On Sep 3, 3:40 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:04:22 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

wrote:

Of course I didnt suggest that. Seems your Bushophobia is rather
tragicly progressed well into the terminal stage.

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

If, by "the **** herself" you meant Hillary Clinton then there is
a cognitive disconnect between your question and your proffered
answers as the webpages do not contain any statements from
HERSELF.

Neither do most court indictments. Yet they are still very real.


Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

--

FF

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:40 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:04:22 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

wrote:

Of course I didnt suggest that. Seems your Bushophobia is rather
tragicly progressed well into the terminal stage.

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

If, by "the **** herself" you meant Hillary Clinton then there is
a cognitive disconnect between your question and your proffered
answers as the webpages do not contain any statements from
HERSELF.

Neither do most court indictments. Yet they are still very real.


Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.


Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

Gunner

On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?



In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

--

FF

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?



In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?


Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.

Pity

Gunner

Gunner wrote in
:

snip
Well, I figured if you're gonna go starkers around the neighborhood
then you might want to do it whole hog.

Maybe a long welding bib style tie up would help.

Oh and don't forget the work boots.....

Ow, I just hurt my brain with that image......


Bill

Carrhart thong and lumberjack boots?

Gunner


Do you know how much I'm going to have to drink tonight to kill the brain
cells that are holding that image.... and I don't even drink

Bill

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:45:09 -0500, Bill wrote:

Gunner wrote in
:

snip
Well, I figured if you're gonna go starkers around the neighborhood
then you might want to do it whole hog.

Maybe a long welding bib style tie up would help.

Oh and don't forget the work boots.....

Ow, I just hurt my brain with that image......


Bill

Carrhart thong and lumberjack boots?

Gunner


Do you know how much I'm going to have to drink tonight to kill the brain
cells that are holding that image.... and I don't even drink

Bill


Your welcome.

G

Gunner

On Sep 4, 7:12 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt



wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

About her, nothing.


Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

Why?

Has it changed in the last 16 years?


The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. Definitively, they did not
as you had claimed, include anything from herself.


Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

OTOH if you have at least two neurons to rub together you
understand that is irrelevant to my complaint, that you
referred to material written by other people as being
from herself.


Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.


Again my complaint is with your misattribution of the authorship
of the material you cited, and has has nothing to do with the
putative
veracity of the material.

---


FF

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:05:30 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:12 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt



wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

About her, nothing.


Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

Why?

Has it changed in the last 16 years?


The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. Definitively, they did not
as you had claimed, include anything from herself.


Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

OTOH if you have at least two neurons to rub together you
understand that is irrelevant to my complaint, that you
referred to material written by other people as being
from herself.


Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.


Again my complaint is with your misattribution of the authorship
of the material you cited, and has has nothing to do with the
putative
veracity of the material.

---


FF

Pity...seems you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Ill try
harder to communicate on your level next time.

Hummm...what should I use for grunts and drool.......humm...

Gunner

On Sep 4, 10:42 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:05:30 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt



wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

About her, nothing.

Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

Why?

Has it changed in the last 16 years?

The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. Definitively, they did not
as you had claimed, include anything from herself.

Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

OTOH if you have at least two neurons to rub together you
understand that is irrelevant to my complaint, that you
referred to material written by other people as being
from herself.

Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.

Again my complaint is with your misattribution of the authorship
of the material you cited, and has has nothing to do with the
putative
veracity of the material.

...

Pity...seems you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Ill try
harder to communicate on your level next time.


I object because I understand.

--

FF

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:56:24 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 4, 10:42 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:05:30 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt



wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

About her, nothing.

Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

Why?

Has it changed in the last 16 years?

The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. Definitively, they did not
as you had claimed, include anything from herself.

Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

OTOH if you have at least two neurons to rub together you
understand that is irrelevant to my complaint, that you
referred to material written by other people as being
from herself.

Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.

Again my complaint is with your misattribution of the authorship
of the material you cited, and has has nothing to do with the
putative
veracity of the material.

...

Pity...seems you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Ill try
harder to communicate on your level next time.


I object because I understand.

Grunt...snerk...urrg, spaz...splosh...neek neek verbil gruntgrunt
grunt.

Gunner

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Buying property subject to a HOA is not for anyone that likes to do and make
things. I'd be interested to learn of any study showing percentages of
Democrats, Liberals, Republicans in HOA's compared to the DLR population as
a whole. There has to be some sort of mindset in play.

Wes

LOL...I think you just hit THE ISSUE on the head.

My guess is those individuals who need rules and favor conformity
would thrive in a HOA.

Compulsive need for cleaniness and order (everything in its place)
would be another indicator.

Any guess which political group(s) fit that description?


Not likely the Libertarians.

Republicans seem to be a cross between Libertarian Lite and Democrat Lite.

I guess it comes down to Democrats that always think they know what is best
for you.

Wes

Larry Jaques wrote:

I have very hard times developing compassion for these unfortunate
board members.

Ditto, and I'm truly astounded that we haven't been asked to develop
compassion for dozens of congresscritters before now.

After two Kennedys were taken out, they the congress, enacted the GCA 68.
The greatest assault on liberty ever in our history.

Wes