203 posts and counting

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching; just tighten
the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I'm out.

Filters are the answer. Didn't come here to talk politics.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:03:07 -0600, catzz66 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I'm out.

Filters are the answer. Didn't come here to talk politics.

I finally made mine global; keywording from Libby, Alito, and a bunch
of other cues. The folks I agree with need no proselytizing, and the
folks that don't will never accept any opposing argument that doesn't
arrive inscribed on 150 grains of lead travelling at barely subsonic
speeds anyway.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Bill Sornson said:

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in
bike wrenching; just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

Should politicians be tied and soldered?

Tom Ace

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching; just tighten
the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

Scott "Stable Platform" Gordo

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

On 2 Nov 2005 12:18:30 -0800, "Scott" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

Never try to teach a pig to sing...

Quoted message said:

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

That would seem to encapsulate it nicely.

Quoted message said:

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

If I were, wouldn't the question as phrased need to be "us Rednecks"?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Scott said:

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

That's unfair to rednecks. I think the word you're looking for is
fascist, and it's people like Werehatrack that are the strongest reason
for why I stay anonymous. If you can think thoughts like that, can a
letter bomb be that far behind?

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

That's unfair to rednecks. I think the word you're looking for is
fascist, and it's people like Werehatrack that are the strongest reason
for why I stay anonymous. If you can think thoughts like that, can a
letter bomb be that far behind?

Interestingly, the ones to whom I apply that label are the ones that
seem both least likely to listen to any opposing argument, and *most*
likely to use the type of unreason that both you and I describe. (And
the "rednecks" that I know fall on both sides of the issue, although
those who are currently not supporting the more popular line have
tended to keep a low profile for the sake of personal safety.)

The days are long past when "...but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" was a common sentiment. Now, it's "and STFU if you
don't agree with me, or I'll do it for you, [censored]." (And yes, I've
had precisely that said to me.)

There's a revolution on the horizon if somebody doesn't find a way to
mend these fences...but there's no sign that reconciliation is even an
option.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

That's unfair to rednecks. I think the word you're looking for is
fascist, and it's people like Werehatrack that are the strongest reason
for why I stay anonymous. If you can think thoughts like that, can a
letter bomb be that far behind?

A nice quiet party making light of the serious folk over
at `Ding dong ...'; then they show up here wearing
jackboots kicking down the doors. Oh, the compassion!

--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.

Tom Ace said:

Bill Sornson said:

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in
bike wrenching; just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

Should politicians be tied and soldered?

As an alternative to, or in addition to, breaking on the wheel?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching; just tighten
the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching;
just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?

Ginsu on steroids?

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

Let me see if I got this right: the folks you agree with don't need
you to piggyback your support, and the folks who don't agree with you
are dunderheads who will never change their minds except under the
threat of force? How, exactly, did YOUR position become so
all-powerful and all-correct? And, why is it that you assume that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is beyond reason?

note: I'm not making any argument, pro or con, regarding your
particular positions as I don't know what they are. I'm making a
smart-ass comment about how you feel about those who either do or do
not agree with you.

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

That's unfair to rednecks. I think the word you're looking for is
fascist, and it's people like Werehatrack that are the strongest reason
for why I stay anonymous. If you can think thoughts like that, can a
letter bomb be that far behind?

Interestingly, the ones to whom I apply that label are the ones that
seem both least likely to listen to any opposing argument, and *most*
likely to use the type of unreason that both you and I describe. (And
the "rednecks" that I know fall on both sides of the issue, although
those who are currently not supporting the more popular line have
tended to keep a low profile for the sake of personal safety.)

The days are long past when "...but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" was a common sentiment. Now, it's "and STFU if you
don't agree with me, or I'll do it for you, [censored]." (And yes, I've
had precisely that said to me.)

There's a revolution on the horizon if somebody doesn't find a way to
mend these fences...but there's no sign that reconciliation is even an
option.

There is nothing on the left (individual exceptions aside) that
remotely approaches the rhetoric of a Coulter (_ Treason: Liberal
Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism_) or Malkin ( _In
Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II
and the War on Terror_) or Sean Hannity (_Deliver Us From Evil:
Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism_). A common element in
the rhetoric of the right-wing is elimination of the liberal opposition
which means that there would be NO opposition, for all practical
purposes, and the USA would cease to be a democracy (if that hasn't
happened already). I use the term fascist to describe a nationalist
movement with martial tendencies, melding corporate interests with
those of the state, and complete intolerance of dissent.

OTOH, on the left, there is considerable debate over the issue of how
to reach out to the "red states", the populations of which are
relatively economically disadvantaged compared to the blue states, and
whose politics are driven by religious ideology but would have a lot to
gain from national adoption of a liberal/ Democratic agenda.

It might be a good start toward fence mending on a personal level if
_you_ wouldn't suggest that the best way to win your argument is by
blowing out the brains of people who disagree with you.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, on the left, there is considerable debate over the issue of how
to reach out to the "red states", the populations of which are
relatively economically disadvantaged compared to the blue states, and
whose politics are driven by religious ideology but would have a lot
to gain from national adoption of a liberal/ Democratic agenda.

! ROTFL !

Good one!

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're not one of them rednecks, are you?

If I were, wouldn't the question as phrased need to be "us Rednecks"?
--

..

oh, so now you're calling me a redneck??? You must be asking for a
good ol' Alabama beat down! ;->

There are no "blue" states. Only "red" states that have huge liberal
concentrations in one or two major cities that allowed for the combined
liberal voting block of those cities to override the vote of the rest
of the state.

This was clearly demonstrated shortly after the latest presidential
election when a US map was produced showing a breakdown, by county, of
the voting within the states. The individual states were shown as
either red or blue, depending on how the state's electoral votes were
cast, and the individual counties within the states were shown as
either dark or light red or blue, with the darker shaded counties
representing the fact that as a county the majority of the votes were
in line with the overall distribution of the state's electoral votes.
Lighter shading implied that the county's votes did not match the
overall vote of the state.

There were NO red states that showed a significance of light red
shading to represent that there was a majority in any county that voted
Democrat. However, in the major blue states, the bulk of the counties
were shaded light blue, indicating that they had as a county voted
primarily Republican. If not for the major population centers in those
states being overwhelmingly liberal, the states as a whole would have
been red. If not for the significant concentration of liberal voters
in 4 or 5 of the country's major cities, there would have been many
more "red" states. So much so that I contend that many "blue" states
are actually "red" states with liberals concentrated in large cities.

The real reason there is no discussion of reconciliation is that the
Democrats, having over the last two decades dwindled away their
influence and control of national political power, can not come to
grips with the fact that the vast majority of the country does NOT want
their ideology in place.

As for the rhetoric of Coulter and the like, there are plenty of
examples of equally bad hate mongers on the left. Doesn't excuse
either side, just don't try to make the argument that the right has a
monopoly of hateful speech.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I'm out.

Man, I'm glad I killfiled that thread at the beginning, just like this
one :-) I get enough politics at my dayjob.

Baird

Scott said:

There are no "blue" states. Only "red" states that have huge liberal
concentrations in one or two major cities that allowed for the
combined liberal voting block of those cities to override the vote of
the rest of the state.

This was clearly demonstrated shortly after the latest presidential
election when a US map was produced showing a breakdown, by county, of
the voting within the states. The individual states were shown as
either red or blue, depending on how the state's electoral votes were
cast, and the individual counties within the states were shown as
either dark or light red or blue, with the darker shaded counties
representing the fact that as a county the majority of the votes were
in line with the overall distribution of the state's electoral votes.
Lighter shading implied that the county's votes did not match the
overall vote of the state.

There were NO red states that showed a significance of light red
shading to represent that there was a majority in any county that
voted Democrat. However, in the major blue states, the bulk of the
counties were shaded light blue, indicating that they had as a county
voted primarily Republican. If not for the major population centers
in those states being overwhelmingly liberal, the states as a whole
would have been red. If not for the significant concentration of
liberal voters in 4 or 5 of the country's major cities, there would
have been many more "red" states. So much so that I contend that
many "blue" states are actually "red" states with liberals
concentrated in large cities.

The real reason there is no discussion of reconciliation is that the
Democrats, having over the last two decades dwindled away their
influence and control of national political power, can not come to
grips with the fact that the vast majority of the country does NOT
want their ideology in place.

As for the rhetoric of Coulter and the like, there are plenty of
examples of equally bad hate mongers on the left. Doesn't excuse
either side, just don't try to make the argument that the right has a
monopoly of hateful speech.

Scott for Prez! LOL