Hey Mr. Lafferty ...

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Still thinking about going up North ? Read this then, might not be so
easy
after all. After all, you can hope for Hillary in '08. Republicans out
the
gate in '08. Maybe I should get an sm on that.

Dave

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/canada.us.reut/index.html
OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian
haven after U.S. President George W. Bush won Tuesday's election should
not
pack their bags just yet.

Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed
up
with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to
stand
in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a
year.

"Let me tell you -- if they're hard-working honest people, there's a
process, and let them apply," Immigration Minister Judy Sgro told Reuters.
....

HA ... "hard-working honest people?" They're democrats. If you work hard
and are successful, you're supposed to give them your money.

Bob C.

Dave Stoller said:

Still thinking about going up North ?

Dumbass -

That would be a big bonus, if Lafferty moves far enough North where
they don't have internet access.

K. Gringioni.

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Still thinking about going up North ? Read this then, might not be so
easy
after all. After all, you can hope for Hillary in '08. Republicans out
the
gate in '08. Maybe I should get an sm on that.

Dave

Read this:

....While Mr. Bush was making his little speech about reaching out,
Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative
agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.

"He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts.
"He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results
endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents
American troops kill, the more they create.....

....Tom Coburn, the new senator from Oklahoma, has advocated the death
penalty for doctors who perform abortions and warned that "the gay agenda"
would undermine the country. He also characterized his race as a choice
between "good and evil" and said he had heard there was "rampant lesbianism"
in Oklahoma schools.
Jim DeMint, the new senator from South Carolina, said during his campaign
that he supported a state G.O.P. platform plank banning gays from teaching
in public schools. He explained, "I would have given the same answer when
asked if a single woman who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend
should be hired to teach my third-grade children."

John Thune, who toppled Tom Daschle, is an anti-abortion Christian
conservative - or "servant leader," as he was hailed in a campaign ad - who
supports constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage.

Complete column at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Have a great American day.

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Complete column at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Have a great American day.

Maureen Dowd is a sleasy little hate filled [censored] who has only one perspective
and goal in life and that is to crucify anybody to the right of Chuck Schumer.
She doesn't lie by commission, but by omission. Her selective editing is on par
with Mike Moore, or Ann Coulter, but you take her as gospel. That is sad, but
if they say things you like you rarely challenge their accuracy or integrity.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Complete column at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Have a great American day.

Maureen Dowd is a sleasy little hate filled [censored] who has only one
perspective
and goal in life and that is to crucify anybody to the right of Chuck
Schumer.
She doesn't lie by commission, but by omission. Her selective editing is
on par
with Mike Moore, or Ann Coulter, but you take her as gospel. That is sad,
but
if they say things you like you rarely challenge their accuracy or
integrity.
Bill C

You might want to go through the archives. If you do, you'll see that she
was equally scathing towards Bill Clinton and his administration when they
were in office. She has also had some pithy remarks for Hillary, one of
which is in the above column.

"Seeing the exit polls, the Democrats immediately started talking about
values and religion. Their sudden passion for wooing Southern white
Christian soldiers may put a crimp in Hillary's 2008 campaign (nothing but a
wooden stake would stop it). "

The statements attributed to the winning Republicans above are accurate.
Rather than simply attacking/ranting about the author, you might want
address the facts/issues presented.

psycholist said:

Quoted message said:

HA ... "hard-working honest people?" They're democrats. If you work hard
and are successful, you're supposed to give them your money.

Bob C.

you've let me down bob.

bye,
heather

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Complete column at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Have a great American day.

Maureen Dowd is a sleasy little hate filled [censored] who has only one perspective
and goal in life and that is to crucify anybody to the right of Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is hardly a flaming lefty where I come from--which pretty much
is where Schumer comes from.

Steve

Quoted message said:

She doesn't lie by commission, but by omission. Her selective editing is on par
with Mike Moore, or Ann Coulter, but you take her as gospel. That is sad, but
if they say things you like you rarely challenge their accuracy or integrity.
Bill C

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Quoted message said:

From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

Quoted message said:

Schumer is hardly a flaming lefty where I come from--which pretty much
is where Schumer comes from.

Steve

I should've used Boxer or Feinstein. Schumer is one of my pet annoyances, but
you're right he's not way left, but a fair way.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

Quoted message said:

Schumer is hardly a flaming lefty where I come from--which pretty much
is where Schumer comes from.

Steve

I should've used Boxer or Feinstein. Schumer is one of my pet annoyances, but
you're right he's not way left, but a fair way.
Bill C

You know the most dangerous place in America?
....It's the space between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

Quoted message said:

Schumer is hardly a flaming lefty where I come from--which pretty much is
where Schumer comes from.

Steve

I should've used Boxer or Feinstein. Schumer is one of my pet
annoyances, but
you're right he's not way left, but a fair way.
Bill C

You know the most dangerous place in America?
...It's the space between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

Steve

It's interesting that now it's "Chuck" rather than the old "Charles." Must
be a more manly type of liberalism.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting that now it's "Chuck" rather than the old "Charles." Must
be a more manly type of liberalism.

I don't think it was ever Charles. I canvassed for the old Thomas
Jefferson Democratic Club in 1970 (ruled over by that old-style
political boss Meade Esposito), mostly for our congressman Frank Brasco
(who was later thrown out of congress for influence-peddling),
assemblyman (later Speaker of the Assembly) Stanley Fink and state
senator Fred Meyerson. We once were driven over to Nostrand Avenue to
canvass with Chuck Schumer, whom I'd never heard of before--I think he
was campaigning for city council--he is maybe 2 or 3 years older than I am.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Read this:

...While Mr. Bush was making his little speech about reaching out,
Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative
agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.

"He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts.
"He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results
endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents
American troops kill, the more they create.....

The latest independent survey taken through all the cities of Iraq, put the
death toll of Iraqis in the war at 300,000. That's a big number. Much bigger
then I would of thought. This was done by going to all the cities and
talking to Iraqis. According to them the largest percentage was women and
children. Also children continue to die from playing with unspent cluster
bombs that they pick up as toys to bring home and show mama. I'm sure that
doesn't set well with all insurgents along all religious and ethnic lines.
As long as this continues so does the resistance. I haven't been converted
to Laffertism but he sounds like he gets it. I hate the Neo-cons, war
mongers.

(TritonRider) said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Complete column at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Have a great American day.

Maureen Dowd is a sleasy little hate filled [censored] who has only one perspective
and goal in life and that is to crucify anybody to the right of Chuck Schumer.

I guess that includes John Kerry, because she ragged all over him
quite a bit in the campaign.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I guess that includes John Kerry, because she ragged all over him
quite a bit in the campaign.

JT

JT what I see in this is her ripping Kerry for not being agressive enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maure
endowd/
Granted she is an "editorial columnist" and her job is to stir the [censored], but
to pretend that she is anymore unbiased than the people at The National Review
is ridiculous. She is there to get people talking and support her employer's
editorial line which is mid/far left.

I have no problem with her opinions. I just don't want to pretend that it they
are not driven by a particular viewpoint that she is faithful to.
If you look at The Nation, and The Progressive they are convinced that the
Democrats didn't attack enough and didn't go far enough left. If you really
want to Balkanize the US this is the way to do it.
The right wing rags are gloating and planning a "revolution". IMO we need one
to marginalize these [censored] on both sides.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I guess that includes John Kerry, because she ragged all over him
quite a bit in the campaign.

JT

JT what I see in this is her ripping Kerry for not being agressive enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maure
endowd/
Granted she is an "editorial columnist" and her job is to stir the [censored], but
to pretend that she is anymore unbiased than the people at The National Review
is ridiculous. She is there to get people talking and support her employer's
editorial line which is mid/far left.

I have no problem with her opinions. I just don't want to pretend that it they
are not driven by a particular viewpoint that she is faithful to.
If you look at The Nation, and The Progressive they are convinced that the
Democrats didn't attack enough and didn't go far enough left. If you really
want to Balkanize the US this is the way to do it.
The right wing rags are gloating and planning a "revolution". IMO we need one
to marginalize these [censored] on both sides.
Bill C

(TritonRider) said:

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I guess that includes John Kerry, because she ragged all over him
quite a bit in the campaign.

JT

JT what I see in this is her ripping Kerry for not being agressive enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maure
endowd/
Granted she is an "editorial columnist" and her job is to stir the [censored], but
to pretend that she is anymore unbiased than the people at The National Review
is ridiculous. She is there to get people talking and support her employer's
editorial line which is mid/far left.

I have no problem with her opinions. I just don't want to pretend that it they
are not driven by a particular viewpoint that she is faithful to.
If you look at The Nation, and The Progressive they are convinced that the
Democrats didn't attack enough and didn't go far enough left. If you really
want to Balkanize the US this is the way to do it.

Who started it? If the far right wants a culture war, should we just
roll over? No.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Who started it? If the far right wants a culture war, should we just
roll over? No.

JT

I hate to say it JT but now you sound like some of the more reactionary types
I talk with.
I vote that we all stand up and stop the [censored]. Let's actually have a debate
rather than a name calling contest. As near as I can tell I'd be a JFK democrat
with a bent for individual frredom. Unfortunately neither side is there now.
It's time for all of us in the middle who want to actually respect people's
views and discuss them to get [censored] at both sides.
I have a lot of respect for you, and I don't think that we are in that much
disagreement, but the way to go about making things reasonable isn't to throw
gas on the fire.
Right now we've got an out of control fire fed by BOTH sides hatred and
determination not to respect or talk to each other. The question for us is how
to limit the damage and get things back on track.
Hint: Moore/Drudge and Coulter/Ivins aren't the solution, they are part of the
problem.
How about a little civility, respect, and rationality?
Bill C

(TritonRider) said:

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Who started it? If the far right wants a culture war, should we just
roll over? No.

JT

I hate to say it JT but now you sound like some of the more reactionary types
I talk with.

I am reactionary. I react to the continuing efforts to fight the
simple desitre to treat all people with respect. I react to the idea
that two people loving each other is some sort of abomination that
requires a "defense of marriage" to stop. Hell yes I'll react to
that. It's morally untenable to accept that sort of hatred, and I
don't care how many people support it, they're still morally wrong.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I am reactionary. I react to the continuing efforts to fight the
simple desitre to treat all people with respect. I react to the idea
that two people loving each other is some sort of abomination that
requires a "defense of marriage" to stop. Hell yes I'll react to
that. It's morally untenable to accept that sort of hatred, and I
don't care how many people support it, they're still morally wrong.

JT

Well looks like we are in complete agreement.
I'm glad your [censored]. The polls before people started trying to cram
"Marriage" down peoples throats showed over 60% support for civil unions
nationwide.I would've fought for recognition and protection for them as
individuals in a low key manner saying that it was up to the States to decide
up until it was time for new Supreme Court justices to be appointed by us.
The prize was there for the taking. No question about it. Rather than look at
it tactically, and string together a moderate win with a series of small
advances over the next 8 years the ideologues scared the hell out of most of
America and threw it ALL away. Now the situation is much worse than it was a
week ago.
Being [censored] is a good thing as long as you are [censored] at the right
people. The right wing wackos didn't give this one away the far left gave it
away.
Strategy isn't just a word in the dictionary. Eventually you need to get sick
of losing and do what it takes to win, then you have the "Bully Pulpit".
Bill C