On Nov 3, 2:24*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 11/2/2011 4:54 PM, rangerssuck wrote:





On Nov 2, 5:38 pm, *wrote:
On 10/31/2011 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:19:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
* *wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" *wrote in message
...

"Ed * *wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" *wrote in message
news:L66dnVmLcfD8fjPTnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@scnrese arch.com...

* *wrote in message
...
* *Starting yesterday , anyone initiating *OR* *RESPONDING* to a
crossposted political post will be joining the current inhabitants of my
killfile . Some of you have posted good info and handy tips in the past ,
but this crap has gotten out of hand .
* *I don't come here to read about queers and racism , I'm here for the
metalworking content . You will be missed *(some of you not much ...) but
that's the way it goes .

* *Thank you and have a nice day .

The Zombie nutjobs all came out of hiding when Obama got elected.

There's a more direct connection, too. Gunner started cross-posting to
misc.survivalism and occasionally to a gun group; Cliff picked it up and
made it much worse, extending it to additional NGs; Hammy (under about a
dozen pseudonyms) decided to make life miserable for RCM because Cliff had
picked up misc.survivalism from Gunner and Hammy is a prick; and now RCM
is in every nutjobs' cross-posting list because we've become part of their
larger cross-posting, mutual-provocation network.

I tried like hell to stop Cliff from doing it, in public and in private.
Now he's gone, and it's running on its own inertia. Hammy keeps it fired
up by posting dozens of right-wing news stories every week. He won't stop,
and he doesn't appear to have a better nature to appeal to.

Well, I actually have an pretty active killfile myself, but it's mostly
limited to the very worst offenders and to those who NEVER seem to post
anything that's on-topic...which basically leaves me with only a handful

--many of whom probably rightly belong in a mental institution...and who
will probably be relegated to my killfile soon enough..

And though it's wrong, still it's oftentimes difficult to resist doing a bit
of teasing when one is visiting the primate exibit....

================================================== ==============

They invite it. They love to provoke, and some of them have refined it into
an art.

Set up a kill file that delete all posts to more then 2 groups. Agent
has the capability and it gets rid of the more obnoxious posts.

Personally, I don't see any need for a killfile. After a while you get
to know who's an idiot and you just pass over anything from them. Having
a filter take out people I think have goofy ideas seems to go against
the grain of having all kinds. There's always plenty of people with
nutty ideas and that act like idiots. At this point I'm used to them. If
they are too offensive I just ignore them. I can't think of anything
easier than that.

Hawke

Funny thing, though, a lot of the people here (myself not included)
would consider YOU to be one of the idiots to be ignored.

Are you a right wing goof ball? If you are then I'm exactly someone you
would want to ignore. I mean, you folks would not want to hear anything
except the views you agree with. So you would want to isolate yourself
to only other far right wing freaks just like yourself. You sure
wouldn't want someone like me to be around. You might have to hear an
opinion that differs from yours.

Hawke

Wow. Did you actually read every word of what I wrote? Even the last
three words of the first line? I seriously doubt that there is anyone
in this group very far to the left of me. That doesn't mean that
there's no room in my world for people to the right of me, but they do
have to be reasonable.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:28:04 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/2/2011 7:57 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:54:29 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Nov 2, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On 10/31/2011 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:


Funny thing, though, a lot of the people here (myself not included)
would consider YOU to be one of the idiots to be ignored.

And how! If it wasn't for the comic relief, he'd be living in the bozo
bin with Douchebag.


Right, and I suppose you probably think you're normal. That'll be the
day. People with far right views like you have are weirdos. Why do you
think you only get along with people who think just like you do? Now try
to tell us that you get along with all kinds of different people and you
have a lot of black friends too. You're full of crap.

Hawke

Who do you get along with besides TMT? Uh-huh, thought so. Are you the
ptcher or the catcher? It's a close call, but I picture TMT as the
bottom, and what a horrible picture it is at that. Congratulations on
your rising to the top.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:14:55 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Nov 2, 9:56*pm, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:38:57 -0700, Hawke





wrote:
On 10/31/2011 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:19:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
*wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" *wrote in message
...

"Ed *wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" *wrote in message
news:L66dnVmLcfD8fjPTnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@scnresea rch.com...

*wrote in message
...
* Starting yesterday , anyone initiating *OR* *RESPONDING* to a
crossposted political post will be joining the current inhabitants of my
killfile . Some of you have posted good info and handy tips in the past ,
but this crap has gotten out of hand .
* I don't come here to read about queers and racism , I'm here for the
metalworking content . You will be missed *(some of you not much ...) but
that's the way it goes .

* Thank you and have a nice day .

The Zombie nutjobs all came out of hiding when Obama got elected.

There's a more direct connection, too. Gunner started cross-posting to
misc.survivalism and occasionally to a gun group; Cliff picked it up and
made it much worse, extending it to additional NGs; Hammy (under about a
dozen pseudonyms) decided to make life miserable for RCM because Cliff had
picked up misc.survivalism from Gunner and Hammy is a prick; and now RCM
is in every nutjobs' cross-posting list because we've become part of their
larger cross-posting, mutual-provocation network.

I tried like hell to stop Cliff from doing it, in public and in private.
Now he's gone, and it's running on its own inertia. Hammy keeps it fired
up by posting dozens of right-wing news stories every week. He won't stop,
and he doesn't appear to have a better nature to appeal to.

Well, I actually have an pretty active killfile myself, but it's mostly
limited to the very worst offenders and to those who NEVER seem to post
anything that's on-topic...which basically leaves me with only a handful

--many of whom probably rightly belong in a mental institution...and who
will probably be relegated to my killfile soon enough..

And though it's wrong, still it's oftentimes difficult to resist doing a bit
of teasing when one is visiting the primate exibit....

================================================== ==============

They invite it. They love to provoke, and some of them have refined it into
an art.

Set up a kill file that delete all posts to more then 2 groups. Agent
has the capability and it gets rid of the more obnoxious posts.

Personally, I don't see any need for a killfile. After a while you get
to know who's an idiot and you just pass over anything from them. Having
a filter take out people I think have goofy ideas seems to go against
the grain of having all kinds. There's always plenty of people with
nutty ideas and that act like idiots. At this point I'm used to them. If
they are too offensive I just ignore them. I can't think of anything
easier than that.

Hawke

*PLINK!*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...very funny to see that Benny FishAhole feels the need to PLINK
you when he is a pathetic spammer looking for attention like an
ignored ho.

TMT

*PLINK!*

On 11/3/2011 7:27 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:28:04 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/2/2011 7:57 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:54:29 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Nov 2, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On 10/31/2011 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:


Funny thing, though, a lot of the people here (myself not included)
would consider YOU to be one of the idiots to be ignored.

And how! If it wasn't for the comic relief, he'd be living in the bozo
bin with Douchebag.


Right, and I suppose you probably think you're normal. That'll be the
day. People with far right views like you have are weirdos. Why do you
think you only get along with people who think just like you do? Now try
to tell us that you get along with all kinds of different people and you
have a lot of black friends too. You're full of crap.

Hawke

Who do you get along with besides TMT? Uh-huh, thought so. Are you the
ptcher or the catcher? It's a close call, but I picture TMT as the
bottom, and what a horrible picture it is at that. Congratulations on
your rising to the top.


So in your mind you are picturing two naked men having sex together. Why
tell us? We already know from your continual posts with homosexual
references how much gay sex is on your mind. I'm just surprised you can
stop thinking about men having sex with each other long enough to have
time to write about anything else. We know you think about gay sex all
the time. We don't care. We just don't want to hear about your
homosexual thoughts. Keep them to yourself.

Hawke

On 11/3/2011 5:28 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:24 pm, wrote:
On 11/2/2011 4:54 PM, rangerssuck wrote:





On Nov 2, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On 10/31/2011 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:19:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:L66dnVmLcfD8fjPTnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

wrote in message
...
Starting yesterday , anyone initiating *OR* *RESPONDING* to a
crossposted political post will be joining the current inhabitants of my
killfile . Some of you have posted good info and handy tips in the past ,
but this crap has gotten out of hand .
I don't come here to read about queers and racism , I'm here for the
metalworking content . You will be missed (some of you not much ...) but
that's the way it goes .

Thank you and have a nice day .

The Zombie nutjobs all came out of hiding when Obama got elected.

There's a more direct connection, too. Gunner started cross-posting to
misc.survivalism and occasionally to a gun group; Cliff picked it up and
made it much worse, extending it to additional NGs; Hammy (under about a
dozen pseudonyms) decided to make life miserable for RCM because Cliff had
picked up misc.survivalism from Gunner and Hammy is a prick; and now RCM
is in every nutjobs' cross-posting list because we've become part of their
larger cross-posting, mutual-provocation network.

I tried like hell to stop Cliff from doing it, in public and in private.
Now he's gone, and it's running on its own inertia. Hammy keeps it fired
up by posting dozens of right-wing news stories every week. He won't stop,
and he doesn't appear to have a better nature to appeal to.

Well, I actually have an pretty active killfile myself, but it's mostly
limited to the very worst offenders and to those who NEVER seem to post
anything that's on-topic...which basically leaves me with only a handful

--many of whom probably rightly belong in a mental institution...and who
will probably be relegated to my killfile soon enough..

And though it's wrong, still it's oftentimes difficult to resist doing a bit
of teasing when one is visiting the primate exibit....

================================================== ==============

They invite it. They love to provoke, and some of them have refined it into
an art.

Set up a kill file that delete all posts to more then 2 groups. Agent
has the capability and it gets rid of the more obnoxious posts.

Personally, I don't see any need for a killfile. After a while you get
to know who's an idiot and you just pass over anything from them. Having
a filter take out people I think have goofy ideas seems to go against
the grain of having all kinds. There's always plenty of people with
nutty ideas and that act like idiots. At this point I'm used to them. If
they are too offensive I just ignore them. I can't think of anything
easier than that.

Hawke

Funny thing, though, a lot of the people here (myself not included)
would consider YOU to be one of the idiots to be ignored.

Are you a right wing goof ball? If you are then I'm exactly someone you
would want to ignore. I mean, you folks would not want to hear anything
except the views you agree with. So you would want to isolate yourself
to only other far right wing freaks just like yourself. You sure
wouldn't want someone like me to be around. You might have to hear an
opinion that differs from yours.

Hawke

Wow. Did you actually read every word of what I wrote? Even the last
three words of the first line? I seriously doubt that there is anyone
in this group very far to the left of me. That doesn't mean that
there's no room in my world for people to the right of me, but they do
have to be reasonable.


I saw what you wrote. What I said wasn't meant to apply to you
personally, but to right wing goofballs. Sorry if I gave the impression
that was intended for you. When I used the word "you" I was meaning it
was them I was speaking to. It was kind of confusing the way I wrote it.

But the point was still a simple one. Right wing people don't like to
hear opposing viewpoints. It makes them mad when people don't agree with
their way of thinking. They want uniformity and they don't like it when
someone tells them their way of doing things is wrong. Which is why they
all isolate themselves and don't associate with anyone not of their own
political persuasion. Which is how I know someone like Fish head has no
liberal friends nor any black or hispanic ones, only other white right
wingers. That's also how I know they do consider me an idiot to be
ignored. But as we all know they're just about always wrong in what they
think.

Hawke

On 11/4/2011 5:44 PM, Hawke wrote:

I saw what you wrote. What I said wasn't meant to apply to you
personally, but to right wing goofballs. Sorry if I gave the impression
that was intended for you. When I used the word "you" I was meaning it
was them I was speaking to. It was kind of confusing the way I wrote it.

But the point was still a simple one. Right wing people don't like to
hear opposing viewpoints. It makes them mad when people don't agree with
their way of thinking. They want uniformity and they don't like it when
someone tells them their way of doing things is wrong. Which is why they
all isolate themselves and don't associate with anyone not of their own
political persuasion.

Which makes them distinguishable from left wing people in what way? I
don't spend time with left or right wing koolaid drinkers as they tend
be immure to reasoned argument.

What's your favorite koolaid flavor? Or do you just drink what they give
without question?

David

On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/4/2011 5:44 PM, Hawke wrote:

I saw what you wrote. What I said wasn't meant to apply to you
personally, but to right wing goofballs. Sorry if I gave the impression
that was intended for you. When I used the word "you" I was meaning it
was them I was speaking to. It was kind of confusing the way I wrote it.

But the point was still a simple one. Right wing people don't like to
hear opposing viewpoints. It makes them mad when people don't agree with
their way of thinking. They want uniformity and they don't like it when
someone tells them their way of doing things is wrong. Which is why they
all isolate themselves and don't associate with anyone not of their own
political persuasion.

Which makes them distinguishable from left wing people in what way? I
don't spend time with left or right wing koolaid drinkers as they tend
be immure to reasoned argument.

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.


What's your favorite koolaid flavor? Or do you just drink what they give
without question?


I don't drink Koolaid. Never have. I'm anti authority. Always have been.
So I never just go along with anyone's program.

Hawke

On 11/5/2011 10:01 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Which makes them distinguishable from left wing people in what way? I
don't spend time with left or right wing koolaid drinkers as they tend
be immure to reasoned argument.

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.

Yes, they passively try to restrict my civil rights by supporting gun
control. Both Dems and Reps use force to make everyone do things their
way, its called the force of law. They pass laws that support their agendas.



What's your favorite koolaid flavor? Or do you just drink what they give
without question?


I don't drink Koolaid. Never have.

Its a metaphor for people like you who don't question their party's agenda.

I'm anti authority. Always have been.

I'm not anti authority, I'm anti authoritarian. In supporting the Dems,
you support authoritarianism.

So I never just go along with anyone's program.

Unless, it seems, its a Dem program.

David

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:20:43 -0600, "David R. Birch"
wrote:


I don't drink Koolaid. Never have.

Its a metaphor for people like you who don't question their party's agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown


Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 11/6/2011 2:20 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/5/2011 10:01 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Which makes them distinguishable from left wing people in what way? I
don't spend time with left or right wing koolaid drinkers as they tend
be immure to reasoned argument.

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.

Yes, they passively try to restrict my civil rights by supporting gun
control. Both Dems and Reps use force to make everyone do things their
way, its called the force of law. They pass laws that support their
agendas.

Uh, yeah, that's how government works. So where's the point? Regardless
of which party in whatever country you talk about the ones in power use
force to make people obey the laws. That's how it is all over. So what?



What's your favorite koolaid flavor? Or do you just drink what they give
without question?


I don't drink Koolaid. Never have.

Its a metaphor for people like you who don't question their party's agenda.

My answer was a metaphor too. You didn't get it though, and I don't
belong to a political party. I'm not much on joining any groups.


I'm anti authority. Always have been.

I'm not anti authority, I'm anti authoritarian. In supporting the Dems,
you support authoritarianism.

I'm anti authority whether it's from an individual or from a government
so that makes me anti authoritarian too. But when you support the
republicans you support tyranny.



So I never just go along with anyone's program.

Unless, it seems, its a Dem program.

I go along with good policy. I don't care whose it is. I just went
through eight years of having republican policy forced down my throat.
None of it was worth ****. To the contrary, some of Obama's policies are
good. Those I go along with the rest I don't. Like I don't go along with
his policy on Afghanistan. But you kiss right wing ass. I don't.

Hawke

On 11/8/2011 4:53 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/6/2011 2:20 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/5/2011 10:01 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Which makes them distinguishable from left wing people in what way? I
don't spend time with left or right wing koolaid drinkers as they tend
be immure to reasoned argument.

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.

Yes, they passively try to restrict my civil rights by supporting gun
control. Both Dems and Reps use force to make everyone do things their
way, its called the force of law. They pass laws that support their
agendas.

Uh, yeah, that's how government works. So where's the point? Regardless
of which party in whatever country you talk about the ones in power use
force to make people obey the laws. That's how it is all over. So what?

Just pointing out that your contention that the right uses force while
the left is passive is more of your usual nonsense.


I'm anti authority. Always have been.

I'm not anti authority, I'm anti authoritarian. In supporting the Dems,
you support authoritarianism.

I'm anti authority whether it's from an individual or from a government
so that makes me anti authoritarian too. But when you support the
republicans you support tyranny.

I don't support the Reps or the Dems, two sides of the same counterfeit
coin.

So I never just go along with anyone's program.

Unless, it seems, its a Dem program.

I go along with good policy. I don't care whose it is. I just went
through eight years of having republican policy forced down my throat.
None of it was worth ****. To the contrary, some of Obama's policies are
good. Those I go along with the rest I don't. Like I don't go along with
his policy on Afghanistan. But you kiss right wing ass. I don't.

I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a bit to
the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to realize that.

David

On 11/8/2011 4:57 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.

Yes, they passively try to restrict my civil rights by supporting gun
control. Both Dems and Reps use force to make everyone do things their
way, its called the force of law. They pass laws that support their
agendas.

Uh, yeah, that's how government works. So where's the point? Regardless
of which party in whatever country you talk about the ones in power use
force to make people obey the laws. That's how it is all over. So what?

Just pointing out that your contention that the right uses force while
the left is passive is more of your usual nonsense.

That's not my contention, never was. I was talking about right wingers
not "the right". Right wingers in my experience are a lot more
aggressive than Democrats are, and I mean on a personal level. Whether
it's football players, businessmen, or Christians for example, when they
are on the right they are much more forceful and aggressive as far as
pushing their agenda and trying to have their way than other people are.


I'm anti authority. Always have been.

I'm not anti authority, I'm anti authoritarian. In supporting the Dems,
you support authoritarianism.

I'm anti authority whether it's from an individual or from a government
so that makes me anti authoritarian too. But when you support the
republicans you support tyranny.

I don't support the Reps or the Dems, two sides of the same counterfeit
coin.

You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues that
are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your positions
are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the two major parties.


So I never just go along with anyone's program.

Unless, it seems, its a Dem program.

I go along with good policy. I don't care whose it is. I just went
through eight years of having republican policy forced down my throat.
None of it was worth ****. To the contrary, some of Obama's policies are
good. Those I go along with the rest I don't. Like I don't go along with
his policy on Afghanistan. But you kiss right wing ass. I don't.

I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a bit to
the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big issues.
Then I can tell you if you're really different from the other party's
positions. I think you have a lot of conservative views. So let's hear
where you stand on abortion, women's reproductive rights, the wars,
Bush's tax cuts, the government bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear
your positions that are "a bit to the left of mine".

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
On 11/8/2011 4:57 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a
bit to the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to
realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big issues.
Then I can tell you if you're really different from the other party's
positions. I think you have a lot of conservative views. So let's hear
where you stand on abortion, women's reproductive rights, the wars,
Bush's tax cuts, the government bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to
hear your positions that are "a bit to the left of mine".

Hawke

I ain't David , but I can't pass this opportunity up ...

Abortion - only in cases of rape , incest , or in cases of the mother's
life - NOT as a means of "birth control" .
WRR - They got the pill , condoms , or abstinence . If you don't want to
risk pregnancy OR use birth control , don't **** . It's that simple .
The wars - Let the people "over there" defend themselves . If they wanna
kill each other , let 'em. Open up all that land right here in the USA to
oil exploration and let them greedy *******s eat their oil . Goes for Israel
too . And cut off all foreign aid , they ain't our friends except when they
want our money . Which countries helped US out when we had natural disasters
? They're the ones we should help .
Tax cuts - I think everybody should pay a flat percentage of income - and
it should be the same for interest , investment and earned income . Stop
taxing inheritance ! My ancestors (supposedly) paid taxes on that money when
they made it , Gov't has no right to a cut when they die .
Bailouts - They ****ed up all by themselves , let 'em bail themselves out
.. It's called "capitalism" .

--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

On 11/9/2011 12:10 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/8/2011 4:57 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

People on the far end of either end of the spectrum both have a lot of
stupid and crazy ideas. The difference between them is that the
ones on
the right are a lot more aggressive and want to use force to make
everyone do things their way. The ones on the left are a lot more
passive and want people to agree with them because they think they are
right.

Yes, they passively try to restrict my civil rights by supporting gun
control. Both Dems and Reps use force to make everyone do things their
way, its called the force of law. They pass laws that support their
agendas.

Uh, yeah, that's how government works. So where's the point? Regardless
of which party in whatever country you talk about the ones in power use
force to make people obey the laws. That's how it is all over. So what?

Just pointing out that your contention that the right uses force while
the left is passive is more of your usual nonsense.

That's not my contention, never was. I was talking about right wingers
not "the right". Right wingers in my experience are a lot more
aggressive than Democrats are, and I mean on a personal level. Whether
it's football players, businessmen, or Christians for example, when they
are on the right they are much more forceful and aggressive as far as
pushing their agenda and trying to have their way than other people are.

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?


I'm anti authority. Always have been.

I'm not anti authority, I'm anti authoritarian. In supporting the Dems,
you support authoritarianism.

I'm anti authority whether it's from an individual or from a government
so that makes me anti authoritarian too. But when you support the
republicans you support tyranny.

I don't support the Reps or the Dems, two sides of the same counterfeit
coin.

You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues that
are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your positions
are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the two major parties.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of the
Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a bit to
the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to realize
that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big issues.
Then I can tell you if you're really different from the other party's
positions. I think you have a lot of conservative views. So let's hear
where you stand on abortion, women's reproductive rights, the wars,
Bush's tax cuts, the government bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear
your positions that are "a bit to the left of mine".

I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that for
others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for birth
control. But, as I said, not for me to decide. At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on death
row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only for those who
have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad our
earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they decided
not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did everything he
could to convince the leaders of the west that he had them and he was
successful. Because of the arrogance of the Pentagon, we screwed up
maintaining civil order and most of what has since happened derives from
that. After we pull out, Iran will probably take over.

Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat
it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed to repeat
it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped through, same
primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at work,
as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK to use
bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for failure must
have been good for their self esteem.

I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or not. I'm
disappointed but not surprised that you picked such superficial issues.

David

On 11/9/2011 12:45 PM, Snag wrote:
Hawke wrote:
On 11/8/2011 4:57 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a
bit to the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to
realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big issues.
Then I can tell you if you're really different from the other party's
positions. I think you have a lot of conservative views. So let's hear
where you stand on abortion, women's reproductive rights, the wars,
Bush's tax cuts, the government bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to
hear your positions that are "a bit to the left of mine".

Hawke

I ain't David , but I can't pass this opportunity up ...

Abortion - only in cases of rape , incest , or in cases of the mother's
life - NOT as a means of "birth control" .
WRR - They got the pill , condoms , or abstinence . If you don't want to
risk pregnancy OR use birth control , don't **** . It's that simple .
The wars - Let the people "over there" defend themselves . If they wanna
kill each other , let 'em. Open up all that land right here in the USA to
oil exploration and let them greedy *******s eat their oil . Goes for Israel
too . And cut off all foreign aid , they ain't our friends except when they
want our money . Which countries helped US out when we had natural disasters
? They're the ones we should help .
Tax cuts - I think everybody should pay a flat percentage of income - and
it should be the same for interest , investment and earned income . Stop
taxing inheritance ! My ancestors (supposedly) paid taxes on that money when
they made it , Gov't has no right to a cut when they die .
Bailouts - They ****ed up all by themselves , let 'em bail themselves out
. It's called "capitalism" .



Those positions are pretty much in line with what ordinary garden
variety conservatives think. You belong to the right wing. Nothing
equivocal about that. Just what you would expect from a conservative
white male.



Hawke

On 11/9/2011 5:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

That's not my contention, never was. I was talking about right wingers
not "the right". Right wingers in my experience are a lot more
aggressive than Democrats are, and I mean on a personal level. Whether
it's football players, businessmen, or Christians for example, when they
are on the right they are much more forceful and aggressive as far as
pushing their agenda and trying to have their way than other people are.

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you of
all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.


You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues that
are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your positions
are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the two major parties.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of the
Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

First off, it's not a real bet. I was using a figure of speech and meant
that your views were probably pretty much like most other people's.
Yours would be just like either a republican or a Democrat.



I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite a bit to
the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your diploma to realize
that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big issues.
Then I can tell you if you're really different from the other party's
positions. I think you have a lot of conservative views. So let's hear
where you stand on abortion, women's reproductive rights, the wars,
Bush's tax cuts, the government bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear
your positions that are "a bit to the left of mine".



I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that for
others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for birth
control. But, as I said, not for me to decide.

So you leave it to others to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
That's called pro life and is the Democratic position.

At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on death
row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only for those who
have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Anti capital punishment except in rare cases. That's pretty much the
Democrat's position too.



Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad our
earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they decided
not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did everything he
could to convince the leaders of the west that he had them and he was
successful. Because of the arrogance of the Pentagon, we screwed up
maintaining civil order and most of what has since happened derives from
that. After we pull out, Iran will probably take over.

Condoning a war of aggression with Iraq and finding excuses to justify
it, that's a republican view on the war.


Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat
it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed to repeat
it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped through, same
primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan. Now that's mainly how the
Democrats see it and a lot of republicans too. So that's a mainstream
point of view. At least 2/3s of Americans want us out of there now. So
you're view is moderate.



Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at work,
as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK to use
bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for failure must
have been good for their self esteem.

You didn't take a position on tax cuts. For them, against them, good for
the country, bad, you don't say anything about it. So you weaseled out.

I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or not. I'm
disappointed but not surprised that you picked such superficial issues.

I didn't pick the issues. I made a few suggestions that came to mind but
I was asking you where you stood on the important issues, which is what
I said. I assumed that you would have a different opinion of what those
would be. The point is you didn't answer many questions but of the ones
you did your views were not any different from what most republicans or
Democrats think. Which is what I expected.

Hawke

On Nov 10, 2:42*pm, Hawke wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you of
all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.


Hawke

the Red Queen.

I disagree. There are extremists on both the right and the left.
Right Wingers generally means those on the extreme right. Left Wingers
generally mean those on the extreme left. But the majority of the
people are not on the extreme fringes. Some are in the center. Some
are on the left of center, but not extremists. Others are on the
right of center , but also are not extremists. So when you say "the
ones on the right" you may mean right wingers. But that is only
because you make up your own definitions and do not express yourself
succinctly.


Dan


Dan

" on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:37:53 -0800
(PST) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Nov 10, 2:42*pm, Hawke wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you of
all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.


Hawke

the Red Queen.

I disagree. There are extremists on both the right and the left.
Right Wingers generally means those on the extreme right. Left Wingers
generally mean those on the extreme left. But the majority of the
people are not on the extreme fringes. Some are in the center. Some
are on the left of center, but not extremists. Others are on the
right of center , but also are not extremists. So when you say "the
ones on the right" you may mean right wingers. But that is only
because you make up your own definitions and do not express yourself
succinctly.

"And the one on the left was in the middle and the one in the
middle was on the right, and the one on the right was undecided, and
the guy in the rear - burn his driver's license."
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On 11/10/2011 1:42 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/9/2011 5:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did
you write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you
of all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.

"Most people"? You mean most of the people who agree with you. So "the
ones on the right" are "the right", but right wingers aren't. Somehow.


You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues
that are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your
positions are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the
two major parties.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of
the Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

First off, it's not a real bet. I was using a figure of speech and
meant that your views were probably pretty much like most other
people's. Yours would be just like either a republican or a
Democrat.

Or some of each, and a lot of something else. You lose again.



I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite
a bit to the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your
diploma to realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big
issues. Then I can tell you if you're really different from the
other party's positions. I think you have a lot of conservative
views. So let's hear where you stand on abortion, women's
reproductive rights, the wars, Bush's tax cuts, the government
bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear your positions that are
"a bit to the left of mine".



I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that
for others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for
birth control. But, as I said, not for me to decide.

So you leave it to others to decide whether to have an abortion or
not. That's called pro life and is the Democratic position.

Gee, I thought pro choice was mostly Dems and pro life was mostly Reps.
I'm glad you cleared that up.


At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on
death row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only
for those who have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Anti capital punishment except in rare cases. That's pretty much the
Democrat's position too.

I've never talked to a Dem who thought there was ever a just cause for
capital punishment, and I've talked to quite a few. Most of them smarter
than you.

Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad
our earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they
decided not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did
everything he could to convince the leaders of the west that he had
them and he was successful. Because of the arrogance of the
Pentagon, we screwed up maintaining civil order and most of what
has since happened derives from that. After we pull out, Iran will
probably take over.

Condoning a war of aggression with Iraq and finding excuses to
justify it, that's a republican view on the war.

Seems to me there were a lot of Dems supporting Desert Storm and,
initially, its sequel in 2003.

Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
repeat it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed
to repeat it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped
through, same primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan. Now that's mainly how the
Democrats see it and a lot of republicans too. So that's a mainstream
point of view. At least 2/3s of Americans want us out of there now.
So you're view is moderate.

"Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan." That's an interesting thought,
no one goes in, no one comes out, anyone who tries gets taken out by a
Predator. You inadvertently made a contribution.



Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at
work, as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK
to use bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for
failure must have been good for their self esteem.

You didn't take a position on tax cuts. For them, against them, good
for the country, bad, you don't say anything about it. So you
weaseled out.

Again with the failed reading comprehension. Do you just not read what
you don't understand?

I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or
not. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you picked such
superficial issues.

I didn't pick the issues.

Sure you did.

I made a few suggestions that came to mind but I was asking you where
you stood on the important issues, which is what I said. I assumed
that you would have a different opinion of what those would be. The
point is you didn't answer many questions but of the ones you did
your views were not any different from what most republicans or
Democrats think. Which is what I expected.

You expected me to have some Dem and some Rep views on the issues you
selected. So what? I told you in the first place that I agreed with some
things on both sides. The issues you picked are bread and circuses.

Loser.

David

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:37:53 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 10, 2:42*pm, Hawke wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you of
all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.


Hawke

the Red Queen.

I disagree. There are extremists on both the right and the left.
Right Wingers generally means those on the extreme right. Left Wingers
generally mean those on the extreme left. But the majority of the
people are not on the extreme fringes. Some are in the center. Some
are on the left of center, but not extremists. Others are on the
right of center , but also are not extremists. So when you say "the
ones on the right" you may mean right wingers. But that is only
because you make up your own definitions and do not express yourself
succinctly.


Dan

I wish someone would come up with a good definition of Extreme Right.

We know what the Leftwing is: Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Marxist

Anyone want to try to define Extreme Rightwing?

Im considered to be a Extreme Rightwinger. Yet I could care less about
Gay Marraige and other social things.


Id be interested in what those definitions might be..and how many people
the definer considers the numbers might be.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 11/10/2011 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:42 pm, wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did you
write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you of
all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.


Hawke

the Red Queen.

I disagree. There are extremists on both the right and the left.
Right Wingers generally means those on the extreme right. Left Wingers
generally mean those on the extreme left. But the majority of the
people are not on the extreme fringes. Some are in the center. Some
are on the left of center, but not extremists. Others are on the
right of center , but also are not extremists. So when you say "the
ones on the right" you may mean right wingers. But that is only
because you make up your own definitions and do not express yourself
succinctly.



That's not really true. If you paid as much attention as I do to
politics you would understand the right has moved so far to the right
that virtually all of them now qualify as extremists. Anyone moderate
has been drummed out of the party. Look at the debates of the GOP and
listen to when the audience claps. It's always for the most extreme
things like executions and torture.

Here's an example. There is a guy named Steve Schmidt who is a
republican operative. Have you heard of him? If not, he's the guy who
used to run the election campaign of John McCain, another to adviser to
that campaign was Marcia Wallace. So those are not liberals but bona
fide republicans. It's people like them who say the republican party has
moved so far to the right that the whole party is now extreme in its
positions.

So today, more than ever, if you use the term the right, or right
wingers they are virtually one and the same. That is why I don't
differentiate when I use one or the other. They now mean the same thing,
people on the far right, because there is no right except the far right
anymore.

Hawke

On 11/10/2011 9:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/10/2011 1:42 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/9/2011 5:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did
you write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you
of all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.

"Most people"? You mean most of the people who agree with you. So "the
ones on the right" are "the right", but right wingers aren't. Somehow.

You'll never get it but most people means all the other people except
those on the right. They think different from the rest of the
population. Their views are not moderate or mainstream, they are right
wing. Most people excluding them is who I'm talking about. That includes
Democrats, Independents, nonpolitical, or other splinter parties. What
do they think? The majority of them disagree with right wing views. So
that's who. It's not what I think although I agree with the majority of
them.



You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues
that are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your
positions are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the
two major parties.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of
the Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

First off, it's not a real bet. I was using a figure of speech and
meant that your views were probably pretty much like most other
people's. Yours would be just like either a republican or a
Democrat.

Or some of each, and a lot of something else. You lose again.

Tell me this wise guy. If all your views come down as being either
agreeing with republican or Democratic positions then how are you
different like you claim being a left libertarian. A mixture of
republican and Democratic positions doesn't make someone a left libertarian.


I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite
a bit to the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your
diploma to realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big
issues. Then I can tell you if you're really different from the
other party's positions. I think you have a lot of conservative
views. So let's hear where you stand on abortion, women's
reproductive rights, the wars, Bush's tax cuts, the government
bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear your positions that are
"a bit to the left of mine".



I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that
for others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for
birth control. But, as I said, not for me to decide.

So you leave it to others to decide whether to have an abortion or
not. That's called pro life and is the Democratic position.

Like Perry said, oops. My bad. I mean that position is pro choice. That
was a typographical error. Your position is pro choice, meaning you
agree with the Democrats.




Gee, I thought pro choice was mostly Dems and pro life was mostly Reps.
I'm glad you cleared that up.

Now it's cleared up. But do you get it?

At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on
death row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only
for those who have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Anti capital punishment except in rare cases. That's pretty much the
Democrat's position too.

I've never talked to a Dem who thought there was ever a just cause for
capital punishment, and I've talked to quite a few. Most of them smarter
than you.

What a surprise! Most Democrats don't believe in capital punishment. You
just figured that out? Democrats are usually anti death penalty under
any circumstances so that is what they tell you if you ask them. As for
being smarter than me, you don't know how smart I am, so you sure don't
know if Democrats you have talked to are smarter than me. But if you
were talking to Democrats the odds are they were definitely smarter than
you.



Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad
our earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they
decided not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did
everything he could to convince the leaders of the west that he had
them and he was successful. Because of the arrogance of the
Pentagon, we screwed up maintaining civil order and most of what
has since happened derives from that. After we pull out, Iran will
probably take over.

Condoning a war of aggression with Iraq and finding excuses to
justify it, that's a republican view on the war.

Seems to me there were a lot of Dems supporting Desert Storm and,
initially, its sequel in 2003.

No weaseling out with the you too bull****. Your view is the republican
view. Period! Nobody cares what others think. Your view is the same as
the republicans.



Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
repeat it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed
to repeat it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped
through, same primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan. Now that's mainly how the
Democrats see it and a lot of republicans too. So that's a mainstream
point of view. At least 2/3s of Americans want us out of there now.
So you're view is moderate.

That in itself is a bit of a surprise.


"Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan." That's an interesting thought,
no one goes in, no one comes out, anyone who tries gets taken out by a
Predator. You inadvertently made a contribution.

The idea that you think so automatically makes it suspect.



Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at
work, as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK
to use bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for
failure must have been good for their self esteem.

You didn't take a position on tax cuts. For them, against them, good
for the country, bad, you don't say anything about it. So you
weaseled out.

Again with the failed reading comprehension. Do you just not read what
you don't understand?

Bullcrap! I specifically asked your position on tax cuts and you came up
with nothing. Instead of addressing it you ran away and hid. Bankers,
the oligarchs, bonuses, and bailouts are not a tax issue. So you dodged
that issue. Cowardice is noted.


I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or
not. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you picked such
superficial issues.

I didn't pick the issues.

Sure you did.

Bullcrap again! I asked you to give your position on the big issues. I
listed a few that I thought were big. But I asked for you to tell me
where YOU stood on the big issues. Instead you answered a few of mine
and avoided the rest. Evasion noted.

I made a few suggestions that came to mind but I was asking you where
you stood on the important issues, which is what I said. I assumed
that you would have a different opinion of what those would be. The
point is you didn't answer many questions but of the ones you did
your views were not any different from what most republicans or
Democrats think. Which is what I expected.

You expected me to have some Dem and some Rep views on the issues you
selected. So what? I told you in the first place that I agreed with some
things on both sides. The issues you picked are bread and circuses.

I didn't pick them and you know it. I asked for your position on the big
issues. You didn't come up with any and instead just criticized mine as
being no good. All you had to do is what I asked you to, which was come
up with you own. But you didn't and just went negative. No surprise
there because that's exactly what a punk would do.

Hawke

On Nov 12, 10:47*pm, Hawke wrote:


That's not really true. If you paid as much attention as I do to
politics you would understand the right has moved so far to the right
that virtually all of them now qualify as extremists.
Hawke

I think you are exceptionally naive. Do you really think people
change that much?

If you really believe that, how do you account for the fact that about
half of Congress are Democrats and half are Republicans.

There is a silent majority that only express their opinions at the
polls.


Dan

On 11/12/2011 10:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/10/2011 1:42 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/9/2011 5:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did
you write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you
of all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.

"Most people"? You mean most of the people who agree with you. So "the
ones on the right" are "the right", but right wingers aren't. Somehow.

You'll never get it but most people means all the other people except
those on the right. They think different from the rest of the
population. Their views are not moderate or mainstream, they are right
wing. Most people excluding them is who I'm talking about. That includes
Democrats, Independents, nonpolitical, or other splinter parties. What
do they think? The majority of them disagree with right wing views. So
that's who. It's not what I think although I agree with the majority of
them.

This nonsense is the result of having a diploma, but not an education in
poli sci.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of
the Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

First off, it's not a real bet. I was using a figure of speech and
meant that your views were probably pretty much like most other
people's. Yours would be just like either a republican or a
Democrat.

Or some of each, and a lot of something else. You lose again.

Tell me this wise guy. If all your views come down as being either
agreeing with republican or Democratic positions then how are you
different like you claim being a left libertarian. A mixture of
republican and Democratic positions doesn't make someone a left
libertarian.

You lose again. You show your usual lack of reading comprehension.
Reread "Or some of each, and a lot of something else" until you figure
it out.

I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that
for others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for
birth control. But, as I said, not for me to decide.

So you leave it to others to decide whether to have an abortion or
not. That's called pro life and is the Democratic position.

Like Perry said, oops. My bad. I mean that position is pro choice. That
was a typographical error. Your position is pro choice, meaning you
agree with the Democrats.

Not so much a typo and a failure in understanding basic concepts.

I am pro choice, the Dems/Reps position is irrelevant.

Gee, I thought pro choice was mostly Dems and pro life was mostly Reps.
I'm glad you cleared that up.

Now it's cleared up. But do you get it?

Always did.

At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on
death row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only
for those who have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Anti capital punishment except in rare cases. That's pretty much the
Democrat's position too.

I've never talked to a Dem who thought there was ever a just cause for
capital punishment, and I've talked to quite a few. Most of them smarter
than you.

What a surprise! Most Democrats don't believe in capital punishment.

As I said.

You just figured that out?

No, its just as I said.

Democrats are usually anti death penalty under
any circumstances so that is what they tell you if you ask them.

As I said. Try reading what I said.

As for being smarter than me, you don't know how smart I am, so you sure don't
know if Democrats you have talked to are smarter than me.

Sure, I do, its easy to tell you have an average intelligence of the
type necessary to get a liberal arts BA and not find a job in your field.

But if you were talking to Democrats the odds are they were definitely smarter than
you.

Some yes, some no, but most still smarter than you.



Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad
our earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they
decided not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did
everything he could to convince the leaders of the west that he had
them and he was successful. Because of the arrogance of the
Pentagon, we screwed up maintaining civil order and most of what
has since happened derives from that. After we pull out, Iran will
probably take over.

Condoning a war of aggression with Iraq and finding excuses to
justify it, that's a republican view on the war.

Seems to me there were a lot of Dems supporting Desert Storm and,
initially, its sequel in 2003.

No weaseling out with the you too bull****. Your view is the republican
view. Period! Nobody cares what others think. Your view is the same as
the republicans.

Again, you see what you want and don't read what I wrote.



Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
repeat it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed
to repeat it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped
through, same primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan. Now that's mainly how the
Democrats see it and a lot of republicans too. So that's a mainstream
point of view. At least 2/3s of Americans want us out of there now.
So you're view is moderate.

That in itself is a bit of a surprise.

You are replying to yourself here. Try to keep up.

"Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan." That's an interesting thought,
no one goes in, no one comes out, anyone who tries gets taken out by a
Predator. You inadvertently made a contribution.

The idea that you think so automatically makes it suspect.

Yawn.




Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at
work, as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK
to use bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for
failure must have been good for their self esteem.

You didn't take a position on tax cuts. For them, against them, good
for the country, bad, you don't say anything about it. So you
weaseled out.

Again with the failed reading comprehension. Do you just not read what
you don't understand?

Bullcrap! I specifically asked your position on tax cuts and you came up
with nothing. Instead of addressing it you ran away and hid. Bankers,
the oligarchs, bonuses, and bailouts are not a tax issue. So you dodged
that issue. Cowardice is noted.

"Bankers, the oligarchs, bonuses, and bailouts are not a tax issue."

I am in awe of your naivety.



I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or
not. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you picked such
superficial issues.

I didn't pick the issues.

Sure you did.

Bullcrap again! I asked you to give your position on the big issues. I
listed a few that I thought were big. But I asked for you to tell me
where YOU stood on the big issues. Instead you answered a few of mine
and avoided the rest. Evasion noted.

"But I asked for you to tell me where YOU stood on the big issues."

How is that not picking the issues?

You expected me to have some Dem and some Rep views on the issues you
selected. So what? I told you in the first place that I agreed with some
things on both sides. The issues you picked are bread and circuses.

I didn't pick them and you know it. I asked for your position on the big
issues. You didn't come up with any and instead just criticized mine as
being no good. All you had to do is what I asked you to, which was come
up with you own. But you didn't and just went negative. No surprise
there because that's exactly what a punk would do.

This is pointless if you can't even read what I wrote as I wrote it, if
you don't understand what little you do read and can't even see the
significance of your own words.

It also doesn't help when you don't notice that you're replying to what
you wrote, not what I wrote.

Get a clue, no soup for you till then.

David

" wrote:

On Nov 12, 10:47 pm, Hawke wrote:

That's not really true. If you paid as much attention as I do to
politics you would understand the right has moved so far to the right
that virtually all of them now qualify as extremists.
Hawke

I think you are exceptionally naive. Do you really think people
change that much?

If you really believe that, how do you account for the fact that about
half of Congress are Democrats and half are Republicans.

There is a silent majority that only express their opinions at the
polls.


Hawkie is so extreme left, that he considers those in the middle to
be far right.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.