"Robert" <wayne_s_noches@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jssJa.577$Ub1.89@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.. .
Believing Liberalism is the Utopian, secular answer which intellectualizes
God into myth, puts "winning at all cost" above allegiance to country and
replaces a moral life with Higher principals disciplined in traditional
family values with a Bell Curved neutrality of inappropriate behavior.

CB wrote:
You know, this sounds more like the wacko "conservative" party line;
incoherently meaningless. As though real, thinking political
conservatives (Buckley, Will and the like) would say such psychobabble.
Unlike the Limbaughs, the Boortzes and especially the Savages, they
think about what they say and it's more than knee-jerk, bumper-sticker
platitudes.

That's why I like the real ones. They don't deal in sound-bite
philosophy.

Pastorio

"Bob Pastorio" <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3EF69F88.B16CA1D8@rica.net...
You flatter me by the comparisons, thanks

If liberals believed in utopia then why would they be for helping the
poor? Utopia has no poor does it?

I think they are for all the Christian ideals that are sorely lacking
in our current government.

As for Hillary Clinton's ankles....who cares? I suppose the original
poster is perfect speciman of humanity?

The conservatives are mostly big fat morons. If liberals really
believed in Utopia they'ld propose shipping all the big fat morons off
to school. But they don't believe in Utopia, and they know you
wouldn't learn because you like being stupid and posting stupid things
on the Internet about Hillary Clinton's ankles as if they matter at
all.

CB wrote:
Q.E.D.

Pastorio

"Grayson Bathgate" <gbathgate2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e89f00b6.0306230607.23db5c39@posting.google.c om...
Are all people stupid to Liberals? Or just Conservitives?

CB wrote:
I don't speak for anyone but myself. But I generally confine that
judgement to stupid people. They can be defined by their habits of
dividing people into opposed camps.

Pastorio

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:51:45 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:


Like the Democrats do often with their class-warfare tactics? Like
when they use the race-card which they always lovingly throw out into
play. The Democrats are the dividers and the instigators.
They are liars, and the country no longer buys their nonsense. To
prove it, watch Bush beat any Dem opponent they run against him.
Democrats best move well to the center, leave Bush alone with the wmd
nonsense, and start celebrating the liberation of Iraq.





JD


"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me

'Conservatives believe IN America, liberals believe in and worry about
what other countries SAY about America.'
-Me

"If this really is the worst you've got on George Bush, we're going to
take 49 states."
-Ann Coulter on Democrats Sobbing About Bush's Carrier Landing
Hannity & Colmes 5-7-03

"Julian D." wrote:
They may well be, but look at what you're doing here. You've divided the
country into two parts; one you're in and the others are villains and
deceivers. There are numerically more dems than repubs. Looks like you
must be a dem, by your own definition.

Here's the point, JD. You've just called more than half the country
liars. You know, the ones who voted *against* Bush. The majority of
Americans. Remember that he got *fewer* votes than Gore?

You have puked out a whole litany of the clichés used by the frantic
right in talking about Dems. You've used talkshow-talk and effectively
shut yourself off from anybody who doesn't agree with you. No point in
even trying to talk sense to them and try to convert them. After all,
they're all liars, right? Stupid people.

How on earth does Bush winning *prove* that more than half the country
is composed of liars? You logic is just as crippled as your philosophy
of dividing people.

You're one of the people I meant when I said, "But I generally confine
that judgment to stupid people. They can be defined by their habits of
dividing people into opposed camps."

Just like you did. Repeatedly.

All I really needed to know about you, I learned in this inane,
unintelligent, close-minded post of yours.

It comes off pretty shallow and even a bit weak to watch this sort of
self-congratulating. "My people are all good and yours are all corrupt."
No possibility for honest disagreement. No possibility for discourse
that might benefit all.

It's the insistence that somehow you have an exclusive grasp on truth
that I find so repellent. As though you can't be mistaken about
ANYTHING. As though there's no possibility that someone who disagrees
with you might have a good idea that could benefit everybody. No respect
for others. A demand to be seen as perfectly right. It doesn't matter
what political view - right, left, other, up, down, sideways - this is
in pursuit of. It's ugly from anywhere. It assumes perfect
understanding, perfect reasoning and perfect information.

The smugness and condescending smarminess of this viewpoint, from any
part of the political spectrum, is the death of democracy. It's the
death of the American way of giving everyone a share in the process.
It's facism at a sad, grassroots level. It's a demonstration of the sort
of mentality that makes possible lockstep marching to do evil; the mob
that runs rampant. Then it becomes, "WE're right and no one else can
be."

You need to make yourself a bumper sticker that says "I'm right: you're
wrong: shut up."

Pastorio

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:09:24 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:

It is.

No. I'm talking specifically about the Democrat politicos, not the
general gullible people that vote Democrat.

The Dem leadership is for sure full of villains and deceivers, forever
exaggerating, out-right lying, frothing at the mouth, aimless,
chickens-with-no-heads because they cannot find a niche in Bush's
armor to exploit. So we hear these extremist lies from the whole
group of Dem nominees running for President.

No need to insult me sir.
Of course I'll skip instructing you about our being a Republic.
Besides, the margin was so insignificantly tiny, so small compared to
the last dozen or more Presidential elections. You would have people
believe that the vote difference was astounding. It was tiny.


Repeating truths often does not make them wrong. Don't speak about
the right being 'frantic'. The Democrats have lost 2004 already.
They're leaderless because of Bush countering and out-manuevering them
every time.

It's called self-confidence and surety. Are you that unsure in what
you believe that you take into account the possibility that you're
wrong? Know thyself.

No, after being on usenet political newsgroups for so long, I've
decided to use usenet as my soapbox, to say what I think, with little
regard to those who see things differently. There is no changing of
the minds here. The purpose here is to hack away at those with
opposing viewpoints, to gloat when your party is successful, to point
out the flaws and flagrant stupidity of the opposition.

Bush having won, and the whining and crying of the Democrats over it
certainly woke the nation up with a loud 'Thank God that Bush won',
especially after September 11, 2001. But you're still operating under
the assumption that I called all Democrats liars. I was talking about
the Dem 'leadership' (lol), the DNC, and the holiest of holies amongst
Democrats, Bill Clinton.


The division of Democrats in government and Republicans is pretty
stark right now, with the Democrats obstructing the appointment of
judges, with their class-warfare spin on the tax-cuts, with their
spiteful and hate-filled rhetoric towards a well-liked President.
Actually, I think their stupidity in doing this makes me dislike them
even more than the attacks.

Kumbaya.

Islam was never a large concern to me before September 11, 2001. Now
it's the foremost concern, especially it's inability and laxness to
police its terrorists.

No, as a great poster in here has mentioned many times, 'liberals hate
america'.
Before I was politically aware, I might have not believed that. But
reading these groups, watching the actions of liberals in this
country, I get the sense that liberals are embarrassed, ashamed, and
altogether not very proud of this great nation they live in.
They're the first to join in with other countries criticizing the US,
they loathe our traditions, culture, and world-dominance with a
passion.

Those of the left here have long ago lost any respect or even
consideration from me. Read their loathsome, hate-filled posts.
Their utter contempt and determined vilification of Republicans,
especially Conservatives. MY party is beating them politically. MY
viewpoints are constantly validated. MY ideology is continually being
upheld and welcomed by the people of this country.

Ah yes, as fair as giving those who don't pay any income-taxes an
income-tax refund check. The left's vision and definition of fairness
is suspect these days.

I knew it was coming. Those reading this up to now were sure too.
Godwin.

If I was %100 sure it's liberals riding in the car right behind me all
the time, I would. I'd leave out the 'shut up' part tho,... I love
leftist whining.






JD


"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me

'Conservatives believe IN America, liberals believe in and worry about
what other countries SAY about America.'
-Me

"If this really is the worst you've got on George Bush, we're going to
take 49 states."
-Ann Coulter on Democrats Sobbing About Bush's Carrier Landing
Hannity & Colmes 5-7-03

"Julian D." wrote:
BAM. The Truth is created by two words. No need to demonstrate anything.
Just say it and it becomes truth.

Funny you didn't say that before I nailed your argumentative ass to the
wall with your own words. So all Dems play the race card? All dems
participate in class-warfare? Oh, wait. You just tried to change what
you said. Oh, sure. Good debate tactic. When you've been killed, make
believe you said something different.

What a lovely construction here. What a wonderful lack of understanding
of words. A "niche in Bush's armor?" Is English not your native
language?

That would be what, 8 or 9 people? Sure. The whole group. Remember that
wild exaggeration for a note down below.

Too cute. No, seriously...

Bite me. This is a meaningless sentence in the context. Not only do I
not need instructions about our governmental forms, I also don't need
your smug little tone, particularly given the vacuity of your words.

This is that sort of exaggeration I referred to above. Notice that I
didn't say, imply, hint, suggest or any other way talk about *size* of
the majority. Just that it was a simple majority. And, you might confer
with your fellow-wacko, Whizbang, about this facts of the voting
situation. He says you're wrong. Probably signed you up to be a democrat
from now on because you deserted the party line.

And repeated lies and distortions don't make them right.

I'm afraid I must. The truth will out.

Probably so. Unless no weapons of mass destruction are found, Saddam is
still alive, Osama is still alive and all those efforts have been
futile. But, yes, 2004 would seem to be his to lose.

They're leaderless because they seem to have forgotten how to be
forthright and no one has come forward to actually lead. They seem
leaderless because they are. No dem has put together a decent program to
deal with the serious problems facing the US. Neither has the current
administration, but they're in office and have the high ground.

I know myself well, thank you. I know myself well enough to know that I
don't know everything. I know myself well enough to know that I can
learn from the least of my fellow men. I know that perfection in
knowledge and reasoning aren't mine. I know when I'm confronted with
superior logic and superior facts. I know that to be a man, I must admit
error when I'm wrong. I'm confident about all those truths.

I'm scornful of anyone who doesn't understand them.

And when you're proven wrong? Are you man enough to say so? Or are you
just another schoolyard bully with no name who will assert supremacy
forever irrespective of facts? So far, that's what it looks like.

Sure. Except that's not what you said the first time around. But you
still haven't answered the question that was based on what you *did*
say.

Smoke screens. Sound and fury. A tale told by an idiot.

You have divided people into those that agree with you and those that
don't. The ones that don't, you account as worse than useless. Ads
impediments to be dismissed and discarded.

How does that square with the democratic process? How about the rights
of the citizenry?

Lovely. Content-free, again. Non sequitur. Again.

Damn near as well as we "control" ours. You know, the militia types who
march around with guns in the north woods. Like Timothy McVey and his
friends. It's as ridiculous for you to say that Islam doesn't control
it's adherents as it would be for you to assert that Methodists don't
control their members like they should.

And it's still bullshit, no matter how many times you say it.

It's more likely the absoluteness of your views and those of the others
that hold them that they dislike. That you want to shut out everybody
who doesn't believe as you do. And it's also the hyperbole you so
liberally shower your posts with. The extremity of your contempt for
dems and the mildness of your criticism of repubs.

This is my country and I live here by choice. I've been to more
countries than you have states. I've travelled in europe, Africa, Asia,
the Americas. I spoke several languages back in those decades. I saw
good and bad ideas in all those scores of countries. I saw political
systems I admired and abhorred. But I chose to return and live here.

I am entitled to be critical of my country. The same way I can be
critical of my family and myself. If I see things that I feel can be
improved, then I'll do something to improve them. That's why I've
belonged to chambers of commerce, trade organizations, political
organizations. It's why I ran for city council. I like where I live, but
some things need fixing.

The whole concept of identifying what's broken and finding ways to fix
it is at the very base of the American mentality. It's why there's a
constitution and bill of rights. It's why there were town meetings
before there even was a country. It's why there still are such meetings.

Look at what you just wrote. Hate-filled. Utter contempt. Determined
vilification. What are you doing if not precisely that? No justification
for it. You can't lump hundreds of millions of your fellow Americans
into such a small package.

The other desperate irony is this: the conservative viewpoint is
ascendant right now. Conservatives are in charge of the American
government. Both houses of congress. The White House. Most of the state
governorships. But listen to the rhetoric. It's a sad kind of siege
mentality. "We are beset on all sides" kind of foolishness.
Conservatives are the functional majority right now, but the typical
whining is that of sorry little victims. It switches back and forth
between graceless gloating and whining. As though it's somehow unfair
for opponents to oppose.

TRY to read what's written. I referred to a "share in the process" not a
share in the piggy bank. Correct me if I'm wrong here but it's a repub
congress who's passing all the laws and tax cuts these days. The left is
out in the cold. So any tax law you don't like, you'd best talk to your
repub congress person.

But I was talking about a share in the process. The process of electoral
freedom and right. You want to simply eliminate everybody who doesn't
agree with you. You want to keep them from sharing in the process.

You are to simple to tie your own shoes. Nazism, which relates to
Godwin's Law, is a rather different thing. In your shitheaded ignorance,
do you even know where the word "Nazi" comes from? It's an abbreviation
for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National socialist
German Worker's Party. See, socialist. Booo. I knew it would cause a
knee-jerk response from a dogmatist like you.
socialistsocialistsocialistsocialistsocialistsocia listsocialist

Bwahahahahahaha

Read a political science book.

Right. I note how you forget your own. "We're being attacked on all
sides." Um, you're the majority. "Those dems lie about us." Er, you're
the majority. "They say loathsome, hate-filled posts about us." Uh,
you're the majority and sticks and stones and like that...

Pastorio

whizbang wrote:
It would seem that I must type slowly for you to keep up. See, JD called
Dems dividers. He divided. Ergo, he's a Dem. It follows as the day the
night. Sorry to make it so obscure. (as if)

Puhleeze. It's not enough for you that Bush won the electoral vote, you
have to make him utterly triumphant. Crushing the opposition. Killing
all who stood in his way. It didn't happen that way and all the
protestations won't make it true.

Tell me, what was the actual vote count nationally?

You know, for a shithead, you're certainly a shithead. You have no idea
what my politics are. All you know is that I don't march in lockstep
with you dittoheads.

And you can foretell the future, too? What a guy.

Nice. Content-free, but logically absurd.

More intellectual cotton candy.

So, half the country consists of stupid people. Should they have the
right to vote?

Like the people who ran Enron? Worldcom? Heavy contributors to repubs.
Like the companies getting the contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil fields?
Cheney's company.

Like Newt Gingrich? Like Trent Lott?

Neither party has exclusive rights to idiots and crooks. It's share and
share alike.

Thirty or forty? You don't know how long it was? The fact of the matter
is that repubs have controlled congress since '92. It would certainly
seem that more than a decade should be about right to set it all
straight. HOw come it hasn't happened?

You condescending asshole. You sound like it's a big deal that you had
to think about for a long time. Like you want the credit for doing
exactly what you should have without a second thought. You want praise
for doing what's the right thing. You shallow shithead. Wait. We'll
strike a medal for you because you did what you should *always* do. OF
course you returned it. It wasn't yours and keeping it is stealing. Wow.
Philosophical and ethical issues. Deep ones like, "Should I keep what
isn't mine?"

Hardly dividing. Characterization of a kind of behavior. I condemn them
as I did the opposite extremes. Perhaps that part had too many big words
for you to remember.

More content-free typing. Close-minded? Me? I'm the one urging
discussion and listening. I'm the one condemning dismissal of other
points of view. You're the one saying you have no need to consider
anything beyond what you already "know."

Ah, yes. Just like you're about to do in the next two sentences, right?

Idiot.

Like I'm calling you a ridiculous little man because you believe you're
absolutely correct in your thinking. Like that.

I'm typing slowly now again. I'm not the one shutting off discussion.
You are. I'm not the one saying I'm completely right. You are. I *am*
the one condemning the attitude that says anyone who disagrees with me
is automatically wrong.

You know, I don't much like Clinton's style. I didn't much like his way
of dealing with things. But I have to say that times were a good bit
better then. More people made more money, the total number of federal
employees had dropped and was still dropping when he left office. The
budget was balanced and the deficit that two successive repub presidents
ran up to the highest levels in history was gone. The dollar was
stronger. The balance of trade was more favorable. The "Clinton gang"
had an intransigent repub congress to contend with and still succeeded
in accomplishing a good bit of his programs.

And for all your white-knuckle hatred of the man and all the efforts to
overthrow a lawful election and all the $40 million of my money that
political hack Ken Starr spent, nothing could be pinned on him. No laws
were proven to have been broken. No arrest. No conviction. Nobody
demonstrated wrongdoing in court. Either he's the best crook in the
world or all those efforts were wasted time, energy and money. Or both.
But in either case, he skunked all those people who tried to bring him
down.

Dazzling repartee. Bet it's popular around the schoolyard.

Devastating criticism. How can I live with this crushing indictment?

This is why I have so little respect for the dogmatists is all stripes
of political thought. They sound like damaged CDs that play the same
tracks again and again. And when that doesn't work, simply rely on
calling names and offering diversionary nonsense. No facts. No proof. No
deep thinking. All bluster and swagger. All bravado and smugness.

It's sad, really. These wackos have to believe that their entire house
of cards is perfect or it will all come crashing down. So they
frantically defend against real or imagined attack. They frantically
create justifications and explanations that "prove" the rectitude of
their positions. And the more strident the protestations are, the
flimsier the construction looks. Until finally, it collapses of its own
weight.

Instead of listening. Instead of considering. Instead of looking for the
good in the circumstance. They have to be triumphant. They have to be
emperors, kings, rulers.

Wallace Stevens said it:
"Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream."

Pastorio

and a soft pussy.

JHall.

and a really soft pussy.

JHall.

James Hall wrote:
Aren't you cute, Jimmy. You said a bad word in front of everybody. Well,
you sure are the big boy now.

Now run along and play with the other children and when your mother gets
home, we'll tell her what you said. I suspect she'll want to talk with
you about your choice of subjects and your choice of language. And your
manners about interjecting things like this to no purpose.

Pastorio

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:55:58 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:

So you 'say' things you're unsure of Bob?

Relax. You know very well what I meant. It's ludicrous to call half
the country 'liars'. I have and will continue to call those who voted
democrat 'gullible'.


You're nitpicking. Great debate tactic there Bob.
Even you understood it. If you want exact sentence structure, visit
a grammar newsgroup.

That would include the aimless lying fear-mongering DNC as well. With
that group of panic and despair-ridden group, I'll include any leading
liberal talking-head like the Rev. Jackson, Sharpton, etc.
I was so close to thinking you were a bright guy, just playing coy.
That doesnt work here.

"The majority of Americans." Your words. What other context could
those words have meant? I was addressing your challenged view of the
electoral process in this country.

I'd disagree with him. The electoral process prevented Gore from
being elected by a majority of urbanites, welfare-recipients, and
other assorted easily-bribed and gullible people easily swayed by the
failed policies and promises of the Democratic party.

I agree. Now only if we both can work together and convince the DNC
of it.

Join your local UFO club.

Nope. That's not a winning strategy. Bush got rid of an evil,
murderous dictator. That counts above all else. The left did their
damndest to keep Hussein in power.

They both have a billion muslim cellars to hide in. The American
people know the hunt for them and other terrorists will be put on the
back-burner if they elect a Democrat as President.

Bush has a nice clear, clean plan of fixing the problems facing the
US. He's continually hampered by the left crying about how bad we
treat the poor, locked up terrorists, how our civil-liberties are
being infringed upon, and how we must kow-tow to other nations because
we're too strong. Besides terrorism, the serious problems facing the
nation are purposely exaggerated by Bush's opponents.
Life is grand for most Americans. My life is immensely better since
Bush came into office. We told the UN to go to hell, we got rid of
Hussein, (which was one of the main reasons I voted for him), I'm
getting more of my money back, and Bush has reasserted our strength to
the world.
I would like Bush to invade and kill as many anti-American muslims as
he can. Islam must be taught a lesson.

Well, one wouldn't know it from the posts of yours I've read so far.
Nobody knows everything, but do your best to be sure of your facts
when you post. You leave yourself open to correction if you doubt
yourself.

To be a man just comes naturally to some of us. We don't have to make
a check-list of what we must do to prove it.

When I'm arguing political points with the left, the left is always
wrong. History tells us that. Especially on a newsgroup. The
ideology of the left should be banished from the face of the earth
because it's so harmfully anti-American and very threatening to our
country. Bush winning in 2004 should wake up even more liberals.

Was that the condensed version of how you were going to reply?

Yes. Took you long enough. Liberal ideas are impediments to freedom
and liberty.
I despise the left's vision of America and found the only way to
prevent it is to keep voting Republicans in. Conservative ones
especially.

What boogeyman this time is denying people of their rights? People
arent buying the dem scare tactic of Bush or Ashcroft denying people
of their rights, I doubt they'll buy your argument of a guy in a
discussion group trying to deny people their rights either.


Nope, perfect description of your notion that people can be of one
mind and we all can agree on everything, that there is no divisions,
no opposing camps. Liberal namby-pamby 'can't we all get along'
hogwash.

How ludicrous. What religion in this country promotes, endorses, or
condones nuts like McVeigh? Do we have things like this going on?

http://www.serve.com/lordgovernor/children/

Typical liberal, comparing a few anti-government nuts like McVeigh to
thousands of muslim terrorists supported by muslim countries. Typical
that you'd try to excuse away by comparing the violence of muslim
terrorism with a few nut jobs here.
I bet you think the hijackers thought there was a valid reason for
September 11, 2001? Something that the United States done to piss
them off, something America did to these backward 14th century
fanatics that caused it? I've heard other liberals say the same,
along with their own remedy of appeasing these muslims, catering to
their demands so they won't hurt the US again.
In my view, the only way to truly help these radical anti-US muslims
is to kill them.
Bush will help.

Ludicrous. But then again, that's the Left for you. We're no better
than any other country, we're just as bad, we contribute nothing but
trouble for countries around the world.


No, it's not. There can be no other conclusion. Liberals just don't
criticize for the sake of improving our country, they seemingly take
great delight in doing so. They'll blame the US every time.
Yes, ignore them. I see nothing but envy, jealousy and pure contempt
others in the world have for us. And just because they're not
Americans.

I'm glad you done some work and read some of my past fabulous posts.
Most have to climb high mountains to hear such wisdom.
'liberally' ...heh. Good one.

Thanks for the biography. Cute part about how you just nonchalantly
chose to return and live here. As if there were any place better.


Are you saying you don't have the typical liberal mindset of taking
great delight, jumping for joy, or experiencing almost orgasmic-bliss
when you find an opportunity to criticize your country? Or, better
yet, joining or agreeing with other countries when they bash the US?


Pointing it out.

True, but I can lump the Dem leadership, the DNC, the far-left whackos
that post here, and the other assorted Bush-haters in a nice package.

I hear no whining from Conservatives. Why should we? Especially those
you've mentioned. Perhaps the sound is drowned out by the whines of
election 2000 sour-grapes of the Democrats, (cute pun there), their
moans and lamentations, the grinding of teeth as they gnash them in
frustration that they CANNOT BEAT BUSH.
And do you know why? Because they constantly, continually, and
consistently underestimate the man. It will continue well into the
elections next year.


Unfair? I think you mistake the whining with heady laughter,
especially at the assortment of dem candidates.
For an experiment, and a bit of fun, watch how radical and
increasingly hateful the statements of these guys against Bush
becomes. Start today. Listen to their speeches. You'd think from
their ravings that they're running against Satan himself by this time
next year.

You've missed the point. Again. The left's vision of fairness is not
to be trusted. It's hardly ever fair.

They perfected the art of whining and crying about them while their
teeth are chattering from the cold.

I like the income tax-cuts. I'd like a lot more income tax-cuts. But
only for people that pay income tax.

Yes, when what they propose is opposite of mine. Exactly. That' s
the idea of Congress. Bi-partisanship means lack of leadership, to
paraphrase good ole' Maggie Thatcher.

'lockstep', 'goosestep', the left's endearing term for Conservatives
was 'nazi', now it's more fashionable for them to call us fascists.
We especially love it when they call a very popular President Bush
that term. It'll hurt them tremendously with the voting public.
I'm not sure I made such a paranoid-sounding statement. We're not
being attacked on all sides. My side is attacking failed liberal
ideas and those who would still foist them upon us.

You're rambling. It's the length of the post isn't it?
Mr. Pastorio, I am not impressed.




JD


"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me

'Conservatives believe IN America, liberals believe in and worry about
what other countries SAY about America.'
-Me

"If this really is the worst you've got on George Bush, we're going to
take 49 states."
-Ann Coulter on Democrats Sobbing About Bush's Carrier Landing
Hannity & Colmes 5-7-03

"Julian D." wrote:
I guess saying stupid things is your new strategy?

Right. You say something stupid and vacuous and now it means something
different than it did. And now it's all of them again and they're
gullible. No longer crooked, just "misguided."

Nah. Close enough is only useful in grenades. If you can't say what you
mean, how about don't say anything? Try not to be pretentious using
stretched metaphors and absurd conclusions.

So I guess we're up to what now, a couple dozen people? Maybe three
dozen? Wow.

Bite it, Sparky. I don't do the sorts of mindless games you do. I say
what I mean and spell it out clearly. No takebacks. No "corrections."

It means exactly what it says. Most Americans. The majority. More than
any other group. Why are you having so much trouble assimilating such a
simple idea. Back into context: More Americans voted for Gore than Bush.
So Gore got the majority of the votes. Still to complex for you?

JD, you're even more dense than first appears. This sentence above makes
even less sense than you usual.

And it's back to the weasel-words now. So you *are* saying that more
than half the populace is stupid. See how easy it is to use the actual
words to arrive at meaning?

It's simply wonderful watching you spout the nearly endless strings of
clichés and platitudes. Saves you the trouble of all that pesky
thinking.

Cute, again. But see, it was *you* who said them, not someone else.

What dazzling wit. Jeez.

I note that you forgive the president his misstatement or "benevolent
deception" (I love that phrase - I lied, but it's ok). He said he had
proof. Had Powell bring the faked documents ot the UN. And no weapons
are found. Hmmm.

So you're a fortune teller, too. And you see the future. One would hope
you see it more clearly than you see the past.

What a profoundly stupid thing to say. You leave yourself open to
correction if you're *wrong* no matter how confident you are. It isn't a
question of that obstreperous bravado you affect, it's about being right
or wrong. Swaggering doesn't make it more right. Strutting around like
you try to do doesn't have any bearing on being right. Only being right
does.

And you really believe that if you cut off communications and dismiss
discourse and impugn the integrity of those who disagree with you, that
makes you right? That's schoolyard bullying at a rather low level.
Stupidity carried by biceps. Muscle making ideas correct. What a
shallow, shallow way to think.

So you don't really have any criteria for what a man is? But you just
"know" one when you see him. Is a gay Republican guy a man? Are
conservative atheists men? Can a convicted murderer be a man who has
come out of prison to work for Rush Limbaugh? Is a child pornographer
who voted for Bush a man?

No matter what you answer, there have to be reasons for them. So you do
have criteria. Just can't put them into words? Too hard?

Really? What history would that be? What does left mean, besides those
catch-words that seem to be your descriptions of opponents? How can you
tell if someone is from the left? Try to use actual descriptions instead
of those puke-words you specialize in.

For that matter, what does the right mean? How do you define the
conservative philosophy? What are the hallmarks of it? What has it led
to that's good?

Like, being in a newsgroup somehow affects validity. Sure. Deep. Very
deep.

So the left is so dangerous that it should be banned. But, if I remember
my constitution and bill of rights, you can't do that. As I understand
it, the left is in favor of concerted group action for the benefit of
the group. Seems reasonable to me. Like maybe the Grange movement. I'll
wait while you look it up. Or farmers' cooperatives. Seems like a good
idea. Of maybe organizations that broke the absolute power of despots
like Henry Ford who didn't like Jews or blacks and a lot of others and
who hired thugs to maul workers. Seem like good ideas to me,
particularly since the government didn't try to help its own citizenry.
The ones who paid the taxes, you know.

So the left has been bad. Right. Social programs like CCC and WPA that
let people work for a living when there was no other work available.
Right. Like Social Security that's all a lot of people can count on.
Right. Like the big dams that provide electricity for millions of
Americans. Other public works.

Peddle your thoughtless disregard for humanity elsewhere, shithead.
You're ever so happy to take advantage of what the government has done
for the populace at the same time decrying the value it has had to
developing the America that you enjoy today.

Yes. And if you had read anything more complicated than that coloring
book in your lap, you would have realized how profound an insult it was.
Google it, lightweight. If that's to much for you, have a 12-year-old do
it for you.

Conservative ideas. Right. Deregulate industry and let the free market
run its course. Like with the Savings and Loans. And the phone companies
(like WorldCom?). Airlines. The American taxpayers will be paying for
those bad, bad ideas for generations. Any idea how many BILLIONS of
dollars we had ot pay to clean up the Savings & Loan scandal? Didn't
think so. Free market. Go read "Piers the Plowman" written in about
1365. See what humans do.

I've met payrolls in my businesses. I don't like paying taxes and I
don't like regulation. But I can understand the need for it. I'm sure
this will come as a surprise, but not everybody's honest. And those that
aren't have to be supervised. And punished when they do wrong. Unless
you run Enron and contribute heavily to the Republican party. Then you
don't even spend a day in jail despite having screwed thousands and
thousands of employees and investors put of their savings. It's
corruption, plain and simple. So when the ethical question of what to do
about the money that isn't yours comes up, what's the right thing to do?
Simple, isn't it? So why isn't it happening? Why isn't the justice
department trying to do "justice?"

Actually, people are and it's coming from the repubs in congress. Read a
paper sometimes. You'll be surprised. There's actual news in there.

Funny thing about that. Here are more of your deathless words:
Sounds like *you* want to deprive people of their rights. All those
people - the majority in the last election - want their right to vote
just as much as you do. You want them struck from the face of the earth.

Too full of shit, you are. I don't for a moment suggest that Rodney King
crap. I don't think we can get along, but I don't see any good reason
why we can't reason together. Except for assholes like you who think
they're perfect in their understandings.

We don't have anything on that scale here. But for you to accept that
blatantly polemical site without any other considerations is just as
stupid as the rest of your understanding.

I excuse nothing. I say that any terrorists are too many.

Do you believe they did it for no reason? Some friends out for a day's
adventure? The validity of one won't necessarily be the validity for
another. I think they were collectively insane. I watched those
buildings beginning to be built from my office on Maiden Lane in New
York. I watched them finish from my office in what's now the Met Life
Building in midtown. I did business in the towers. I knew people who
worked there.

I would like to see the rest of the nutcases who think that these
tactics are reasonable dead. Period.

And it's that "I'm right and screw you" mentality that has caused strife
throughout all of human history. That close-minded view that there's
only one way to look at anything. It's profoundly clear that you haven't
travelled much. Don't speak any other languages or understand how
different other cultures are from ours. Australians aren't Crocodile
Dundee. Germans aren't Colonel Klink. Japanese aren't Pat Morita. And
muslims aren't Osama.

Bush is single-handedly ending the AMerican Century. He's earning the
distrust of the entire planet.

Your efforts to dismiss valid observations speaks volumes for your lack
on intelligence. Your insistence on evaluating countries as better or
worse shows how crippled your values are.

Look at you pontificating. Look at you making more unsubstantiated
statements. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER CONCLUSION, you shriek. Look at you
finding the One True Political Religion. And you condemn Islam for what
you say is the same thing.

It's beyond your cramped view to understand that politics is a matter of
faith not fact. It's a matter of belief, not data. Yet, you INSIST that
there's no other conclusion. You dismiss truly brilliant conservatives
like Buckley and Will who say very different things than you do. Your
ideas read like so many bumper stickers. Like so many printed buttons.
Sound bites to live by.

Idiot.

It's very clear you've never been anywhere else. It's going to be a
brand new idea to you that for as much as you love your country, around
the world, others love theirs as much. What you see is what you want to
see and what you're fed daily by Rush and the other wackos. Pre-digested
pap from the teats of rabid wackos.

You have no idea if there is or not. You just *think* what you do. I
know it because I've been there. You're talk. All talk.

I'm saying you're an asshole. I'm also saying that there are things
wrong here that should be fixed. You talk about how perfect it is. Do
you see anything that could be improved? Anything? Some of the
criticisms of the US are valid. Some are as much horseshit as what you
write. And that's saying something.

Better yet. Get real and fix what's broken instead of just spouting off
in newsgroups.

So what have you done lately to improve your community? Who have you
helped to be better? What organizations have you contributed money or
time to? How much? Or is it all talk...?

So "pointing it out" means, "Yes, I'm doing it and it's exactly what
they're doing, but I'm a conservative and it's ok when I do it."

Yep. So how many is that? Are we up to 50 reely, reely nasty people yet?

Then your bullshit detector isn't working. Listen to how they lament
that the nasty dems (the minority that the conservs can override any
time they want to) pick on them. Tell lies about them. Thwart their
oh-so-intelligent programs. Defeat their initiatives in congress
(despite being the minority) and generally make life difficult for the
poor, put-upon conservs. Why those terrible dems won't let the repubs
have their way, the bastids.

And it's all about ego and pride. It's about that gloating you want to
do. The mean-spirited malice you so gleefully wish to shower on others.
It forms a wonderful picture of less than sincere people doing less than
honest things.

Why should you? Because you're a rather large bunch of crybabies. When
the dems were in charge, you wailed about how they treated you so badly.
Now that you're in charge, you wail about how the dems treat you so
badly. Great maturity and growth.

It likely will. As much the fault of disorganized dems with no leader
and no program as any brilliance on Bush's part. Even important repubs
are saying not to cut taxes when we're about to have the biggest deficit
since Reagan who did the previous highest ever.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

And I bet the repubs will keep to the straight and narrow, not once
impugning their opponents, right? You to sappy to survive. You just
don't get the notion that all politicians are in it for the power. All
of them. They touch their parts when they think of winning another
election. They get all moist thinking of being able to walk up to the
cameras and smile their instructed smiles. They're all sharks. And
you're free meat.

It's my point brain-boy. I know what I meant. And you don't even have a
glimpse of it. I must congratulate you for creating a wonderfully
meaningless statement. The left's vision of fairness isn't fair. But you
do that so often...

Again, you evade the point. You can't complain about how the left screws
things up if they have no power. See how simple that is? No, I didn't
think so. So the repubs are not to be held accountable for what's gong
on in congress and the white house these days? Or are they? You seem not
to have answered. Surprise...

Cuts only apply to people who pay tax. Others either pay none or get
some sort of grant. Three different categories. So if we have more tax
cuts, who pays for the costs of government? Where does the money come
from to pay the federal bills?

You will notice that Maggie got thrown out. The stupidly absurd aphorism
shows just how limited your understanding is. There's another notion you
might want to consider. What goes around comes around. When next the
conservative view is on the wane (as it does cyclically) should the left
treat you the way you want to treat them? Will you whine even more?

Ever read the bible? Think there are any good ideas in there about how
to act?

Good try, lame-boy. I said lockstep because that's what I meant. I
didn't say goosestep, you did. I meant a sad group all marching to the
same drummer with no deviations tolerated. That's what lockstep means.
Buy a dictionary that doesn't have Big Bird on it.

I love that "we" that gets to include you with the in-crowd. I
especially like your analyses of what will play with the public.
Spoon-fed to you by your talk-show gurus. No thinking necessary.

So why whine so much about the libs who tell nasty lies about you
(waaaa) and who try to foment dissatisfaction with you (waaaaa) and who
monger hate (waaaaa)...

Mr JD (whoever you are) my task was not to impress you. It was to
display and highlight your trivial intellect, your shallow thinking,
your perfectly willing acceptance of pre-digested opinion, your
ignorance about domestic and global affairs, your incapacity to grasp
political reality and your inability to explain yourself except with
bumper-sticker bursts. I think I did rather well, given the vast
richness of material from you.

Pastorio

"James Hall" <jhall@cuic.ca> wrote in message
news:dLZJa.885$eg7.421065775@news.nnrp.ca...
Yeah, but she essentially left him after the Monica Lewinsky fiasco.

"Bob Pastorio" <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3EF80467.3C92C43@rica.net...
Well, you're right. Gore *did* win the vote marginally. The actual numbers
were:

George Bush: 50,456,167
All Gore: 50,996,064

As you can see, the numbers are very marginal here. Bush won the election
via electoral votes. The numbers there are:

George Bush: 271
Al Gore: 266

These numbers are so close as to render laughable all those who would
protest Bush's election as "illegal" or invalid. These claims are always
made by those of the Democratic or left persuasion and are generally sour
grapes.

Incidentally, similar events did occur one other time in history. It was the
1888 election between Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison. I posted the
stats on this in an earlier post, but the numbers were even closer than in
the 2000 election. Harrison won via the electoral votes.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 0:27:00 -0400, Dune Runner wrote
(in message <1l9Ka.5608$lT4.5301@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>):

[commenting on the 5 electoral vote margin that Bush had over Gore]

What should be remembered here is that the infamous and illegal under
Florida's rules "butterfly ballot" in Palm Springs resulted in Buchanon
receiving a couple thousand votes that according to all statistical analysis
should have gone to Gore. Had those precints of Palm Springs been allowed to
revote on a legal ballot it is most likely that those votes been given to
Gore he would have won Florida and the election.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft