jo4hn wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...

Isn't English a wonderful language? Someone on the other side of that
issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions
instead of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).

It seems there's red English and blue English.

Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).

And anyway, infanticide is the killing of infants or newborn children.
Abortion is abortion. Sometimes I find myself making excuses for Mark,
Tim, and a few others that are a small part of my life. They live lives
in the area between "quiet desperation" (HDT) and "fear and trembling"
(SK). To them, the Zen of any situation must be smothered in verbiage
slanted to prove their point.


Please explain how there is anything at all slanted in the depiction of
the facts that actually happened: the victim of an abortion survived that
abortion and was left to die in a closet -- according to the whistle blower
(people on your side of the aisle usually love whistle-blowers, howcome not
this one?), this happened more than just once.

Good Lord! Don't you realize what you are defending here? Usually, the
excuse of the left for over-reaching regulation is the limp argument, "if
even one life is saved, the abrogation of freedom is worth it". Why isn't
that argument being applied here? ... and the excuses your candidate
offered for opposing that legislation, words to the effect of not wanting
to second guess the decision of the woman and the doctor to terminate the
pregnancy (ain't that such an wonderful euphemism for "kill a fetus"?) even
when that fetus stubbornly refused to be killed, survived the abortion
procedure and became a born baby.

... and thank you so much for your concern about your concern for my life
of quiet desperation or "fear and trembling". I'm quite happy and have
been very blessed, I do fear for my country though when its citizens can
actually make excuses for such barbaric practices, particularly when the
purpose for making those excuses is to make sure that nothing interferes
with getting their candidate of choice elected.

Oh, and speaking of the excuses to get their candidate elected, where is
the outrage in the media over the Tim Mahoney (D-FL) sex scandal? You
know, the one where a congressman paid off his mistress and the Democrat
leadership "sternly lectured" him on proper behavior. Seems like 2 years
ago, a certain Republican congressman was forced to resign over much less
and the 24/7 coverage led to the election of the Dem majority. Where's the
coverage? The same template is present only on steroids -- blackmail, hush
money, House leadership involved in covering it up? Nope, no bias here.



Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by
itself. Think.
jo4hn

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:28Â*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...

Isn't English a wonderful language? Â*Someone on the other side of that
issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions
instead
of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).

It seems there's red English and blue English.

Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).

And anyway, infanticide is the killing of infants or newborn children.
Abortion is abortion. Â*Sometimes I find myself making excuses for Mark,
Tim, and a few others that are a small part of my life. Â*They live
lives in the area between "quiet desperation" (HDT) and "fear and
trembling" (SK). Â*To them, the Zen of any situation must be smothered
in verbiage slanted to prove their point.

Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by
itself. Â*Think.
jo4hn

I hope you find great peace knowing that your favored candidate thinks
that letting babies that survived and abortion attempt die alone in
a closet isn't much of an issue.


My, my, you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Oh, another dem talking point. If all else fails, play the race card --
that'll shame and shut up the opposition.

Guess what, none of us give a rip about the color of his skin, it's the
content of his [nonexistant] character.

Walter E Williams? Black. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat
JC Watts? Ditto
Michael Steele? Ditto

So you see, you racist left-wing liberal -- those of us on the right
aren't racist, we look beyond skin color to what the person is advocating.
Unlike those of you on the left for whom it appears that race and/or gender
association are the sole qualifications. Unless of course, they are
conservative, then they are "sell-outs" and not really black.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:52Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:26:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

... its replacement with a marxist government.

I vote that referring to liberals as Marxists be greeted with the same
derision as referring to conservatives as Hitlerian.

Given that you clipped out the context, you aren't helping your cause.
Bill Ayers has said exactly those words -- so in reality,that statement
of simple fact would be the same as someone making such a representation
of a member of the new nazi party as being hitlarian. Â*Ayers has never
repudiated his stance and is using his position as an educator to
indoctrinate those who are so unfortunate as to come under his influence
into that ideology.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Or so you believe. Ayers is a non-entity outside of his home area, and
always has been. His radical activities took place when Obama was 8
years old, Obama has denounced those activities, and that's it, IMO.


Yeah, and he re-iterated those views in an NYT editorial that coincidently
was published 9/11/2001. You can't play the "he was only 8 years old" card
on that.

At one point or another in my life, I've associated with people who
turned out to be one helluva lot worse than Ayers ever dreamed of
being. I certainly wouldn't then, or now, care to have my thoughts
confused with theirs, nor my actions. Obama's PROVEN association with
Ayers extends no further than a few committees and a fund raiser at
Ayers' home, at a time when Obama may or may not have known about
Ayers' earlier activites.

You don't understand politics, and definitely not Chicago politics very
well if you can say that with a straight face (I don't think you really
believe that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). When you are in
politics, every move is carefully considered -- with whom you associate,
who you ally yourself with, from whom you seek support. There is no way
Obama did not ally himself with Ayers without knowing who Ayers was. In
the extreme case that Obama did not know who Ayers was, that would point to
him being even more dangerously naive than anyone who should be let even
close to the Oval office.

I don't know. You claim you do. Let's see
some citations, and not nonsense from political sites.

I hear lots of claims against Obama. I see no proof.

Nope, you're just ignoring the proof because you want your party to win,
regardless of the future cost to the country. You don't have the slightest
knowledge of Obama's real stands on issues and apparently don't care to
find out. I'm not going to go any further doing more research for you,
you'll just claim that any such research is from "biased sites". It's just
not worth the time.

Conjecture? Sure.
McCain ain't exactly a sweet smelling rose, and never has been. His
wife is less of one. Their activities can be readily substantiated,
but, so far, no one has really come out swinging with that material.

It could happen, but probably not. McCain is too busy letting Palin
dig his grave with her mouth for it to be necessary. She was cute for
a week, feisty for a week, and now she's just another loudmouthed
political hack, with all the background twists and turns that all
major politicos seem to gather (except she swears she doesn't have
them). Of course, she was nothing but a political hack to start with,
so this comes as a surprise only to naifs.

i.e, you don't agree with her political viewpoint. Joe Biden can be
equally strident, say some really stupid stuff, tell real lies, and get his
facts all wrong, but that's OK because he's on your side. I get it -- you
want your side to win.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.


Mark -

I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".
In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
and ethical behavior. You yourself have noted that some of
the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...
Isn't English a wonderful language? Someone on the other side of that
issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions
instead
of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).
It seems there's red English and blue English.
Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).
And anyway, infanticide is the killing of infants or newborn children.
Abortion is abortion. Sometimes I find myself making excuses for Mark,
Tim, and a few others that are a small part of my life. They live
lives in the area between "quiet desperation" (HDT) and "fear and
trembling" (SK). To them, the Zen of any situation must be smothered
in verbiage slanted to prove their point.
Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by
itself. Think.
jo4hn
I hope you find great peace knowing that your favored candidate thinks
that letting babies that survived and abortion attempt die alone in
a closet isn't much of an issue.

My, my, you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Oh, another dem talking point. If all else fails, play the race card --
that'll shame and shut up the opposition.

Guess what, none of us give a rip about the color of his skin, it's the
content of his [nonexistant] character.

Walter E Williams? Black. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat
JC Watts? Ditto
Michael Steele? Ditto

So you see, you racist left-wing liberal -- those of us on the right
aren't racist, we look beyond skin color to what the person is advocating.
Unlike those of you on the left for whom it appears that race and/or gender
association are the sole qualifications. Unless of course, they are
conservative, then they are "sell-outs" and not really black.


As (apparently) the lone libertarian here, I'll just add this: Racism,
in any of its forms, is just another kind of collectivism. It reduces
ideas, discussion, and human interaction to a debate about how we see
*groups*. I object ethically to racism because it debases human beings
and denies them their natural rights. I object politically to racism
because it promotes the notion that what really matters is group
identity and suppresses - by force - the genius of the individual.

And ... it's corrosive. Notice the fulmination and personal attack
that followed my revealing I have - gasp - a black family member. "It
can't be so", "He/She must be horrified to be in the same family" and
so on. The collectivists always hate it when they are exposed for what
they are, the villagers with the torches, bent on suppressing any
contrary views and punishing anyone who dares to object to their
oppressive and evil ideas.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:52 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:26:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
... its replacement with a marxist government.
I vote that referring to liberals as Marxists be greeted with the same
derision as referring to conservatives as Hitlerian.
Given that you clipped out the context, you aren't helping your cause.
Bill Ayers has said exactly those words -- so in reality,that statement
of simple fact would be the same as someone making such a representation
of a member of the new nazi party as being hitlarian. Ayers has never
repudiated his stance and is using his position as an educator to
indoctrinate those who are so unfortunate as to come under his influence
into that ideology.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Or so you believe. Ayers is a non-entity outside of his home area, and
always has been. His radical activities took place when Obama was 8
years old, Obama has denounced those activities, and that's it, IMO.


Yeah, and he re-iterated those views in an NYT editorial that coincidently
was published 9/11/2001. You can't play the "he was only 8 years old" card
on that.

At one point or another in my life, I've associated with people who
turned out to be one helluva lot worse than Ayers ever dreamed of
being. I certainly wouldn't then, or now, care to have my thoughts
confused with theirs, nor my actions. Obama's PROVEN association with
Ayers extends no further than a few committees and a fund raiser at
Ayers' home, at a time when Obama may or may not have known about
Ayers' earlier activites.

You don't understand politics, and definitely not Chicago politics very
well if you can say that with a straight face (I don't think you really
believe that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). When you are in
politics, every move is carefully considered -- with whom you associate,
who you ally yourself with, from whom you seek support. There is no way
Obama did not ally himself with Ayers without knowing who Ayers was. In
the extreme case that Obama did not know who Ayers was, that would point to
him being even more dangerously naive than anyone who should be let even
close to the Oval office.

I don't know. You claim you do. Let's see
some citations, and not nonsense from political sites.

I hear lots of claims against Obama. I see no proof.

Nope, you're just ignoring the proof because you want your party to win,
regardless of the future cost to the country. You don't have the slightest
knowledge of Obama's real stands on issues and apparently don't care to
find out. I'm not going to go any further doing more research for you,
you'll just claim that any such research is from "biased sites". It's just
not worth the time.

Conjecture? Sure.
McCain ain't exactly a sweet smelling rose, and never has been. His
wife is less of one. Their activities can be readily substantiated,
but, so far, no one has really come out swinging with that material.

It could happen, but probably not. McCain is too busy letting Palin
dig his grave with her mouth for it to be necessary. She was cute for
a week, feisty for a week, and now she's just another loudmouthed
political hack, with all the background twists and turns that all
major politicos seem to gather (except she swears she doesn't have
them). Of course, she was nothing but a political hack to start with,
so this comes as a surprise only to naifs.

i.e, you don't agree with her political viewpoint. Joe Biden can be
equally strident, say some really stupid stuff, tell real lies, and get his
facts all wrong, but that's OK because he's on your side. I get it -- you
want your side to win.




As some wag put it, "Biden is barrel of gaffes..."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any
surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to
get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.


Mark -

I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".

Haven't missed that elephant, and I don't disagree that we have too great
a degree of socialism already present. What I see though with this coming
election and choices is an exponential increase in that degree of socialism
to the point that it will take generations to undo the damage about to be
done. Look at how hard it is to shake the entitlement mentality wrought
over the past 40 years; getting more people dependent on government
redistribution is going to make it that much harder.

In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
and ethical behavior.

Yep, that is what is most frustrating. So many appear to be saying to the
government, "I can't do for myself, I want you to have other peoples' money
support me".

You yourself have noted that some of
the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.


Don't disagree with that, maybe that is why I have probably been a bit too
vocal in expressing my opinion -- I don't want to see our country continue
to embrace that decay but it appears that too many others not only embrace
it but are actively advocating to accelerate it.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Yet, here you are wasting time all your time on the internet. I'd take
your

It only takes mere seconds for me to post on the internet. YMMV.

A number of messages and over 90 minutes later, here you are still posting.
Funny how those mere seconds march on, eh Tim? Sure, "Chicks dig you, men
want to be you". That's a hoot. They're laughing at you until they find a
way to avoid you because that's what happens to flakes. When the internet
came into being you finally found a forum to express yourself. *Now* you
have a life, one that's sorely lacking, but it's a life if you want to call
it that.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 14, 10:22*pm, Markem wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:53:46 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
He is moral, political and intellectual scum.

So is Mccain except for the intellectual part.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

It is not McCain you should worry about...as long as he is alive.

Agreed, but ......

Mark

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:40:54 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:53:46 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

He is moral, political and intellectual scum.

So is Mccain except for the intellectual part.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

Stipulated. You'll notice that I've have not defended McCain
a single time in this thread. He is slightly better as a
Presidential choice than Obama, but not by much.

Ah hoping he will die in office then the religious right will have one
of they're own as President?

Mark

Robatoy wrote:

My, my, you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Jack asks:
Walter Williams is also black, whats your point?

Well, you see.....naaa.. forget it...

Pointless dribble is not hard to forget, so OK.

While it's still fresh in my mind, before I forget it, it sounds to me
like you are the racist?

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 15, 12:59*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. *Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

You mean gov't bailing out your banks?

On Oct 15, 1:09*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped bunch of rhetoric]

*I get it you want your side to win.

....and the smears coming from your side? Because you want to lose?

Your idea of winning is fomenting chants of "Kill HIM" during either
one of your candidate's rallies without either candidate saying a word
about it?
I think the reason Republicans are so afraid they'll lose, is because
of possible investigations which may follow re war crimes, voter fraud
etc.
I think the ones who want/need to win are you guys....and it ain't
because it is 'country first'.

On Oct 15, 9:03*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
My, my, *you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Jack asks:

Walter Williams is also black, whats your point?
Well, you see.....naaa.. forget it...

Pointless dribble is not hard to forget, so OK.

While it's still fresh in my mind, before I forget it, it sounds to me
like you are the racist?

Nope. Not me. Read that original post of mine again. It is a
question.
Let me translate it for you. " What's next? Are the rightwingers going
to make his race an issue next??"

It is a whisper heard behind the hands of the hypocritical right wing
illustrating that they'll stop at nothing to stop Obama.
All I did, was point out that his race has been put into play, out in
the open at least, yet.

And then we get some clown stating that 'The Right' isn't
racist.....as in 'none of them'...

Markem wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:40:54 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:53:46 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

He is moral, political and intellectual scum.
So is Mccain except for the intellectual part.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
Stipulated. You'll notice that I've have not defended McCain
a single time in this thread. He is slightly better as a
Presidential choice than Obama, but not by much.

Ah hoping he will die in office then the religious right will have one
of they're own as President?

Mark

Not particularly. What I'm hoping will never happen - A Barr
presidency.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Yet, here you are wasting time all your time on the internet. I'd take
your

It only takes mere seconds for me to post on the internet. YMMV.

A number of messages and over 90 minutes later, here you are still posting.
Funny how those mere seconds march on, eh Tim? Sure, "Chicks dig you, men
want to be you". That's a hoot. They're laughing at you until they find a
way to avoid you because that's what happens to flakes. When the internet
came into being you finally found a forum to express yourself. *Now* you
have a life, one that's sorely lacking, but it's a life if you want to call
it that.



My, my, so bitter, so personal, so vicious ... so sad. You know
that this is just a USENET group right? You probably shouldn't
spend much time here - it appears to raise your blood pressure
too much and then you get mean. And as an all inclusive, tolerant,
multicultural, deeply sensitive soul, you wouldn't want to be mean ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Yet, here you are wasting time all your time on the internet. I'd
take your

It only takes mere seconds for me to post on the internet. YMMV.

A number of messages and over 90 minutes later, here you are still
posting. Funny how those mere seconds march on, eh Tim? Sure, "Chicks
dig you, men want to be you". That's a hoot. They're laughing at you
until they find a way to avoid you because that's what happens to
flakes. When the internet came into being you finally found a forum
to express yourself. *Now* you have a life, one that's sorely
lacking, but it's a life if you want to call it that.

Why the stream of personal attacks? Is showing a mean, nasty and petty
personality some sort of goal here? Quite a few posts ago you seem to have
abandoned facts, refutations or any attempted reasoned opinion. Your giving
political argument a bad name and that is not all that easy to do.......Rod

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:47:31 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:

Why the stream of personal attacks?...


I'm sure there's a corollary or parallel to Godwin's Law that states
something to the effect that "...in discussions of any remotely
controversial issue, the descent into ad hominem will occur not later
than the ...'th exchange..."

The decent seems to be almost universal and occurs for reasons which,
IMO, are pretty well stated in the Wilkipedia entries for "ad
hominem". In my observations, it seems to occur at the point the
responder has nothing left of any substance to contribute, but for
whatever reason, is unable to remain silent.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Oct 15, 3:32*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
. In my observations, it seems to occur at the point the
responder has nothing left of any substance to contribute, but for
whatever reason, is unable to remain silent.

It *is* hard to remain silent when trying to walk away and having a
little yappy dog biting at your heels and throwing up on your shoes.
But that is what little bitches do. So I shrug and grin a lot.

In article , Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:47:31 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:

Why the stream of personal attacks?...


I'm sure there's a corollary or parallel to Godwin's Law that states
something to the effect that "...in discussions of any remotely
controversial issue, the descent into ad hominem will occur not later
than the ...'th exchange..."

The decent seems to be almost universal and occurs for reasons which,
IMO, are pretty well stated in the Wilkipedia entries for "ad
hominem". In my observations, it seems to occur at the point the
responder has nothing left of any substance to contribute, but for
whatever reason, is unable to remain silent.

There you have it. Unfortunately, for some people, that point is reached at
very low values of 'n'.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:47:31 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:
Why the stream of personal attacks?...

I'm sure there's a corollary or parallel to Godwin's Law that states
something to the effect that "...in discussions of any remotely
controversial issue, the descent into ad hominem will occur not later
than the ...'th exchange..."

The decent seems to be almost universal and occurs for reasons which,
IMO, are pretty well stated in the Wilkipedia entries for "ad
hominem". In my observations, it seems to occur at the point the
responder has nothing left of any substance to contribute, but for
whatever reason, is unable to remain silent.

There you have it. Unfortunately, for some people, that point is reached at
very low values of 'n'.

for n 0:
...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.


If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.




tom watson

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:28:40 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:



Not particularly. What I'm hoping will never happen - A Barr
presidency.


I heard him on the radio today. He sounds like an interesting man.

I was intrigued when Perot ran, too.

I do not like Nader.

I have often wished that the Bullmoose Party would have a resurgence.



tom watson

On Oct 15, 6:35*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:47:31 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:
Why the stream of personal attacks?...

I'm sure there's a corollary or parallel to Godwin's Law that states
something to the effect that *"...in discussions of any remotely
controversial issue, the descent into ad hominem will occur not later
than the ...'th exchange..."

The decent seems to be almost universal and occurs for reasons which,
IMO, are pretty well stated in the Wilkipedia entries for "ad
hominem". In my observations, it seems to occur at the point the
responder has nothing left of any substance to contribute, but for
whatever reason, is unable to remain silent.

There you have it. Unfortunately, for some people, that point is reached at
very low values of 'n'.

for n 0:

WOW!! Higher mathematics!! You know how desperate that attempt at
sounding intelligent sounds to those who know better?
*puffs chest* "I know what 'n' means....Wowsa!

Dude... get a life.

On Oct 15, 6:55*pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

*Gee, you left off Zogby

*Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

*If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. *Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. *I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson

I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson

I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?

yes

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:24:52 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.


Mark -

I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".
In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
and ethical behavior. You yourself have noted that some of
the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.


If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
the people is what it is, today.

It may be different tomorrow. It was certainly different eight and
four years ago. Although, four years ago there was a glimmering of
what was to come.

I really don't see this trend as any more than the traditional
American, "Let's throw the bums out", mentality that is enshrined in
all of the movements of the political pendulum from time immemorial.

New pigs will be at the trough and after they have fed long enough we
will throw them out.

You are a student of History and therefore a student of Hegel: Thesis,
Antithesis, Synthesis.

You and I are not young men. We have seen this all before.

We will not become any more Socialist (although I do hate to use an
undefined term in an argument, albeit informal) than we became
Anti-Socialist under the current regime.

Checks and balances do work. They may work slowly and the timing may
not be what one would like - but the State will stand.

It is interesting to me how the will of the people plays out in
national politics. It does not always play out to the advantage of my
core beliefs but I still believe in the process and the wisdom of
consensus.

I wish that we, in this country, had more of a sense of The Loyal
Opposition, rather than the strident, nonproductive argumentation that
usually occurs.

I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
is invested in Hawaiian shirts.

I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".


tom watson

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson

I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?

yes


You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.

If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.

Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.

In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.

Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.



tom watson

On Oct 15, 7:25*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita

wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
*Gee, you left off Zogby
*Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
*If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. *Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. *I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson

I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?

yes

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Is demanding taxes for infrastructure, even though abortionists are
travelling those roads, socialism?

How DO you reconcile 'hands off to those who earned their nut' and
infrastructure?

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:

It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.



I'd feel really bad about myself right now except that while you
were fuming:

1) I set a Personal Record for running distance I've been trying
to hit for months.

2) SWMBO just made me a magnificent beef roast which was really
yummy. So was the fresh salad and green beans

3) I had 2 lovely glasses of decent Petite Syrah.

You can fulminate all you like. I don't care. You're wrong and
you'll remain so. I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

Ta,


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:

It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:24:52 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

Mark -

I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".
In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
and ethical behavior. You yourself have noted that some of
the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.


If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
the people is what it is, today.

They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power
imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know,
that document I actually had to read and study and most native
born citizens barely have glanced at.


It may be different tomorrow. It was certainly different eight and
four years ago. Although, four years ago there was a glimmering of
what was to come.

I really don't see this trend as any more than the traditional
American, "Let's throw the bums out", mentality that is enshrined in
all of the movements of the political pendulum from time immemorial.

New pigs will be at the trough and after they have fed long enough we
will throw them out.

You are a student of History and therefore a student of Hegel: Thesis,
Antithesis, Synthesis.

You and I are not young men. We have seen this all before.

We will not become any more Socialist (although I do hate to use an
undefined term in an argument, albeit informal) than we became
Anti-Socialist under the current regime.

Checks and balances do work. They may work slowly and the timing may
not be what one would like - but the State will stand.

The problem is that it may take too long this time. THere are
real pressures on liberty today from the outside world and
those coupled with the inside pressures may just be too much
to overcome.


It is interesting to me how the will of the people plays out in
national politics. It does not always play out to the advantage of my
core beliefs but I still believe in the process and the wisdom of
consensus.


I wish that we, in this country, had more of a sense of The Loyal
Opposition, rather than the strident, nonproductive argumentation that
usually occurs.

On this we agree. Then again, the more the knuckleheads in government
argue, the less they do, which IMHO is a net very good thing.


I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
is invested in Hawaiian shirts.

I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made
clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the
visual image.


I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".


Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would
probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson
I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?
yes


You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.

If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.

Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.

In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.

Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.



tom watson




"socialism" is one of the convenient shorthands for collectivism:
The premise that the good of the good trumps the interest of
the individual. Whatever the term, I object - on moral grounds -
to all collectivist systems.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:25 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.
I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.
I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.
tom watson
I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.
Is that socialism?
yes

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Is demanding taxes for infrastructure, even though abortionists are
travelling those roads, socialism?



How DO you reconcile 'hands off to those who earned their nut' and
infrastructure?

To the extent that infrastructure is necessary to defend liberty -
in this case, to defend the nation during an invasion or
threat (the original reason the US highways were built during the
cold war), it is a legitimate expenditure of the Federal govt.
One can also make the case that it is necessary to uphold the
Commerce Clause, though I have problems with this because the
aforementioned clause has been the subject of much abuse by
the judiciary.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:28:22 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson
I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?
yes


You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.

If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.

Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.

In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.

Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.



tom watson




"socialism" is one of the convenient shorthands for collectivism:
The premise that the good of the good trumps the interest of
the individual. Whatever the term, I object - on moral grounds -
to all collectivist systems.


I am willing to assume that the Petite Syrah has clouded your
reportage to the degree that you meant, "the good of the many trumps
the interests of the individual".

If, indeed, that is what your argument rejects, then you must reject
all government and slide from, "that government is best which governs
least", to, "that government is best which governs not at all", which
would put you in the camp of the anarchists.

Being mindful of your previous thought, I do not see you as an
anarchist but as some sort of what is colloquially called a
"libertarian".

That concept needs serious definition.




tom watson

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:



If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
the people is what it is, today.

They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power
imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know,
that document I actually had to read and study and most native
born citizens barely have glanced at.


By, "They", I must assume you to mean the politicians, and yet, you
have described them as fulfilling the will of the people. If they
truly express the will of the people, how can they be wrong?


I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
is invested in Hawaiian shirts.

I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made
clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the
visual image.

This is an unfortunate reference and I am totally of a mind with your
potential decedents. "The horror...the horror...".


I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".


Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would
probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...

You best watch out. The counter revolutionaries are deeply into the
mounties.

(silly)




tom watson

On Oct 15, 8:22*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


You can fulminate all you like. *I don't care. *You're wrong and
you'll remain so. *I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

What we have here, is a man about to find out how things can
change...suddenly.
Only mature and experienced time-travellers like myself know how to
deal with those sudden disappointments in life.

You are unprepared, Timbo.

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:



If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
the people is what it is, today.
They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power
imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know,
that document I actually had to read and study and most native
born citizens barely have glanced at.


By, "They", I must assume you to mean the politicians, and yet, you
have described them as fulfilling the will of the people. If they
truly express the will of the people, how can they be wrong?

Neither the people nor their elected leaders have limited themselves
to the powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution.
This means we are less and less a nation of laws (a republic) and
increasingly a nation of sheer majority will (a mob).



I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
is invested in Hawaiian shirts.
I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made
clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the
visual image.

This is an unfortunate reference and I am totally of a mind with your
potential decedents. "The horror...the horror...".

I herewith apologize for the damage done to your mind's eye.
Speaking of Canada, they make a soothing balm from rye
than can expedite your recovery.

I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".

Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would
probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...

You best watch out. The counter revolutionaries are deeply into the
mounties.

I think it is clear that there is no nation more subversive than
Canada except, perhaps, for those pesky Lichtensteinians...

(silly)




tom watson





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:09Â*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped bunch of rhetoric]

I get it you want your side to win.

...and the smears coming from your side? Because you want to lose?

Your idea of winning is fomenting chants of "Kill HIM" during either
one of your candidate's rallies without either candidate saying a word
about it?

Clue: High probability it was a plant from the opposition to get just the
reaction you provided. Proof? No more proof than you have that it was a
McCain supporter. However, this is a very anomalous incident -- nice to
see you are on board with the main stream media meme though, it shows you
absorb propaganda very well.

I think the reason Republicans are so afraid they'll lose, is because
of possible investigations which may follow re war crimes, voter fraud
etc.

You are amazingly funny in a deviously twisted and deficient way. Ever
heard of ACORN? hint: That "R" in "ACORN" doesn't stand for "Republican".
Yeah, vote fraud exists, but it's not the Republicans committing it.


As far as the other part -- investigations, prosecutions -- that has
certainly been posited by the democrats should gain power. Positively
stalinist.


I think the ones who want/need to win are you guys....and it ain't
because it is 'country first'.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough