Re: IQ

"Michael R. Kesti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Henry has long claimed that his goal is to educate and inform but, time
and
again, he proves otherwise. Here he again confirms that he just a troll
and
demonstrates why "Enlightened Progressives" have recently failed so
miserably
in the political arena.

Not taking a political side here, but, why is it that rightwingers can post
jokes about the Clintons, Gore, or Kerry, all day long but when leftwingers
post a joke, Durst is a comedien after all, about Bush or some other
Republican all hell breaks loose?

Lets have some balance! After all, they all suck big donkey [censored], IMO. ;-)

Quoted message said:

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

"Jeff Mayner" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Not taking a political side here, but, why is it that rightwingers can
post jokes about the Clintons, Gore, or Kerry, all day long but when
leftwingers post a joke, Durst is a comedien after all, about Bush or some
other Republican all hell breaks loose?

Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican it's called
"slanting the news". The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been parroting this
line for so long that they actually think it's true.

P.Roehling said:

"Jeff Mayner" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Not taking a political side here, but, why is it that rightwingers can
post jokes about the Clintons, Gore, or Kerry, all day long but when
leftwingers post a joke, Durst is a comedien after all, about Bush or some
other Republican all hell breaks loose?

Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican it's called
"slanting the news". The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been parroting this
line for so long that they actually think it's true.

Conversely, when you *anything* unfavorable about a Democrat you
become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con.

HTH

Michael R. Kesti said:

Henry has long claimed that his goal is to educate and inform but, time and
again, he proves otherwise. Here he again confirms that he just a troll and
demonstrates why "Enlightened Progressives" have recently failed so miserably
in the political arena.

What I don't understand is why people would post politics or other non
motorcycle topics in rec.motorcycles. I'm sure most people don't mind
the occasional little OT posting. I don't think this falls into that
category. I'm not trying to be a net nanny (I would prefer to be a
net nazi), but I think this sort of thing belongs just where I'm
setting followups to. I also don't read that group because too many
nuts don't always make a good cookie.

--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican it's called
"slanting the news". The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been parroting this
line for so long that they actually think it's true.

Conversely, when you *anything* unfavorable about a Democrat you
become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con.

Sorry, but in real life it doesn't work that way.

For instance; the paper I subscribe to -the Riverside Press-Enterprise-
makes no secret of the fact that it has a very right wing editorial policy,
yet every week they get letters from conservative crackpots claiming that
it's "obvious" that the Press-Enterprise is a willing tool of the "leftist
media".

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be described
as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing Neo-Cons" don't
see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal of Republican
policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot, and they see it
that way because the conservatives have been claiming that the media are all
run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon administration.

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Pete

P.Roehling said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican it's called
"slanting the news". The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been parroting this
line for so long that they actually think it's true.

Conversely, when you *anything* unfavorable about a Democrat you
become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con.

Sorry, but in real life it doesn't work that way.

For instance; the paper I subscribe to -the Riverside Press-Enterprise-
makes no secret of the fact that it has a very right wing editorial policy,
yet every week they get letters from conservative crackpots claiming that
it's "obvious" that the Press-Enterprise is a willing tool of the "leftist
media".

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be described
as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing Neo-Cons" don't
see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal of Republican
policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot, and they see it
that way because the conservatives have been claiming that the media are all
run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon administration.

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I'm equally sure that Henry agrees.

"P.Roehling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican it's
called
"slanting the news". The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been parroting this
line for so long that they actually think it's true.

Conversely, when you *anything* unfavorable about a Democrat you
become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con.

Sorry, but in real life it doesn't work that way.

For instance; the paper I subscribe to -the Riverside Press-Enterprise-
makes no secret of the fact that it has a very right wing editorial
policy, yet every week they get letters from conservative crackpots
claiming that it's "obvious" that the Press-Enterprise is a willing tool
of the "leftist media".

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be
described as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing
Neo-Cons" don't see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal
of Republican policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot,
and they see it that way because the conservatives have been claiming that
the media are all run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon
administration.

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Pete

It isnt? LOL.

Rob

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be
described
as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing Neo-Cons"
don't
see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal of Republican
policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot, and they see it
that way because the conservatives have been claiming that the media are
all
run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon administration.

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I'm a life-long Republican, you arrogant doofus. And surprise, blind loyalty
isn't a requirement for Republicans any more. (Which pretty much explains
why the President's numbers continue to drop. Most of those bailing out are
the same folks who elected him. Folks just like me.)
More and more of us are becoming aware of the damage Bush has done to the
traditional values of our party and are looking for someone who will
actually support it's historic positions such as a smaller, more efficient
government, more local control, less spending, a secure border, Etc. Bush
stands for exactly *none* of these things.

Quoted message said:

I'm equally sure that Henry agrees.

Trying to pretend that Henry is a typical liberal, and that I'm just like
him because I don't agree with you, is being just as intellectually
dishonest as Henry is when he portrays Bush as a megalomaniac
[censored]-substitute. Neither position has any basis in fact. (Bush is
hopelessly inept, but he's not evil.) However, your comment *does* nicely
demonstrate the present-day Neo-Con political position: "Anyone who refuses
to march in lock-step with George Bush must be the enemy", so thanks for
saying it, even though that wasn't your intent.

Unfortunately, so long as that attitude continues to prevail in the upper
reaches of the Republican party, so the party's base support is likely to
continue to erode.

Pete

P.Roehling said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be
described
as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing Neo-Cons"
don't
see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal of Republican
policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot, and they see it
that way because the conservatives have been claiming that the media are
all
run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon administration.

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I'm a life-long Republican, you arrogant doofus.

Then you must not have any experience with knee-jerk liberals. You're
living in some sort of GOP cloister, perhaps?

Quoted message said:

And surprise, blind loyalty
isn't a requirement for Republicans any more.

Nope.

Quoted message said:

(Which pretty much explains
why the President's numbers continue to drop. Most of those bailing out are
the same folks who elected him. Folks just like me.)
More and more of us are becoming aware of the damage Bush has done to the
traditional values of our party and are looking for someone who will
actually support it's historic positions such as a smaller, more efficient
government, more local control, less spending, a secure border, Etc. Bush
stands for exactly *none* of these things.

I never mentioned Bush. Your original statement, and my response,
which you deleted in the quotations above, are as follows:

You: "Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican
it's called 'slanting the news'. The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been
parroting this line for so long that they actually think it's true."

Me: "Conversely, when you [say] *anything* unfavorable about a
Democrat you become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con."

I stand by what I said. Your loyalty to the Republican Party, or lack
thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm equally sure that Henry agrees.

Trying to pretend that Henry is a typical liberal, and that I'm just like
him because I don't agree with you, is being just as intellectually
dishonest as Henry is when he portrays Bush as a megalomaniac
[censored]-substitute. Neither position has any basis in fact. (Bush is
hopelessly inept, but he's not evil.) However, your comment *does* nicely
demonstrate the present-day Neo-Con political position: "Anyone who refuses
to march in lock-step with George Bush must be the enemy", so thanks for
saying it, even though that wasn't your intent.

And regardless of your partisan self-loathing, I'm probably more
libertarian than you are, and none of that changes the fact that both
sides engage in a bunch of childish name-calling and hyperbole when
their sacred cows are gored. If you're going to act like Henry, I'll
throw you in the same boat.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, so long as that attitude continues to prevail in the upper
reaches of the Republican party, so the party's base support is likely to
continue to erode.

The Party needs to evolve.

"Rob Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Pete

It isnt? LOL.

Okay; here's a typical example. In southern California every single major
paper has a conservative editorial bias, every one of them having come out
in support of Bush in the last two Presidential elections, Etc., Etc. That
would include the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San
Bernardino Sun, the Riverside Press-Enterprise, and the San Diego
Union-Tribune. Taken together, they pretty much *are* the print media over
all of southern California. Yet every day these conservative papers get
letters from guys just like you who take them to task for being "obviously
slanted towards the left"! Reality has no effect on these letter writers
because they see only what they want to see.

If you dial around the AM radio stations you will find loads of right-wing
call-in talk shows, and damn near *no* left-wing equivalents. It doesn't
look like much of a liberal slant going on there, does it?

And then there's Fox News, which is so "fair and balanced" that Bush
selected one of their top news boys to be his new press spokesman...

Frankly, if you really and truly believe that the media in general have it
in for conservatives, all I can say is that you're not very good at seeing
what's actually happening out there: While there certainly *are* some
left-wing media outlets that seem to dislike everything Republican -and the
New York Times would be a good example- there are also some very
conservative media who will excuse anything done by a Republican (except
when they infringe on the media's rights...).

There are also a lot of media in all fields who try very hard to remain
neutral while both sides snipe at them for not delivering the news the way
*they* want to hear it!

It's reality: get used to it.

Pete

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a life-long Republican, you arrogant doofus.

Then you must not have any experience with knee-jerk liberals.

I've had lots of experiance with them. And also with lots of knee-jerk
conservatives such as yourself. Me, I fall about half-way in between those
two extremes. (And what you're trying to pull here is called the "Straw Man"
argument: I.E. pull a fact out of your ass -see your quote above- and then
base a conclusion on said "fact". Doesn't fly.)

Quoted message said:

I never mentioned Bush.

So? I can't use him as an example? Hah. You wish.

Quoted message said:

Your original statement, and my response,
which you deleted in the quotations above, are as follows:

You: "Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican
it's called 'slanting the news'. The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been
parroting this line for so long that they actually think it's true."

Me: "Conversely, when you [say] *anything* unfavorable about a
Democrat you become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con."

I stand by what I said.

Piffle. Attracting the attention of a twit like Henry means nothing because
there are very few like him (thank God), and they don't represent anything
like the mainstream of the Democratic Party, whereas it's become Neo-Con SOP
to attack anyone who disagrees with them, and the Neo-Cons own the White
House right now. There's a slight disparity in power there, in case you
hadn't noticed, and it ain't the same thing when a nutcase like Henry lashes
out and when the Republican Party does so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm equally sure that Henry agrees.

Trying to pretend that Henry is a typical liberal, and that I'm just like
him because I don't agree with you, is being just as intellectually
dishonest as Henry is when he portrays Bush as a megalomaniac
[censored]-substitute. Neither position has any basis in fact. (Bush is
hopelessly inept, but he's not evil.) However, your comment *does* nicely
demonstrate the present-day Neo-Con political position: "Anyone who
refuses
to march in lock-step with George Bush must be the enemy", so thanks for
saying it, even though that wasn't your intent.

And regardless of your partisan self-loathing, I'm probably more
libertarian than you are, and none of that changes the fact that both
sides engage in a bunch of childish name-calling and hyperbole when
their sacred cows are gored. If you're going to act like Henry, I'll
throw you in the same boat.

Then you're an idiot. And "partisan self-loathing"? Again with the attacks
on anyone who dares point out that the current Administration has been a
miserable failure? What you call "partisan self-loathing" the rest of us
call "waking up and smelling the coffee".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, so long as that attitude continues to prevail in the upper
reaches of the Republican party, so the party's base support is likely to
continue to erode.

The Party needs to evolve.

Gee, no kidding...

P.Roehling said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a life-long Republican, you arrogant doofus.

Then you must not have any experience with knee-jerk liberals.

I've had lots of experiance with them. And also with lots of knee-jerk
conservatives such as yourself. Me, I fall about half-way in between those
two extremes. (And what you're trying to pull here is called the "Straw Man"
argument: I.E. pull a fact out of your ass -see your quote above- and then
base a conclusion on said "fact". Doesn't fly.)

Quoted message said:

I never mentioned Bush.

So? I can't use him as an example? Hah. You wish.

Didn't you just object to the use of strawmen? <heh> -see your quote
above-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your original statement, and my response,
which you deleted in the quotations above, are as follows:

You: "Because when you say *anything* unfavorable about a Republican
it's called 'slanting the news'. The far-right-wing Neo-Cons have been
parroting this line for so long that they actually think it's true."

Me: "Conversely, when you [say] *anything* unfavorable about a
Democrat you become a <insert Henry Hansteen serial adjective string>
far-right-wing Neo-Con."

I stand by what I said.

Piffle. Attracting the attention of a twit like Henry means nothing because
there are very few like him (thank God), and they don't represent anything
like the mainstream of the Democratic Party, whereas it's become Neo-Con SOP
to attack anyone who disagrees with them, and the Neo-Cons own the White
House right now.

And like Henry, that's all you want to talk about. You're on a rant
about the motives and competence of Bush and his inner circle, so you
want to whitewash the broad criticism of *all* Republicans because
you're on board with his critics. The enemy of your enemy is your
friend, right, Pete?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm equally sure that Henry agrees.

Trying to pretend that Henry is a typical liberal, and that I'm just like
him because I don't agree with you, is being just as intellectually
dishonest as Henry is when he portrays Bush as a megalomaniac
[censored]-substitute. Neither position has any basis in fact. (Bush is
hopelessly inept, but he's not evil.) However, your comment *does* nicely
demonstrate the present-day Neo-Con political position: "Anyone who
refuses
to march in lock-step with George Bush must be the enemy", so thanks for
saying it, even though that wasn't your intent.

And regardless of your partisan self-loathing, I'm probably more
libertarian than you are, and none of that changes the fact that both
sides engage in a bunch of childish name-calling and hyperbole when
their sacred cows are gored. If you're going to act like Henry, I'll
throw you in the same boat.

Then you're an idiot.

Ah. More name-calling. You forget to add one of Henry's adjective
strings, though. Keep trying.

Quoted message said:

And "partisan self-loathing"? Again with the attacks
on anyone who dares point out that the current Administration has been a
miserable failure? What you call "partisan self-loathing" the rest of us
call "waking up and smelling the coffee".

Reading your posts, I smell something else, yet I don't see any bulls
around.

"P.Roehling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rob Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Pete

It isnt? LOL.

Okay; here's a typical example. In southern California every single major
paper has a conservative editorial bias, every one of them having come out
in support of Bush in the last two Presidential elections, Etc., Etc. That
would include the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San
Bernardino Sun, the Riverside Press-Enterprise, and the San Diego
Union-Tribune. Taken together, they pretty much *are* the print media over
all of southern California. Yet every day these conservative papers get
letters from guys just like you who take them to task for being "obviously
slanted towards the left"! Reality has no effect on these letter writers
because they see only what they want to see.

If you dial around the AM radio stations you will find loads of right-wing
call-in talk shows, and damn near *no* left-wing equivalents. It doesn't
look like much of a liberal slant going on there, does it?

And then there's Fox News, which is so "fair and balanced" that Bush
selected one of their top news boys to be his new press spokesman...

Frankly, if you really and truly believe that the media in general have it
in for conservatives, all I can say is that you're not very good at seeing
what's actually happening out there: While there certainly *are* some
left-wing media outlets that seem to dislike everything Republican -and
the New York Times would be a good example- there are also some very
conservative media who will excuse anything done by a Republican (except
when they infringe on the media's rights...).

There are also a lot of media in all fields who try very hard to remain
neutral while both sides snipe at them for not delivering the news the way
*they* want to hear it!

It's reality: get used to it.

Pete

From beginning to end you havent a clue what your talking about. Especially
when making assumptions about what I think or believe...

BTW, the *media* doesnt have rights. Your ignorance of the Constitution is
obvious. Freedom of the Press, refered, and still refers, to the *Printing
Press* of which anyone can own. (and by extension other forms of
information dissemination.) The media itself has no rights....

Rob

"Rob Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

From beginning to end you havent a clue what your talking about.

Naturally. Since I've worked in the media as a free-lance writer for over
thirty years I guess it figures that I'd have no clue as to how it all
works. (After all, why take the word of someone who's been there and done
that when it's more fun to believe that you're being unfairly persecuted?)

Quoted message said:

Especially when making assumptions about what I think or believe...

I know only what you've chosen to show me. So far, you've shown me that you
think the media are secretly controlled by liberals, and that doesn't speak
well for your ability to recognize reality when it bites you in the leg.

Quoted message said:

BTW, the *media* doesnt have rights. Your ignorance of the Constitution
is obvious. Freedom of the Press, refered, and still refers, to the
*Printing Press* of which anyone can own. (and by extension other forms
of information dissemination.) The media itself has no rights....

Uh-huh. Sure. Every single despot's dream world, and we have it right here
and never even suspected!

Whoosh!

Rob Duncan said:

"P.Roehling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you see, despite an editorial policy that can be accurately be
described as "if Bush does it, it must be okay" , your "far-right-wing
Neo-Cons" don't see it that way: in their opinions, any negative portrayal
of Republican policies whatsoever is seen as evidence of a liberal plot,
and they see it that way because the conservatives have been claiming that
the media are all run by left-wing liberals ever since the Nixon
administration.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only problem? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pete

Quoted message said:

It isnt? LOL.

You actually think the U.S. corporate owned and censored
media, stenographers for the ruling elite, have a liberal
bias? That's funny. Read and hopefully learn the facts and
truth.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#iraq

--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incompetence.

"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You actually think the U.S. corporate owned and censored
media, stenographers for the ruling elite, have a liberal
bias? That's funny. Read and hopefully learn the facts and
truth.

"Facts and truth" coming from *you* Henry? A spamming troll who's so twisted
that he could walk through a corkscrew without touching the sides?

And I thought you lacked a sense of humor!

Pete

P.Roehling said:

"Facts and truth" ...

How would you define that so as to include such things as:

WMD in Iraq
Yellowcake from Niger
No warning of impending attacks prior to 9/11 ...

P.Roehling said:

"Facts and truth" coming from *you* Henry?

Did you read something inaccurate or untruthful
that was written by me? If so, please quote it so I
can either explain why it's true, or admit that I was
mistaken. Of course, you could just cower and hide
from yet another challenge to your silly ranting. I
like it when you do that... <chuckle>

--

http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.st911.org
http://www.911proof.com/

"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent EACH DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Did you read something inaccurate or untruthful
that was written by me?

Yes, Henry. And then you deny having done so. That's why so many people have
come to the justifiable conclusion that you're psychotic.