,actually.but that's typical of "progressives".

Maybe if you keep calling me a progressive I'll morph into one!?



if it talks like a duck,walks like a duck..."

and if one has the same positions as "progressives",then they are
"progressives".

That's YOU.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Duh,the PRODUCERS control their product;the show.
It's the choice of the NETWORK to air the show,but once a show is
contracted,they don't see what every episode is before it airs.

Wow, you really are a ****ing moron.

You don't think every show has a "compliance director" (censor)
assigned by the network to filter every (pre-recorded) show? Even
live broadcasts are censored now by delaying the transmission 8
seconds or so in case of an "F-bomb".

what's that go to do with viewer telephone voting?
they have NOTHING to do with that,moron.

Boy,you sure are bigoted too,with your "jooo PRODUCERS" comments.
(that you erroneously read into what I posted.

Nah, I merely illustrated what you were really thinking.

There you go AGAIN,blaming others what you think. a true "progressive".
dishonest.

You're
afraid the President is a Nazi. You feel controlled by the jooos and
their 'frightening grip' on the mass-media. And to add salt in the
wound, your whole way of politics and once reliable power-base of good
ole' boys is nearing it's well-deserved and long overdue, death.


you must be one heck of a mind reader.....or simply deranged and hearing
your own thoughts.

But,again,that's typical of
"progressives".That are what they accuse others of being or thinking.
It's inference;"I'm like that,so they must be too".)

You can keep calling me a "progressive" all you want. It won't make
it true because you keep repeating it.

it's true because you post the same as one,think the same,have the same
postitions. you just can't/won't recognize it. Dishonest.

The psychological term you think you know is called "projection".
And since you misused the word "inference", I have provided the
definition below as a courtesy.

inference: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a
logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior
conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation


OK,you -are- projecting. There's one thing we agree upon.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

You compare a man who spent his whole life in
service to his constituents to some air head psychopath that
shoots wolves from a helicopter. That ain't huntin', that's
killing for sport.

Or thinning the herd,getting rid of dangerous predators that cost
farmers their valuable livestock. this shows your ignorance.

That is also the way that the US Parks Service people sometimes do
it
for herd thinning purposes.

If the park service does it for a reason they see fit, that is one
thing.

When someone does it for entertainment, it shows cold bloodlust.
Killing for a thrill, that's it. She's not even going to use the
carcass.

HOW do you know it's "entertainment"? you were not there.
Perhaps that culling is desired by wildlife management.

Have you ever seen video of how it's done? The wolf is scared
****less as a giant chopper relentlessly pursues him/her. It can take
10 minutes or more of chasing the animal around at low altitude to get
a kill; the deafening noise, the instant blizzard created by the
rotor-wash, the sounds of shots fired (and some maybe hitting). It's
absolutely animal torture! It's disgusting that a human can take joy
from killing an animal after extensively torturing it. That is what
Palin is.

I can see you feel for the wolf.
That's another typical thing about "progressives";they operate on feelings
and suppositions,and not on facts or knowledge.

I'm sure the park service has a "cleaner" way to pick them off, since
the wolves must be such a burden to that small, cramped, land mass.

You don't know squat. you assume SO much that just isn't so.

Also, since the guy selling helicopter rides has to make it "fun",
it's better to let the animal suffer as long as possible for maximum
profits. A quick ground shot from 500 yards is way too simple, and
the ****ing wolf doesn't even know it's coming that way. What kind of
lame conservation measures are those?


You can't even recognize there's so much ground to cover,and wolves are
smart enough to flee the area if they have the chance.
The whole idea is to reduce their number,and other animals will feed upon
the carcasses.

It's all just more Palin Derangement Syndrome.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:03:07 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/4/2010 8:07 AM, DFBonnett wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:53:00 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:52:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD

Sure he is. When his new library opens it will display the last
authentic shoes of Jimmy Hoffa, recovered from the lunar surface.

Johnny Carson said they found the shoes there...


Jimmy Hoffa isn't dead, contrary to popular belief. In your mind's
eye, picture Jimmy Hoffa in a dress. Now picture Janet Napolitano.
Coincidence? I think not.

I have a friend from Californiastan who's a crossdresser, he's not
homosexual, he's a grandfather but he likes to wear women's clothing.

Yeah, Same thing as bank robbers wearing panty hose over their face.
One size to small. They look like slopeheads.

When the guy dresses up, he looks like an ugly Janet Reno. :-)

TDD

Actually Janet was a tough ass prosecutor on the local level.. First
as a successful RICO conviction. In Miami, she locked a bunch of
crooks up, for very long time -- RICO when it was new.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:26:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Americans don't understand Brit humour.


The main reason is Brit's don't have humor?

Prove me wrong!

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:56:04 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:10:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:29*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 12/03/10 07:53 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.

You don't think that the previous president didn't use a teleprompter
too? And he still managed to sound unintelligent much of the time.

Perce

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

There's that famous "Hollywood education" of yours again, harry. Michael
Moore flicks are a damned poor school.


Michael Moore DVD's serve a purpose. Stack them up under the couch
corner if a leg is broken.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:00:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:56:04 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:10:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:29*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 12/03/10 07:53 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.

You don't think that the previous president didn't use a teleprompter
too? And he still managed to sound unintelligent much of the time.

Perce

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

There's that famous "Hollywood education" of yours again, harry. Michael
Moore flicks are a damned poor school.


Michael Moore DVD's serve a purpose. Stack them up under the couch
corner if a leg is broken.

Useless. No matter how many you stack, the couch will still lean left.

On Dec 4, 4:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:10:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:29 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 12/03/10 07:53 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.

You don't think that the previous president didn't use a teleprompter
too? And he still managed to sound unintelligent much of the time.

Perce

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

There's that famous "Hollywood education" of yours again, harry. *Michael
Moore flicks are a damned poor school.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJmY5...eature=related

So this is Hollywood?

On Dec 4, 5:05*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 10:26 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 4, 10:25 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, * *wrote:
harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect..
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. *And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. *I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text - *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.


What? I love Monty Python!

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have a special dumbed down version for Yanks ;-)

On 12/5/2010 5:03 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:05 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 10:26 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 4, 10:25 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.


What? I love Monty Python!

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have a special dumbed down version for Yanks ;-)

"Oh I'm a lumberjack and that's OK....." :-)

TDD

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

This thread is like herpes and AIDS. Will never go away.

But you can protect yourself. Use a rubber,... er filter... on this
thread. grin.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
" wrote:


Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. I missed that.

Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.


--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Dec 5, 11:05*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/5/2010 5:03 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 4, 5:05 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 10:26 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:25 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, * * *wrote:
harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. *And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. *I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text - * *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.


What? I love Monty Python!

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have a special dumbed down version for Yanks *;-)

"Oh I'm a lumberjack and that's OK....." *:-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
"Oh, he's a lumber jack and he's ok,
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
Forget forget forget
He likes to wear a bra."
Canadians that one Duf. :-)

On Dec 5, 11:06*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

This thread is like herpes and AIDS. Will never go away.

* But you can protect yourself. Use a rubber,... er filter... on this
thread. grin.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

The devil is always with us.
Heh Heh!

On 12/5/2010 9:09 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:05 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/5/2010 5:03 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 4, 5:05 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 10:26 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:25 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.


What? I love Monty Python!

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have a special dumbed down version for Yanks ;-)

"Oh I'm a lumberjack and that's OK....." :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
"Oh, he's a lumber jack and he's ok,
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
Forget forget forget
He likes to wear a bra."
Canadians that one Duf. :-)

That's one of their funnier bits. ROTFL

TDD

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:02:30 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 4, 4:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:10:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:29 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 12/03/10 07:53 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.

You don't think that the previous president didn't use a teleprompter
too? And he still managed to sound unintelligent much of the time.

Perce

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

There's that famous "Hollywood education" of yours again, harry. *Michael
Moore flicks are a damned poor school.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJmY5...eature=related

So this is Hollywood?

You tell us, harry. You think you know it all.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:09:41 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. I missed that.

Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.

It was merely a matter of die now, at the hands of the unions, or die later at
the hands of the market. Management decided that later was a better choice.
That didn't help the bond holders much.

On 12/5/2010 12:31 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:09:41 -0500, Kurt wrote:

In ,
z wrote:


Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. I missed that.

Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.

It was merely a matter of die now, at the hands of the unions, or die later at
the hands of the market. Management decided that later was a better choice.
That didn't help the bond holders much.

I wonder how many of the folks who had a large part of their retirement
in 'old' GM stock are gonna rush out to buy a new Chevy? Personally, I'd
hold a grudge over that for a LONG time. I think telling all of them
'SOL, folks!' was a sin and a PR blunder. They should have been given at
least a token payout by the judge.
--
aem sends...

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:05:23 -0500, aemeijers wrote:

On 12/5/2010 12:31 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:09:41 -0500, Kurt wrote:

In ,
z wrote:


Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. I missed that.

Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.

It was merely a matter of die now, at the hands of the unions, or die later at
the hands of the market. Management decided that later was a better choice.
That didn't help the bond holders much.

I wonder how many of the folks who had a large part of their retirement
in 'old' GM stock are gonna rush out to buy a new Chevy? Personally, I'd
hold a grudge over that for a LONG time. I think telling all of them
'SOL, folks!' was a sin and a PR blunder. They should have been given at
least a token payout by the judge.

None of my retirement is in old GM stock, or bonds (that I know of), and I
won't buy another Chevy (only had one, though). The judge wasn't.

On Dec 5, 6:05*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 12/5/2010 12:31 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:09:41 -0500, Kurt *wrote:

In ,
zzz *wrote:

Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. *I missed that.

* * Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.

It was merely a matter of die now, at the hands of the unions, or die later at
the hands of the market. *Management decided that later was a better choice.
That didn't help the bond holders much.

I wonder how many of the folks who had a large part of their retirement
in 'old' GM stock are gonna rush out to buy a new Chevy? Personally, I'd
hold a grudge over that for a LONG time. I think telling all of them
'SOL, folks!' was a sin and a PR blunder. They should have been given at
least a token *payout by the judge.
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're having a big push selling Chevys in the UK. Mostly they don't
look like anything from America though.
http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/?cid=PPC_...me_-_Chevrolet

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:35:19 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 5, 6:05*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 12/5/2010 12:31 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:09:41 -0500, Kurt *wrote:

In ,
zzz *wrote:

Oh, it was the Republicans who ripped GM away from its owners and gave it to
the unions. *I missed that.

* * Of course there are other among us who would (rather cynically)
suggest that the UAW has owned GM since the mid-70s or so. I like to
agree with my area UAW buddies that GM management did indeed manage
things badly. THen mention that how they managed the unions was one of
the worst areas.

It was merely a matter of die now, at the hands of the unions, or die later at
the hands of the market. *Management decided that later was a better choice.
That didn't help the bond holders much.

I wonder how many of the folks who had a large part of their retirement
in 'old' GM stock are gonna rush out to buy a new Chevy? Personally, I'd
hold a grudge over that for a LONG time. I think telling all of them
'SOL, folks!' was a sin and a PR blunder. They should have been given at
least a token *payout by the judge.
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're having a big push selling Chevys in the UK. Mostly they don't
look like anything from America though.
http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/?cid=PPC_...me_-_Chevrolet

They're pushing them here, too. Why not, it's not their money.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Maybe if you keep calling me a progressive I'll morph into one!?



if it talks like a duck,walks like a duck..."

and if one has the same positions as "progressives",then they are
"progressives".

That's YOU.


I'll make you a deal. I'll admit to being a "progressive" when you admit to
being a Republican.

Jim Yanik wrote:

OK,you -are- projecting. There's one thing we agree upon.


Lol.. okay.

I was having some fun at your expense because I was bored. Sorry about that.
I'm going to bow-out now, when the thread becomes this long and more personal
jabs get thrown around it's less fun.

Thanks for the engagement, we'll do it again sometime!


PS: I really don't care about Dancing With da Stars, I don't even watch it!

Jim Yanik wrote:

if it talks like a duck,walks like a duck..."

and if one has the same positions as "progressives",then they are
"progressives".

That's YOU.


I did end up on one of their e-mail lists somehow. They always want me to sign
their electronic petitions and send them money. I did sign a petition once, but
it had to do with keeping Pandora Internet radio out of trouble.