In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?


RogerN

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:12:41 -0600, "RogerN"
wrote:

In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?


RogerN


I'm thankful this season to live in a country in which most of the
people have more sense than to believe things like the above, and that
the loons who do are impotent to act on their lunacy.

--
Ed Huntress

I am just glad that McCain and Palin are not in the office, thanks to
Democrats.

i

Convincing a generation of teen agers that fellatio is not sex.

Promoting the notion that being unarmed is safer than being able to defend
oneself from criminals.

--

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

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?


RogerN

On Dec 13, 7:12*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..


TMT


Fed says economy is healthier; takes no new steps
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER | AP -


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve on Tuesday portrayed the U.S.
economy as slightly healthier and held off on any new steps to boost
growth.


Hiring is picking up and consumers are spending more despite slower
growth globally, the Fed said in its policy statement issued after
its
final meeting of the year.


However, Fed officials cautioned that business investment has slowed
and unemployment remains high. And they warned of strains in global
financial markets that pose a threat to the world's economy — a
reference to Europe's debt crisis. They left open the possibility of
taking new steps next year if the economy worsens.


The Dow Jones industrial average closed down 66 points for the day,
after being up by as much as 126 points before the Fed issued its
statement. Broader indexes also ended the day lower.


The Fed made only slight changes to November's statement. The policy
committee approved it by an identical 9-1 vote. Charles Evans
dissented for the second straight meeting, arguing again for more
action by the Fed.


Still, the modestly upbeat statement appeared to disappoint investors
and triggered the late-afternoon slump on Wall Street. Traders had
hoped the Fed would announce new policy action, even though most
economists expected none.


"The Fed did exactly what the markets were expecting, which is
nothing, so the market decline is puzzling," said Mark Zandi, chief
economist at Moody's Analytics. "It is always possible that there was
some outside hope the Fed would do more to support the economy at
this
meeting and when the markets didn't get that, they fell."


Many economists said Fed policymakers likely spent their final
meeting
of the year fine-tuning a strategy for communicating changes in
interest rates more explicitly. The Fed has left rates near zero for
the past three years. More guidance would help assure investors,
companies and consumers that rates won't rise before a specific time.


The Fed made no mention of a new communications strategy in its
statement. But economists say it could be unveiled as soon as next
month, after the Fed's Jan. 24-25 policy meeting.


Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said the November
minutes showed the Fed discussed adding an interest rate forecast to
its quarterly economic projections.


Swonk said the Fed may be trying to build a stronger consensus before
announcing the change. She also noted that three Federal Reserve
regional bank presidents who opposed key policy changes this year
will
not have votes next year.


Charles Plosser of Philadelphia, Richard Fisher of Dallas and
Narayana
Kocherlakota of Minneapolis all dissented from the Fed's policy
statements in September and August after citing concerns that the
actions introduced at those meetings could fuel inflation.


In September, the Fed said it would re-arrange its bond holdings to
stress longer-term maturities, to try to exert more downward pressure
on long-term rates.


That followed the Fed's announcement in August that it planned to
keep
its benchmark rate at a record low until at least mid-2013, as long
as
the economy remains weak. It was the first time it had committed to
keeping the rate there for a specific period. The Fed repeated that
timeframe in its December policy statement.


"I think the Fed will shift its communications policy once the most
vehement dissenters rotate off in January," Swonk said. Each year,
only five of the 12 regional bank presidents have votes.


Fed officials are debating how much further to go to signal a likely
timetable for any rate changes. Under one option, the Fed would start
forecasting the levels it envisions for the funds rate over the
subsequent two years. It could publish this forecast, as it now does
its economic outlook, four times a year.


Doing so would help assure investors, companies and consumers that
rates won't rise before a specific time. This might help lower long-
term yields further — in effect providing a kind of stimulus.


Some worry that such guidance risks inhibiting the Fed's flexibility
to revise interest rates if necessary. Others counter that the Fed
wouldn't hesitate to shift rates if warranted. And they say the
benefits of clearer guidance outweigh any constraints it might
impose.


The Fed is also discussing setting an explicit target for "core"
inflation. Core inflation excludes the volatile categories of energy
and food. It's remained historically low — currently around 1.5
percent by one measure.


The economy, while improving, is still weak. And it remains
vulnerable
to the European debt crisis, which could push the continent into a
recession and slow U.S. growth. On Nov. 30, the Fed joined other
central banks in making it easier for banks to borrow dollars. The
goal is to help prevent Europe's crisis from igniting a global panic.


Should the U.S. economy worsen, the Fed could take bolder steps, such
as buying more mortgage securities. Doing so could help push down
mortgage rates and help boost home purchases. The weak housing market
has been slowing the broader economy.


The boldest move left would be a third round of large-scale purchases
of Treasury securities. But critics say this would raise the risk of
future inflation. And many doubt it would help much anyway, because
Treasury yields are already near historic lows. Unless Europe's
crisis
worsens and spreads, few expect another program of Treasury
purchases.

On Dec 13, 7:24*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:12:41 -0600, "RogerN"
wrote:





In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I'm thankful this season to live in a country in which most of the
people have more sense than to believe things like the above, and that
the loons who do are impotent to act on their lunacy.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said.

TMT

On Dec 13, 8:21*pm, Ignoramus4436
wrote:
I am just glad that McCain and Palin are not in the office, thanks to
Democrats.

i

LOL...I had forgotten about that clown team...seems like a bad dream.

I wonder if Sarah has gotten around to send refunds back to those who
believed in her?

Probably too busy giving lap dances.

TMT

"Stormin Mormon" wrote

Promoting the notion that being unarmed is safer than being able to defend
oneself from criminals.
Christopher A. Young

The underlying concept that (falsely) feeling morally superior was better
than learning to take effective action showed me the hollowness of
liberalism.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:52:38 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote

Promoting the notion that being unarmed is safer than being able to defend
oneself from criminals.
Christopher A. Young

The underlying concept that (falsely) feeling morally superior was better
than learning to take effective action showed me the hollowness of
liberalism.

Indeed. I'm waiting for a book from the library _Death of the Liberal
Class_ by Chris Hedges. It sounds like a very upbeat book. snort
And it appears to point out how the libs have become everything they
hate about conservatives.

From Amazon, Editorial Reviews:

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In this tsunami of terrifying revelations, juxtaposed
truths, and demonstrated facts, Hedges (War is a Force That Gives Us
Meaning) argues that the traditional beacons of the liberal class—the
universities, media, church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed
themselves completely to the dominance of corporate greed and
unbounded capitalism. We are all to blame and everything moral about
our democracy stands to be lost—is indeed already vanishing, in
Hedges's view—and those who draw attention to it are banished and
booed. While every page erupts with calamities of the human spirit
worthy of their own irate broadcasts and bull-horned fury, Hedges is
at his best when he unpacks the density of his polemic and embraces
the power of his narrative. Regardless of form, however, his most
interesting theses include the parallel between the current domestic
climate and the fall of Weimar Germany and the conclusion that
"Everything formed by violence is senseless and useless. It exists
without a future. It leaves behind nothing but death, grief, and
destruction." These insights come not just as warning, but as witness.
(Nov.)
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved. --This text refers to
the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
The real danger to progressive social ideals is not President Obama’s
failure to push through a more liberal agenda or the threat presented
by the Tea Party and others pushing the Republicans more to the Right.
Hedges argues that the true threat to liberalism is the long and
gradual weakening of its ideals. Drawing on analysis and interviews
from his long career as a journalist, including 15 years with the New
York Times, Hedges chronicles the corruption of such bastions of
liberalism as the Democratic Party, academia, and labor unions. He
cites the NAFTA agreement and welfare reform during the Clinton
administration and union coziness with corporations as recent examples
of the merging of government and corporate interests to the detriment
of the interests of the poor or even the middle class. He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess. This is a thoughtful analysis of why and
how liberals have compromised principles due to the allure of power
and wealth. --Vanessa Bush --This text refers to the Hardcover
edition.

--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:27:29 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess.


If they are using Ralph Nader as some sort of Icon...they are
indeed...mentally ill

Which just goes to show that Im right far more often than not about the
Leftwingers

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 Dec 14, 12:29*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:27:29 -0800, Larry Jaques

wrote:
He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess.


The fact that this particular author refers to liberals as a "class"
speaks volumes about the author's misconceptions.

If they are using Ralph Nader as some sort of Icon...they are
indeed...mentally ill

The fact that this particular author uses Ralph Nader as some sort of
icon says something about the author's (mis)understanding of
progressives.

The fact that Gunner is (again) dishing out medical and psychological
diagnoses is yet another of Gunner's continuing series of venturing
into areas where he is eminently unqualified.

Which just goes to show that Im right far more often than not about the
Leftwingers

I'm glad you feel so good about yourself. But you are only "right"
about this if you buy the author's premise as fact, and if you believe
your diagnosis.


Gunner

Something else to thank Democrats for:

Iraqis unable to defend their borders as US exits

By The Associated Press

BAGHDAD - After billions of dollars and nearly nine years of training,
American troops are leaving behind an Iraqi security force arguably capable
of providing internal security but unprepared to defend the nation against
foreign threats at a time of rising tensions throughout the Middle East.

Building up an Iraqi military and police able to protect the country became
a key goal of the United States and its allies after they defeated and then
disbanded the Saddam Hussein-era force in 2003. As America's role in Iraq
fades, the results appear at best incomplete.
Iraqi forces - currently about 700,000 strong - have been largely
responsible for security in Baghdad and other cities since 2009, carrying
out their own raids and other combat operations against insurgents.


http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rs-as-us-exits


RogerN

Um, it was the Republicans who destroyed the Iraqi army.

i

On 2011-12-15, RogerN wrote:
Something else to thank Democrats for:

Iraqis unable to defend their borders as US exits

By The Associated Press

BAGHDAD - After billions of dollars and nearly nine years of training,
American troops are leaving behind an Iraqi security force arguably capable
of providing internal security but unprepared to defend the nation against
foreign threats at a time of rising tensions throughout the Middle East.

Building up an Iraqi military and police able to protect the country became
a key goal of the United States and its allies after they defeated and then
disbanded the Saddam Hussein-era force in 2003. As America's role in Iraq
fades, the results appear at best incomplete.
Iraqi forces - currently about 700,000 strong - have been largely
responsible for security in Baghdad and other cities since 2009, carrying
out their own raids and other combat operations against insurgents.


http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rs-as-us-exits


RogerN

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:49:25 -0600, Ignoramus17151
wrote:

Um, it was the Republicans who destroyed the Iraqi army.

Huh? I thought it was the Republicans who kicked grandma off Social
Security and Medicare and out into the street. How could they have
done both?

--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:18:06 -0600, "RogerN"
wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...

On Dec 13, 7:12 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending
the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..


TMT

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know you're
lying.

RogerN


The day the Democrats took over was not January 22, 2009, it was
actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of
Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th
Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers
for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the
Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...


January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part
of the economy?


BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000
DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY
other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the
economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!


(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting
in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and
guess what? The sky did fall!)


And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
Mac? OBAMA


And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"


Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the
gas pedal and steering wheel and they were driving the economy into
the ditch.


Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat
Party.



Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.


In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused
them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough
on spending increases.


For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember
what the deficits looked like during that period:


If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.


If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.


In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I
voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

On Dec 14, 6:52*am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote



Promoting the notion that being unarmed is safer than being able to defend
oneself from criminals.
Christopher A. Young

The underlying concept that (falsely) feeling morally superior was better
than learning to take effective action showed me the hollowness of
liberalism.

The underlying concept that (falsely) feeling morally superior was
better
than learning to take effective action showed me the hollowness of
conservativism.

An example..the subsequent negative behavior of conservatives since
causing the greatest economic disaster and most expensive war in my
lifetime has likely made me a liberal for life.

The fact that conservatives do not recognize this ongoing behavior
which has cost this Country of billions of dollars and thousands of
lives causes me to question any conservative's reasoning ability.

TMT

On Dec 14, 12:02*pm, rangerssuck wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:29*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:27:29 -0800, Larry Jaques

wrote:
He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess.

The fact that this particular author refers to liberals as a "class"
speaks volumes about the author's misconceptions.

If they are using Ralph Nader as some sort of Icon...they are
indeed...mentally ill

The fact that this particular author uses Ralph Nader as some sort of
icon says something about the author's (mis)understanding of
progressives.

The fact that Gunner is (again) dishing out medical and psychological
diagnoses is yet another of Gunner's continuing series of venturing
into areas where he is eminently unqualified.

Which just goes to show that Im right far more often than not about the
Leftwingers

I'm glad you feel so good about yourself. But you are only "right"
about this if you buy the author's premise as fact, and if you believe
your diagnosis.





Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only thing that Gummer is versed in is the process of not paying
one's bills and living off the public tit.

If you pay taxes, you are paying for Gummer's lifestyle.

TMT

On Dec 14, 7:18*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" *wrote in message

...

On Dec 13, 7:12 pm, "RogerN" wrote:





In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending
the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know you're
lying.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You will go to Hell Roger for believing lies like that.

TMT

On Dec 14, 9:47*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:49:25 -0600, Ignoramus17151

wrote:
Um, it was the Republicans who destroyed the Iraqi army.

Huh? *I thought it was the Republicans who kicked grandma off Social
Security and Medicare and out into the street. *How could they have
done both?

--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Sir Winston Churchill

What?

I thought they were ridding the world of gay marriage while destroying
millions of American jobs.

Damn...Republicans sure do get around.

TMT

On 12/14/2011 10:02 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:29 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:27:29 -0800, Larry Jaques

wrote:
He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess.


The fact that this particular author refers to liberals as a "class"
speaks volumes about the author's misconceptions.

If they are using Ralph Nader as some sort of Icon...they are
indeed...mentally ill

The fact that this particular author uses Ralph Nader as some sort of
icon says something about the author's (mis)understanding of
progressives.

The fact that Gunner is (again) dishing out medical and psychological
diagnoses is yet another of Gunner's continuing series of venturing
into areas where he is eminently unqualified.

Which just goes to show that Im right far more often than not about the
Leftwingers

I'm glad you feel so good about yourself. But you are only "right"
about this if you buy the author's premise as fact, and if you believe
your diagnosis.


It's clear from the comments that none of you are familiar with Chris
Hedges. He's a liberal. As liberal as you can get. His book is critical
of liberals as a class. He thinks they have not done their job in
society and have let down the country by becoming too republican-like.
If you are a conservative you may agree with some of his criticism of
liberals but you will not like anything else he has to say. He is
completely anti right wing. Which just shows how smart he is. He's a
former journalist too and has covered a number of wars. He's a fierce
critic of the U.S. and of republicans. Right wingers hate the guy so I
know he's doing something right. I've heard him give lectures too so I
know his philosophy. I can't say I agree with the premise of this book
though.

Hawke

On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...

On Dec 13, 7:12 pm, wrote:
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending
the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..


TMT

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.



You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know you're
lying.


Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke

On 12/14/2011 8:22 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:18:06 -0600,
wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...

On Dec 13, 7:12 pm, wrote:
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending
the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..


TMT

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know you're
lying.

RogerN


The day the Democrats took over was not January 22, 2009, it was
actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of
Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th
Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers
for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the
Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...


January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part
of the economy?


BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000
DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY
other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the
economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!


(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie& Freddie - starting
in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and
guess what? The sky did fall!)


And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
Mac? OBAMA


And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"\

Yes!!, we remember that. It was the first time since 1995 that the
Democrats got a majority in congress. I guess you forgot that from 1995
all the way up to 1/3/07 when all the damage was done or could have been
avoided it was the republicans who ran the show.





Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the
gas pedal and steering wheel and they were driving the economy into
the ditch.

Now that is a lie. The Democrats were unable to implement a single
policy until Obama took office. Every initiative they took was vetoed by
Bush.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat
Party.

Look at every budget the republicans presidents put out since Reagan was
first elected. Every single one spent more than they took in. No party
with a record like that has a word to say about spending to anyone.


Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008&
2009 as well as 2010& 2011.

Controlled? They were a part of it. No more than that.


In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused
them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough
on spending increases.

Bush vetoed no spending bills until Democrats were in the majority then
he vetoed them all.



For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi& Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember
what the deficits looked like during that period:

Just like they did all during Bush's two terms.


In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I
voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

Congress voted for it. Not Obama. Congress spends the money, the
president just adds his name to the bill.

Hawke

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Something else to thank Democrats for:

Iraqis unable to defend their borders as US exits


You dumb ass if the Iraqis had been able to defend their borders there would
be no need for us to be exiting at all because we would never have been able
to invade the ****ing place to begin with.

"Hawke" wrote in message ...

On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:


The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.



You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know
you're
lying.


Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke

Reply------------

When Democrats won they majority in congress, they couldn't do anything
because of the Republicans. When we got a Democrat president, he couldn't
do squat because of Republicans.

Hmmm. seems like if you want anything done you need Republicans as Democrats
can't do anything except screw things up and blame Republicans

RogerN

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...


"RogerN" wrote in message
om...
Something else to thank Democrats for:

Iraqis unable to defend their borders as US exits


You dumb ass if the Iraqis had been able to defend their borders there
would be no need for us to be exiting at all because we would never have
been able to invade the ****ing place to begin with.

You dumb ass, they don't need to defend against us now, we are leaving, you
too stupid to understand that? Let's dumb it down for you, they need to
defend against those who want to make their country a threat to peace once
again. There probably isn't a country that can defend against the USA with
Republicans in control. With Democrats in control for a length of time we
probably couldn't defeat a girl scout troop armed with flaming marshmallows.

RogerN

On Dec 15, 5:29*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:





"Too_Many_Tools" *wrote in message
....

On Dec 13, 7:12 pm, *wrote:
In this season to be thankful, what do you want to thank Democrats for?

I want to thank Democrats that they removed Bibles from our public schools
and replaced them with drugs and crime.

I want to thank Democrats that our children no longer have to read "Thou
shall not Kill" but are free to kill their classmates.

I want to thank Democrats for jailing men for not paying child support for
children that are not theirs.

I want to thank Democrats for electing a president that can't even be
determined to be American.

I want to thank Democrats for keeping patriotic Americans busy defending
the
Constitution that Democrats constantly trample.

I want to thank Democrats for making our educational system the least
effective for the amount of money spent.

What do you want to thank Democrats for?

RogerN

I want to thank Democrats for rebuilding the economy after the
Republicans destroyed it.

And for Obama to have another term.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know you're
lying.

Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's right...Roger never lies.

And he obviously doesn't recognize what reality is.

Could Roger be possessed by the DEVIL?

I mean the guy with horns and tail...not Cheney in this case.

TMT

On Dec 15, 7:18*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" *wrote in message

...

"RogerN" wrote in message
om...
Something else to thank Democrats for:

Iraqis unable to defend their borders as US exits

You dumb ass if the Iraqis had been able to defend their borders there
would be no need for us to be exiting at all because we would never have
been able to invade the ****ing place to begin with.

You dumb ass, they don't need to defend against us now, we are leaving, you
too stupid to understand that? *Let's dumb it down for you, they need to
defend against those who want to make their country a threat to peace once
again. *There probably isn't a country that can defend against the USA with
Republicans in control. *With Democrats in control for a length of time we
probably couldn't defeat a girl scout troop armed with flaming marshmallows.

RogerN

Roger have you ever defended your family from a screaming girl scout
troop armed with flaming marshmallows?

They are some damn tough bitches.

TMT

On Dec 15, 6:23*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 12/14/2011 10:02 AM, rangerssuck wrote:





On Dec 14, 12:29 pm, Gunner *wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:27:29 -0800, Larry Jaques

*wrote:
He also reviews
the long history of assassination and co-optation of radical voices in
the U.S. and the singular career of Ralph Nader as a consistent voice
against capitalist excess.

The fact that this particular author refers to liberals as a "class"
speaks volumes about the author's misconceptions.

If they are using Ralph Nader as some sort of Icon...they are
indeed...mentally ill

The fact that this particular author uses Ralph Nader as some sort of
icon says something about the author's (mis)understanding of
progressives.

The fact that Gunner is (again) dishing out medical and psychological
diagnoses is yet another of Gunner's continuing series of venturing
into areas where he is eminently unqualified.

Which just goes to show that Im right far more often than not about the
Leftwingers

I'm glad you feel so good about yourself. But you are only "right"
about this if you buy the author's premise as fact, and if you believe
your diagnosis.

It's clear from the comments that none of you are familiar with Chris
Hedges. He's a liberal. As liberal as you can get. His book is critical
of liberals as a class. He thinks they have not done their job in
society and have let down the country by becoming too republican-like.
If you are a conservative you may agree with some of his criticism of
liberals but you will not like anything else he has to say. He is
completely anti right wing. Which just shows how smart he is. He's a
former journalist too and has covered a number of wars. He's a fierce
critic of the U.S. and of republicans. Right wingers hate the guy so I
know he's doing something right. I've heard him give lectures too so I
know his philosophy. I can't say I agree with the premise of this book
though.

Hawke-

I stand by what I wrote. I don't care what the author may think, but I
disagree with his analysis.

On 12/15/2011 4:52 PM, RogerN wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message ...

On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:


The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.



You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know
you're
lying.


Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke

Reply------------

When Democrats won they majority in congress, they couldn't do anything
because of the Republicans. When we got a Democrat president, he couldn't
do squat because of Republicans.

Hmmm. seems like if you want anything done you need Republicans as Democrats
can't do anything except screw things up and blame Republicans

RogerN


I understand that you don't know much about how our political system
works so let me explain it. The way it is set up it's very difficult to
get things done because it is very easy to stop things from being done
and very hard to actually do things. If you have heard the republican
speaker of the house lately he's complaining that they are passing bills
in the house but none of them get signed into law because the Democrat
controlled senate won't pass them. That's exactly what happened when the
Democrats took over in 2007. They passed all kinds of things but the
republicans stopped them. Now it's the Democrat's turn to stop the
republicans from doing anything. That's how it works.

To get things done you need a big majority. Bush had a big majority
until the 2006 election and during that time he got all kinds of things
he wanted done. When Obama got elected he had a big majority too and he
got a bunch of things passed he wanted. He lost that majority in 2010
and since has not gotten hardly anything passed. So that's how it works.

All that simply explains why when the republicans had the majority from
2001 until 2007 they put in place the right wing economic policies that
exploded in 2007-2008. Obama has been working since he took office to
try to repair the damage done by Bush's foolish trickle down, free
market policies. So do us a favor and quit trying to blame the Democrats
for the mistakes that were made by the republicans. That is a very
unchristian thing to do. It's very dishonest. And a sin! So you better
quit it if you have plans of going to heaven.

Hawke

On Dec 16, 1:15*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 12/15/2011 4:52 PM, RogerN wrote:





"Hawke" *wrote in ...

On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know
you're
lying.

Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke

Reply------------

When Democrats won they majority in congress, they couldn't do anything
because of the Republicans. *When we got a Democrat president, he couldn't
do squat because of Republicans.

Hmmm. seems like if you want anything done you need Republicans as Democrats
can't do anything except screw things up and blame Republicans

RogerN

I understand that you don't know much about how our political system
works so let me explain it. The way it is set up it's very difficult to
get things done because it is very easy to stop things from being done
and very hard to actually do things. If you have heard the republican
speaker of the house lately he's complaining that they are passing bills
in the house but none of them get signed into law because the Democrat
controlled senate won't pass them. That's exactly what happened when the
Democrats took over in 2007. They passed all kinds of things but the
republicans stopped them. Now it's the Democrat's turn to stop the
republicans from doing anything. That's how it works.

To get things done you need a big majority. Bush had a big majority
until the 2006 election and during that time he got all kinds of things
he wanted done. When Obama got elected he had a big majority too and he
got a bunch of things passed he wanted. He lost that majority in 2010
and since has not gotten hardly anything passed. So that's how it works.

All that simply explains why when the republicans had the majority from
2001 until 2007 they put in place the right wing economic policies that
exploded in 2007-2008. Obama has been working since he took office to
try to repair the damage done by Bush's foolish trickle down, free
market policies. So do us a favor and quit trying to blame the Democrats
for the mistakes that were made by the republicans. That is a very
unchristian thing to do. It's very dishonest. And a sin! So you better
quit it if you have plans of going to heaven.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roger is already toast.

He voted for the Godless Republicans.

TMT

On 12/16/2011 11:25 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 16, 1:15 pm, wrote:
On 12/15/2011 4:52 PM, RogerN wrote:





"Hawke" wrote in ...

On 12/14/2011 5:18 PM, RogerN wrote:

The Bush economy was better than this, the decline began as Democrats won
more seats in 2006 and dropped rapidly when Obama got ahead in the polls.

You're right, the decline didn't begin until around 2007 but you're
wrong attributing it to Democrats winning a majority in congress. They
had a nominal majority but not enough to accomplish anything. In
addition, it took that long for Bush's stupid and foolish policies to do
their damage. He put them in place and in a few short years they bore
fruit. If you can consider ruining the country bearing fruit.

You can lie, because that's what you do, but I, and many others, know
you're
lying.

Unlike you, Roger. We know you aren't intentionally lying. That would be
unchristian, wouldn't it? So you would never do that. What that means is
that you're honest but simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hawke

Reply------------

When Democrats won they majority in congress, they couldn't do anything
because of the Republicans. When we got a Democrat president, he couldn't
do squat because of Republicans.

Hmmm. seems like if you want anything done you need Republicans as Democrats
can't do anything except screw things up and blame Republicans

RogerN

I understand that you don't know much about how our political system
works so let me explain it. The way it is set up it's very difficult to
get things done because it is very easy to stop things from being done
and very hard to actually do things. If you have heard the republican
speaker of the house lately he's complaining that they are passing bills
in the house but none of them get signed into law because the Democrat
controlled senate won't pass them. That's exactly what happened when the
Democrats took over in 2007. They passed all kinds of things but the
republicans stopped them. Now it's the Democrat's turn to stop the
republicans from doing anything. That's how it works.

To get things done you need a big majority. Bush had a big majority
until the 2006 election and during that time he got all kinds of things
he wanted done. When Obama got elected he had a big majority too and he
got a bunch of things passed he wanted. He lost that majority in 2010
and since has not gotten hardly anything passed. So that's how it works.

All that simply explains why when the republicans had the majority from
2001 until 2007 they put in place the right wing economic policies that
exploded in 2007-2008. Obama has been working since he took office to
try to repair the damage done by Bush's foolish trickle down, free
market policies. So do us a favor and quit trying to blame the Democrats
for the mistakes that were made by the republicans. That is a very
unchristian thing to do. It's very dishonest. And a sin! So you better
quit it if you have plans of going to heaven.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roger is already toast.

He voted for the Godless Republicans.

TMT


That's a real bummer. I've heard that once you **** things up with god
you're through. Nothing you ever do for the rest of your life will make
things okay again. Once god is ****ed at you it's for life, and you are
screwed forever. Sorry about that Roger. You ****ed off the wrong guy.
You're toast.

Hawke

On 12/16/2011 1:15 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:

I understand that you don't know much about how our political system
works so let me explain it. The way it is set up it's very difficult to
get things done because it is very easy to stop things from being done
and very hard to actually do things. If you have heard the republican
speaker of the house lately he's complaining that they are passing bills
in the house but none of them get signed into law because the Democrat
controlled senate won't pass them. That's exactly what happened when the
Democrats took over in 2007. They passed all kinds of things but the
republicans stopped them. Now it's the Democrat's turn to stop the
republicans from doing anything. That's how it works.

To get things done you need a big majority. Bush had a big majority
until the 2006 election and during that time he got all kinds of things
he wanted done. When Obama got elected he had a big majority too and he
got a bunch of things passed he wanted. He lost that majority in 2010
and since has not gotten hardly anything passed. So that's how it works.

All that simply explains why when the republicans had the majority from
2001 until 2007 they put in place the right wing economic policies that
exploded in 2007-2008. Obama has been working since he took office to
try to repair the damage done by Bush's foolish trickle down, free
market policies. So do us a favor and quit trying to blame the Democrats
for the mistakes that were made by the republicans. That is a very
unchristian thing to do. It's very dishonest. And a sin! So you better
quit it if you have plans of going to heaven.

Hawwk-ptooey

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Get lost.

David

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:25:31 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


Beings as Gingrich appears to be taking the GOP lead and since the
cheap-assed-*******-3-time-divorcee-who-was-cheating-on-his-own-wife

So he really didnt have a stable of whores like Bubba Clinton does/did?

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 12/16/2011 8:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/16/2011 1:15 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:

I understand that you don't know much about how our political system
works so let me explain it. The way it is set up it's very difficult to
get things done because it is very easy to stop things from being done
and very hard to actually do things. If you have heard the republican
speaker of the house lately he's complaining that they are passing bills
in the house but none of them get signed into law because the Democrat
controlled senate won't pass them. That's exactly what happened when the
Democrats took over in 2007. They passed all kinds of things but the
republicans stopped them. Now it's the Democrat's turn to stop the
republicans from doing anything. That's how it works.

To get things done you need a big majority. Bush had a big majority
until the 2006 election and during that time he got all kinds of things
he wanted done. When Obama got elected he had a big majority too and he
got a bunch of things passed he wanted. He lost that majority in 2010
and since has not gotten hardly anything passed. So that's how it works.

All that simply explains why when the republicans had the majority from
2001 until 2007 they put in place the right wing economic policies that
exploded in 2007-2008. Obama has been working since he took office to
try to repair the damage done by Bush's foolish trickle down, free
market policies. So do us a favor and quit trying to blame the Democrats
for the mistakes that were made by the republicans. That is a very
unchristian thing to do. It's very dishonest. And a sin! So you better
quit it if you have plans of going to heaven.

Hawwk-ptooey

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Get lost.

Just as soon as you're gone.

Hawke

On 12/17/2011 4:05 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:



The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Get lost.

Just as soon as you're gone.

Hawwk-ptooey

Nah, I'll be here conversing with the adults.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to join us.

I'm not counting on it.

David

On 12/17/2011 9:05 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/17/2011 4:05 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:



The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Get lost.

Just as soon as you're gone.

Hawwk-ptooey

Nah, I'll be here conversing with the adults.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to join us.

I'm not counting on it.

David



Where did you get the idea you're one of the adults? Pretending to be
one is different than actually being one.

Hawke

On Dec 17, 3:10*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:25:31 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"

wrote:

Beings as Gingrich appears to be taking the GOP lead and since the
cheap-assed-*******-3-time-divorcee-who-was-cheating-on-his-own-wife

So he really didnt have a stable of whores like Bubba Clinton does/did?

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

LOL...or groped anything with a pulse like Herman "The Prevert" Cain?

Laugh..laugh..laugh...

shrug

*snicker*

TMT
TMT

On 12/18/2011 12:29 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:
On 12/17/2011 9:05 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/17/2011 4:05 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:



The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be
able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that
you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Get lost.

Just as soon as you're gone.

Hawwk-ptooey

Nah, I'll be here conversing with the adults.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to join us.

I'm not counting on it.

David



Where did you get the idea you're one of the adults?

A) The fact that I know what I'm talking about, rather than spewing
establishment left rhetoric.

B) [See A above]

Pretending to be one is different than actually being one.

Hawwk-ptooey

I will accept your superior knowledge and experience in pretending to be
an adult.

David

On 12/18/2011 5:49 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Nah, I'll be here conversing with the adults.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to join us.

I'm not counting on it.

David



Where did you get the idea you're one of the adults?

A) The fact that I know what I'm talking about, rather than spewing
establishment left rhetoric.


Maybe some day you will grant us the privilege of actually hearing some
of your wisdom on some subject. Because so far there doesn't seem to be
any of your gems of knowledge anywhere for us to read. Just a bunch of
condescending, know it all, blather comes out of you. But not a thing
that would indicate you have any kind of useful knowledge or insight
into anything of interest to anyone else.

Here you had us all expecting these great things from you and then you
say nothing. In business we call that over promising and under
delivering or OPUD. Too bad. You had our expectations so high and then
pffffft!

Hawke

On 12/19/2011 2:19 AM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 12/18/2011 5:49 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Nah, I'll be here conversing with the adults.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to join us.

I'm not counting on it.

David



Where did you get the idea you're one of the adults?

A) The fact that I know what I'm talking about, rather than
spewing establishment left rhetoric.


Maybe some day you will grant us the privilege of actually hearing
some of your wisdom on some subject.

This shows you haven't been paying attention to anything but your
ranting. I occasionally ask and answer questions, plus commenting on
machining based on 30+ years in the metalworking industry. I guess you
don't follow the threads that actually talk about metal.

Because so far there doesn't seem to be any of your gems of knowledge
anywhere for us to read. Just a bunch of condescending, know it all,
blather comes out of you. But not a thing that would indicate you
have any kind of useful knowledge or insight into anything of
interest to anyone else.

Nah, you're the only one I condescend to, now that Cliffie is gone. I
don't do it to the adults.

"I'll take the prisoner downstairs, said Tom Swift, condescendingly."

I guess you missed the discussion I had with Ed about the old days of
RYM, RYM II and radical chic in general. Demos against the war while the
badgeless police rioted in the background. The memory of CS gas still
brings a nostalgic tear to my eyes.

Here you had us all expecting these great things from you and then
you say nothing. In business we call that over promising and under
delivering or OPUD. Too bad. You had our expectations so high and
then pffffft!

Hawwke-ptooey

Maybe you can share some of your machinist experiences so I can
contribute more derision about how you got your foot caught in the lathe
chuck.

David