Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

LLoyd

On Jul 9, 6:17*pm, "Steve B" wrote:

Well, FYI, everyone is a racist. *It's just not PC or culturally cool to
declare one's affiliation. *Show me someone who claims they harbor no
racism, and I will show you a dishonest person.

Steve

That would be me.

Dan

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus2159" wrote

The point that I was making, I think is clear enough, is that it is
not OK to be a racist.
i

Well, FYI, everyone is a racist. It's just not PC or culturally cool to
declare one's affiliation.

No they're not, Steve. You have no perspective on it. As a self-declared
racist yourself, you think everyone views race the way that you do.

They don't.

Show me someone who claims they harbor no racism, and I will show you a
dishonest person.

A typical line from a self-apologizing racist.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i

"Ignoramus14315" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in
news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Read "Nixonland" by Perlstein.

"Gray Goat (The Other White Meat)"
wrote in message . 97.142...
Ignoramus2159 wrote in
news
On 2011-07-09, Bob At Kaiser wrote:
In article feefbdcb-08c9-4112-90c7-

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:54?pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:
"Why are people so cruel" wrote in
messagenews:
m...

as to why someone should use a photo comparing Michele Obama with
a gorilla.

Comparing ANY black person to a gorilla is racist to the core....

But it's okay for black to say anything they want about people
of other colors, right smart guy? It's okay for them to write
music about killing cops, beating white women, raping white
women, killing Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese etc. It's the
creative artistic black culture that appeals to the ignorant, so
naturally liberals love it.

The point that I was making, I think is clear enough, is that it is
not OK to be a racist.

The fact that the Republican party cannot survive without racists like
the original poster, is what made me despise it and stop voting
Republican.

i

Yeah, you just tarred a entire group for the behavior of a few, whom the
group itself condemns.

That's a pretty paranoid response to what he actually said, Goat.

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20% of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Of course, you'll deny this, but that's only because you won't let yourself
believe the facts. And you'll assume that Iggy is painting the entire
Republican party with the same brush, because you're well-trained in being a
victim.

But the facts are on his side, for the basic point that he's making: Without
racists in their midst, Republicans can't win an election now. That doesn't
mean that all Republicans are racists. On the whole, and according to polls,
they appear to have about the same overall racial attitudes as the
population at large. But the racist contingent is largely voting on their
side. I'm sure that the distinction isn't too hard for you, but accepting
the fact of it probably is.


Wow! You ain't wrapped real tight, pardner.

He's wrapped a hell of a lot tighter than most of the righty boyz.

--
Ed Huntress




That the person in the photo appears to be Michelle Obama is
unimportant.

Nope, that's point exactly. She's a racist black bitch and
deserves to be treated like one.


--

If you had a brain you might kill yourself.

Well said.

TMT





--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

On Jul 10, 1:00*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20% of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Ed Huntress

The above is pretty much what I said a long time ago about why the
Southern politicians all campaigned as if they were racist. The
average person in the South was not racist, but none of the
politicians wanted to lose the 5 % of the voters that were racist.
You did not like that argument, but now you are saying the same thing.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 1:00 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20%
of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial
attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put
it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Ed Huntress

The above is pretty much what I said a long time ago about why the
Southern politicians all campaigned as if they were racist. The
average person in the South was not racist, but none of the
politicians wanted to lose the 5 % of the voters that were racist.
You did not like that argument, but now you are saying the same thing.

Dan

Well, I don't remember that, and I'd need to see how you made the case, but
as you describe it here, I would not disagree.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My sincere condolences, Ig, and I really mean that.


My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Both parties have devolved immensely since I started voting in 1972.
But remember, even old Uncle Will, 400 years ago, hated lawyers, and
most politicians come from that stock. Talk about an utterly inbred,
valueless lot...


Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

What would you change on or remove from the Libertarian platform?


The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

And you feel that your Dem party has removed deficits, ended wars, and
somehow saved the budget? Please give cites for anything even
remotely _imitating_ that.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i

The only problem you have..is that you live in Illinois..and its far
leftwing foulness has infected your brain.

Id STRONGLY suggest you move to another state, where over time..the
infection will go away.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:48 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:


Fukuyama wrote in 2004 (?) that the Republican Party of that year was
neither conservative or even very bright.
In doing so, the modern conservative movement was officially pronounced
dead, having been overcome by Christo-fascists and the hard core
neo-conservatives.

And budget plunderers

Hummm?

Since the Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since 2007..and
the Whitehouse has been controlled by a Marxist since 2009....Im curious
about that "budge plunderers" comment.

Care to explain it?


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in
news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he
is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i

The only problem you have..is that you live in Illinois..and its far
leftwing foulness has infected your brain.

Id STRONGLY suggest you move to another state, where over time..the
infection will go away.


Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer, and have hundreds of thousands in unpaid
medical debts. But you'll be clear-headed and perfectly aware of what you're
doing, and not care about it at all. Life will be just a bowl of cherries.

Isn't that something to aspire to? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Jul 10, 2:14*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

The above is pretty much what I said a long time ago about why the
Southern politicians all campaigned as if they were racist. *The
average person in the South was not racist, but none of the
politicians wanted to lose the 5 % of the voters that were racist.
You did not like that argument, but now you are saying the same thing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Well, I don't remember that, and I'd need to see how you made the case, but
as you describe it here, I would not disagree.

--
Ed Huntress

I was arguing that Southerners were not as racist as you thought.
That all the politicians wanted the racist votes so it seemed that the
South was more racist than it really was. At the time the Southern
politicians were all Democrats.

Dan

On 7/10/2011 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's a pretty paranoid response to what he actually said, Goat.

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20% of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Of course, you'll deny this, but that's only because you won't let yourself
believe the facts. And you'll assume that Iggy is painting the entire
Republican party with the same brush, because you're well-trained in being a
victim.

But the facts are on his side, for the basic point that he's making: Without
racists in their midst, Republicans can't win an election now. That doesn't
mean that all Republicans are racists. On the whole, and according to polls,
they appear to have about the same overall racial attitudes as the
population at large. But the racist contingent is largely voting on their
side. I'm sure that the distinction isn't too hard for you, but accepting
the fact of it probably is.

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you
are? Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?
Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him? Do you think a
white candidate with similar background and personality as Obama's would
have been elected or even nominated?

I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black
candidate was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from
Chicago, where corrupt politician is redundant.

OTOH, Soupy Sales could have beaten McCain. And Soupy's dead...

David

On 2011-07-11, David R. Birch wrote:
On 7/10/2011 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's a pretty paranoid response to what he actually said, Goat.

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20% of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Of course, you'll deny this, but that's only because you won't let yourself
believe the facts. And you'll assume that Iggy is painting the entire
Republican party with the same brush, because you're well-trained in being a
victim.

But the facts are on his side, for the basic point that he's making: Without
racists in their midst, Republicans can't win an election now. That doesn't
mean that all Republicans are racists. On the whole, and according to polls,
they appear to have about the same overall racial attitudes as the
population at large. But the racist contingent is largely voting on their
side. I'm sure that the distinction isn't too hard for you, but accepting
the fact of it probably is.

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you
are? Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?
Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him? Do you think a
white candidate with similar background and personality as Obama's would
have been elected or even nominated?

I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black
candidate was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from
Chicago, where corrupt politician is redundant.

OTOH, Soupy Sales could have beaten McCain. And Soupy's dead...

David

Obama is a perfect example of someone, who is of black/brown skin, but
had an upgringing with very little connection to the "black
culture". He was brought up by his white mother, grew up among whites,
and went to very yuppie schools.

i

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2011 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's a pretty paranoid response to what he actually said, Goat.

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20%
of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact,
but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial
attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put
it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Of course, you'll deny this, but that's only because you won't let
yourself
believe the facts. And you'll assume that Iggy is painting the entire
Republican party with the same brush, because you're well-trained in
being a
victim.

But the facts are on his side, for the basic point that he's making:
Without
racists in their midst, Republicans can't win an election now. That
doesn't
mean that all Republicans are racists. On the whole, and according to
polls,
they appear to have about the same overall racial attitudes as the
population at large. But the racist contingent is largely voting on their
side. I'm sure that the distinction isn't too hard for you, but accepting
the fact of it probably is.

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you are?

If that's your reason for not voting for him, I'd say it is.

Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?

It might be, but it's a lot less likely. To NOT vote for him because of his
race presumes racial inferiority on his part. To vote for him because of his
race may, and probably did for the majority of black voters, presume a
greater awareness of the racial discriminations the black voter faces. That
is not racism in any reasonable sense. That's more a matter of identity
politics.

Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him?

I doubt it.

Do you think a white candidate with similar background and personality as
Obama's would have been elected or even nominated?

Yup. With his speaking ability and obvious intelligence, a white Obama would
have absolutely creamed McCain, more than Obama did.


I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black candidate
was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from Chicago, where
corrupt politician is redundant.

I don't care where he's from, and he seems less affected by Chicago
political style than most Chicago politicians (if you want to see a
candidate who will blow your mind with corrupt regional politics, elect
Chris Christie).

What disappoints me about Obama is that he took so long to realize the
nature of the political resistance he would get from Republicans in
Congress. He's much too optimistic about people. More experience would have
cured him of that, I think.


OTOH, Soupy Sales could have beaten McCain. And Soupy's dead...

No, McCain wasn't that bad of a candidate.

--
Ed Huntress



David

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:56:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i

The only problem you have..is that you live in Illinois..and its far
leftwing foulness has infected your brain.

Id STRONGLY suggest you move to another state, where over time..the
infection will go away.

Gunner


California?

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Jul 10, 11:28*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


What disappoints me about Obama is that he took so long to realize the
nature of the political resistance he would get from Republicans in
Congress. He's much too optimistic about people. More experience would have
cured him of that, I think.


Ed Huntress

My disappointment is that he let Congress do it's job. Sounds strange
when said that way, but as the head of the Democratic Party he should
have directed Congress more rather than let Congress draft laws
without his input. In other words about the same comment as you made,
Ed. Except including "Democrats in Congress" along with "Republicans
in Congress". Essentially too optimistic about Congress.

Dan

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:18:20 -0500, in rec.crafts.metalworking
Ignoramus14315 wrote:

On 2011-07-11, David R. Birch wrote:

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you
are? Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?
Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him? Do you think a
white candidate with similar background and personality as Obama's would
have been elected or even nominated?

I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black
candidate was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from
Chicago, where corrupt politician is redundant.

Obama is a perfect example of someone, who is of black/brown skin, but
had an upgringing with very little connection to the "black
culture". He was brought up by his white mother, grew up among whites,
and went to very yuppie schools.

Huh? Chicago is only 42% white.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html


Didja forget his attendance at a Wahabbist Muslim school, too?

Didja forget that he married a racist wife, whose college thesis was
on being a black woman at Princeton?

Didja forget that he attended a church which was led by one of the
worst racists in our time? (And Wright was good buddies w/ Farrakhan)

Didja forget that he bolstered up ACORN (criminal black activists)?

The man has used race as a tool or weapon all his life.

Those are quick items from memory. I'm sure there are many more
examples if a person was to research it.

That is a -bit- too much coincidence for me.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 11:28 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


What disappoints me about Obama is that he took so long to realize the
nature of the political resistance he would get from Republicans in
Congress. He's much too optimistic about people. More experience would
have
cured him of that, I think.


Ed Huntress

My disappointment is that he let Congress do it's job. Sounds strange
when said that way, but as the head of the Democratic Party he should
have directed Congress more rather than let Congress draft laws
without his input. In other words about the same comment as you made,
Ed. Except including "Democrats in Congress" along with "Republicans
in Congress". Essentially too optimistic about Congress.

Yeah. I'd like to know what he's been thinking, which we probably won't know
in detail until he writes his memoirs. Meantime, he seems to have put too
much faith in Congress. And he may have shot his political wad on health
care. I can't figure out how much authority that cost him in his own party,
let alone with Congress in general.

One thing we've learned is that there is no leadership in Congress that's
capable of accomplishing anything across party lines. It's an institution of
midgets. Obama's approach, which seems to be to let Congress hash it all out
and then step in to clean it up at the end, never gets us to the point where
there's anything to clean up. They just can't rise above their re-election
posturing.

We're really being victimized by minority, fringe movements that hold the
margins of loss or victory in elections. It's like Europe in the 1950s and
1960s, when fringe parties could hold out and decide the majorities in
parliament, and then demand a key concession or two in order to join a
coalition. What used to work against them, with their multi-party systems,
now appears to be working against us, where neither party can get a
coalition together without bowing to the fringe groups.

The Republican coalition is well known. The Democrats seem to have created
their own fringe -- not leftists, who remain a very small group within the
Democratic Party, but the conservative Dems who rode in on Obama's party
shirttails. On issues that are clearly conservative/liberal, as opposed to
Republican/Demicrat, they hold the key to Democratic majorities.

It's quite a mess, and, as an old student of comparative politics, it's the
first time I can remember in which distinct minorities (Tea Partiers,
conservative Democrats) are forcing parliamentary, coalition-type behavior
in Congress. And, by not leading on issues from the beginning, Obama is
enabling the whole thing, by allowing Congress to go off in all directions
at once, until the relative positions become hardened, irresolvable
commitments.

Where's LBJ when we really need him? ggg

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:18:20 -0500, in rec.crafts.metalworking
Ignoramus14315 wrote:

On 2011-07-11, David R. Birch wrote:

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you
are? Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?
Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him? Do you think a
white candidate with similar background and personality as Obama's would
have been elected or even nominated?

I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black
candidate was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from
Chicago, where corrupt politician is redundant.

Obama is a perfect example of someone, who is of black/brown skin, but
had an upgringing with very little connection to the "black
culture". He was brought up by his white mother, grew up among whites,
and went to very yuppie schools.

Huh? Chicago is only 42% white.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html

Fer chrissakes, Larry, you know that he wasn't brought up in Chicago.



Didja forget his attendance at a Wahabbist Muslim school, too?

Do you still think it's a good idea to threaten to shoot him?


Didja forget that he married a racist wife, whose college thesis was
on being a black woman at Princeton?

Oh, now THERE's racism for you. She should have written about being a white
woman at Princeton, eh? But that would have been a bit harder.


Didja forget that he attended a church which was led by one of the
worst racists in our time? (And Wright was good buddies w/ Farrakhan)

Didja forget that he bolstered up ACORN (criminal black activists)?

The man has used race as a tool or weapon all his life.

Those are quick items from memory.

Those are fantasies from your warped imagination, which seems to operate on
bad gas and selective memory.

I'm sure there are many more
examples if a person was to research it.

Or just cook it up...


That is a -bit- too much coincidence for me.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Now, *there's* a brilliant insight. Next, she'll tell us that it gets dark
when the sun goes down.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:15:11 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:56:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i

The only problem you have..is that you live in Illinois..and its far
leftwing foulness has infected your brain.

Id STRONGLY suggest you move to another state, where over time..the
infection will go away.

Gunner


California?

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Even California is better than Illinois. Ever see a red/blue map of
California? Red being conservative voters, blue being leftwing voters

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Jul 8, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:36:15 +1000, "Why are people so cruel"

wrote:
What
would the response have been had a similar photo of say Laura Bush
been used with some sort of derogatory comment about her?

What..you bozos are now denying you posted such?

Or did you suddenly get a fast case of high speed amnesia?

****ing leftwingers...hypocrits of the worst sort.

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

LOL..look at who is talking.

Gummer...we are still waiting to hear if that latest death threat you
issued is also directed towards the President..what is delaying your
response?

TMT

On Jul 8, 11:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:03:11 -0500, Ignoramus3276





wrote:
On 2011-07-07, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

as to why someone should use a photo comparing Michele Obama with a
gorilla.

Comparing ANY black person to a gorilla is racist to the core....

That the person in the photo appears to be Michelle Obama is unimportant.

On Jul 9, 4:38*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 7/7/2011 11:02 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Jul 7, 11:08 am,
wrote:
On 2011-07-07, Gunner *wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:03:11 -0500, Ignoramus3276
*wrote:

It seems that some Republicans are terrified of having a black
President in the White House.

After 8 years or so, though, they may start to get used to it.

i

Frankly Iggy...Comrade...none here give a **** if the dude is green,
red, brown, black or paisley.

I am seeing the opposite, no less than right here, in this thread.

The fact is....the dolt is a utter ****wit and has gutted the
nation..and keeps jabbing and stabbing and hacking away at it.
Thats what we care about. Another Leftwing
asshat..Rosevelt..lengthed the first depression into the Great
Depression and caused it to go over 7 yrs longer than it would if he
simply kept his ****ing hands out of the mess.

So keep your bull**** about bias and racism to your self.

Or Ill start pointing out that Democrats created the KKK as its
terrorist arm..and have supported it for 150 yrs so far.

And Dr King was a Republican.

I "was" a Republican, too.

i

I "was" too Ig.

And it would seem...never again.

TMT

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The willingness to change is a sign of maturity.

The willingness to change is a quality that the Republican Party seems
to not have.

TMT

On Jul 8, 11:37*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:34:09 +1000, "Why are people so cruel"





wrote:

You libs should have considered that before making the tens of
thousands of threats to kill George Bush, calling his wife and
daughters whores, murderers, sluts, drug addicts, etc.

Now that your soylent brown communist criminal is in the
Whitehouse and the gloves are off, you don't think it's fair?

You're eating exactly what you planted.

Thats the sort of arguement that goes nowhere - you did it first so now suck
it up - sort of arguements used in school playgrounds. No wonder people are
disenchanted with politics if thats the only arguement you can put forward
as
to why someone should use a photo comparing Michele Obama with a gorilla..

Actually ****tard..it goes somewhere indeed. It simply points out that
Leftwingers are a bunch of whimpering whiney hypocrits of the worst
sort.

So get up off your knees, wipe the jiz off your lips and quit being a
hypocrit, *you widdle asshat.

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahh Gummer..such a caring soul.

TMT

On 7/9/2011 3:46 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

LLoyd


Well, ****. I guess if Churchill said it then it must be true, right?
Not. Don't forget that British threw out Churchill as soon as WWII was
over. They knew his ideas were old fashioned and antiquated, which is
why they gave him the boot.

Hawke

On 7/10/2011 7:04 AM, Ignoramus14315 wrote:
On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburghlloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

i


What you need to remember is that political parties are just a
conglomeration of like minded individuals. They never stay the same, and
the people in parties are always changing. The kind of people you found
in the republican party in the 1950s were different people than you find
now. Today's republican party is dominated by a certain group of people
who hold what are in today's society considered to be rather extreme
views. They only amount to a small segment of our society but they have
gained control of the republican party. So they are in effect driving
the car.

With this kind of people you are either with them or you're against
them. A lot more people who used to consider themselves republicans no
longer see that they are anything like the people who now dominate the
party. This condition may or may not last very long. If the republicans
are kept out of power for quite a while because of their extreme views
then in time the party will change. The people today will get replaced.
Both success and failure cause parties to change who belongs to them.

Right now a minority is in control of the republican party. I'll be
surprised if they are not defeated in 2012. Two straight losses to
Democrats in presidential elections will have a big effect on the
republicans. Will this cause the party to go back to what is used to be?
Good question. It's possible but it's just as possible it will be quite
different in the future. Unfortunately, the basis of the party has
always been the support and defense of the wealthy and business. I doubt
you will ever see that change.

Hawke

On 7/11/2011 2:09 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:38 pm, wrote:
On 7/7/2011 11:02 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Jul 7, 11:08 am,
wrote:
On 2011-07-07, Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:03:11 -0500, Ignoramus3276
wrote:

It seems that some Republicans are terrified of having a black
President in the White House.

After 8 years or so, though, they may start to get used to it.

i

Frankly Iggy...Comrade...none here give a **** if the dude is green,
red, brown, black or paisley.

I am seeing the opposite, no less than right here, in this thread.

The fact is....the dolt is a utter ****wit and has gutted the
nation..and keeps jabbing and stabbing and hacking away at it.
Thats what we care about. Another Leftwing
asshat..Rosevelt..lengthed the first depression into the Great
Depression and caused it to go over 7 yrs longer than it would if he
simply kept his ****ing hands out of the mess.

So keep your bull**** about bias and racism to your self.

Or Ill start pointing out that Democrats created the KKK as its
terrorist arm..and have supported it for 150 yrs so far.

And Dr King was a Republican.

I "was" a Republican, too.

i

I "was" too Ig.

And it would seem...never again.

TMT

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The willingness to change is a sign of maturity.

The willingness to change is a quality that the Republican Party seems
to not have.

TMT


You got that right. I like to think that I will change what I think at
the drop of a hat. Meaning the minute I learn that what I believed was
factually wrong I'll immediately change my view to what is factually
right. You just don't see that in conservatives. You show them they're
wrong and that usually has no effect on their thinking. Which is just
one of the reasons why I don't like them.

Hawke

On 7/11/2011 6:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 11:28 pm, "Ed wrote:


What disappoints me about Obama is that he took so long to realize the
nature of the political resistance he would get from Republicans in
Congress. He's much too optimistic about people. More experience would
have
cured him of that, I think.


Ed Huntress

My disappointment is that he let Congress do it's job. Sounds strange
when said that way, but as the head of the Democratic Party he should
have directed Congress more rather than let Congress draft laws
without his input. In other words about the same comment as you made,
Ed. Except including "Democrats in Congress" along with "Republicans
in Congress". Essentially too optimistic about Congress.

Yeah. I'd like to know what he's been thinking, which we probably won't know
in detail until he writes his memoirs. Meantime, he seems to have put too
much faith in Congress. And he may have shot his political wad on health
care. I can't figure out how much authority that cost him in his own party,
let alone with Congress in general.

One thing we've learned is that there is no leadership in Congress that's
capable of accomplishing anything across party lines. It's an institution of
midgets. Obama's approach, which seems to be to let Congress hash it all out
and then step in to clean it up at the end, never gets us to the point where
there's anything to clean up. They just can't rise above their re-election
posturing.

We're really being victimized by minority, fringe movements that hold the
margins of loss or victory in elections. It's like Europe in the 1950s and
1960s, when fringe parties could hold out and decide the majorities in
parliament, and then demand a key concession or two in order to join a
coalition. What used to work against them, with their multi-party systems,
now appears to be working against us, where neither party can get a
coalition together without bowing to the fringe groups.

The Republican coalition is well known. The Democrats seem to have created
their own fringe -- not leftists, who remain a very small group within the
Democratic Party, but the conservative Dems who rode in on Obama's party
shirttails. On issues that are clearly conservative/liberal, as opposed to
Republican/Demicrat, they hold the key to Democratic majorities.

It's quite a mess, and, as an old student of comparative politics, it's the
first time I can remember in which distinct minorities (Tea Partiers,
conservative Democrats) are forcing parliamentary, coalition-type behavior
in Congress. And, by not leading on issues from the beginning, Obama is
enabling the whole thing, by allowing Congress to go off in all directions
at once, until the relative positions become hardened, irresolvable
commitments.

Where's LBJ when we really need him?ggg


I doubt that even LBJ would be successful today. I think that the
problem is with the public. They're the ones who are sending all these
ideological nuts to congress. They aren't choosing themselves. The
American public is just plain ****ed up, period. So they are sending to
congress wonderful examples of themselves. I'm surprised they aren't
wearing baseball caps on backwards in congress, actually. We're so
divided and disagree so much on every issue that it's like we're not
really one people. Maybe we never were, just like the Soviet Union never
was a real country.

So you take a country that is at war with itself, let them send people
who think just like they do in every corner of the country, and you get
a group in congress that are mental midgets, can't legislate, and can't
even work together. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. See, I
told you democracy doesn't work. 8-)

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer,

Actually, he lives in a junk yard.


and have hundreds of thousands in unpaid medical debts. But you'll be
clear-headed and perfectly aware of what you're doing, and not care about
it at all. Life will be just a bowl of cherries.

Isn't that something to aspire to? d8-)

On 2011-07-13, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer,

Actually, he lives in a junk yard.

I like his yard, actually, and the gun collection, but not the rest.

I would like a yard like that.

i

"Ignoramus15459" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-13, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer,

Actually, he lives in a junk yard.

I like his yard, actually, and the gun collection, but not the rest.

I would like a yard like that.

i

I believe that a man lives inside his own head. If he's happy there,
whatever appears when he opens his eyes is acceptable. If he's unhappy, the
best house and circumstances don't mean anything.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
.. .

"Ignoramus15459" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-13, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer,

Actually, he lives in a junk yard.

I like his yard, actually, and the gun collection, but not the rest.

I would like a yard like that.

i

I believe that a man lives inside his own head.

That's certainly true with many of the wingers that we see on this NG.

If he's happy there, whatever appears when he opens his eyes is
acceptable.

That's very fortunate for some of those same folks.

If he's unhappy, the best house and circumstances don't mean anything.

Screw the house. I'll take the best circumstances.

It's like money buying you love. Money won't buy it, but it makes things a
damned sight more enjoyable while you're looking around.

The farcical side of it comes out when those folks who keep screwing up
their own situations start giving advice.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
.. .

"Ignoramus15459" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-13, PrecisionmachinisT
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Emulate Gunner, in other words, Iggy, and you, too can be scraping the
bottom for jobs, live in a trailer,

Actually, he lives in a junk yard.

I like his yard, actually, and the gun collection, but not the rest.

I would like a yard like that.

i

I believe that a man lives inside his own head.

That's certainly true with many of the wingers that we see on this NG.

If he's happy there, whatever appears when he opens his eyes is
acceptable.

That's very fortunate for some of those same folks.


Gunner can't even accept even a tiny bit of responsibility for his own
mistakes...

--and he is only happy when day dreaming about the murder of the very same
folks who, out of compassion and generousity created social stopgaps that
have allowed him to stay alive for the better part of the past decade.

She's so fat when she wears white to a reunion, they show home movies on her
ass.

She's so fat, she wears black Spandex to a costume party and goes as "Outer
Space". Heard on Rush Limbaugh on a tribute to Al Sharpton.

Steve