OT: political leanings are half genetic

[Bill Sornson]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:01:24 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 08:58:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> conservatives
>>> SHOULD be more conscientious! I mean, it's time to indict/arrest
>>> Sandy Berglar for stealing classified documents from the National
>>> Archives; Valerie Plame for lying to Congress just weeks ago (memo
>>> shows she did recommend her lying hubby for ***** after all);
>>> William Jefferson (D LA) for taking huge bribes on tape and hiding
>>> almost $100K in his freezer; Diane Feinstein for funneling MILLIONS
>>> to her husband's defense contracting business while serving on the
>>> Appropriations Committee, etc etc etc etc.
>>
>> Do you really believe all of this?
>>
>> William Jefferson is in trouble and the FBI and federal prosecutors
>> will probably get him, so that's good.
>>
>> But the rest?
>>
>> Try to think logically for a moment. Ask yourself, how is this stuff
>> possible? How can it be that after six years of Republican control
>> of Congress and the Executive Branch that there is some sort of cabal
>> that is keeping people who have committed these "crimes" from
>> prosecution.
>
>
> There's no cabal, just that Republicans are not aggressive users (or
> abusers) of the criminal justice system against their political
> opponents.
>
> Remember the Clintons with hundreds of FBI files in the hands of a
> political operative? Republicans don't pull that kind of ****.

That seems exactly right (not since the Nixon days, anyway). Plus, of
course, there's a literal "shadow government" in place that is doing
everything possible to destroy the administration while protecting its
enemies and antagonists, with big help from the life-minded media. It's
just true...and obvious.

Hey, Sunni insurgents in Iraq are asking to discuss a cease-fire
arrangement; you'd think that would be Big News! LOL Best-kept secret of
the week (next to Feinstein's corruption, that is)...

BS (not)
>
> Ron

 

[still me]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:03:11 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's no cabal, just that Republicans are not aggressive users (or abusers) of
>the criminal justice system against their political opponents.
>
>Remember the Clintons with hundreds of FBI files in the hands of a political
>operative? Republicans don't pull that kind of ****.

There's no specific cabal that I've personally met with, but there are
organized groups of powerful individuals who meet together and plot
strategy in both parties, so it's sort of the same thing.

Suggesting that Republicans don't use dirty tricks and criminal
prosecution against their opponents is just nonsense. If there are
more Republican prosecutions that Democrats it would just indicate
that they are up to more dirty tricks, or are a whole lot worse at
hiding them, or the Democrats are better at finding them. I suspect
the first option since they seem to hide things as well as anyone and
the Democrats just aren't very sharp.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:32:13 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Yeah, right. According to the Jesus freak neo-con conspiracy,
>> "secular humanism" is a religious belief.
>
>It is as much a belief as anything else under the sun.
>
>> Again proving their idiocy, ignorance, and - hope springs eternal -
>> their imminent irrelevance and/or demise.
>
>Yea, let's hear it for secular humanism. I want to hear about how it is
>rooted in scientific fact and not a belief of good old Doug Taylor.
>

Dumbass.

Your assignment:

Compare and contrast the following: 1) "belief" and 2) "religious
belief."


500 words or less; you have 10 minutes.

 

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > I'm still waiting for the left wing media to reveal why Rush
>> > Limbaugh was in Haiti with two other men and a big bottle of
>> > fraudulently obtained Viagra.
>>
>> Why don't you get illegally searched just for who you are and get
>> back to us? (Nice editing, BTW.)
>
> Illegally searched? He was coming back through Customs, Bill. They get
> to search you if they want.

Yes, Customs can pretty much do anything they want to you. They can
search your laptop for anything they want with no writ. They can tell
you to bend and spread 'em. If you're going through customs, you have
very little to no recourse against them.

> And, big oops, mea culpa, etc., Rush was in the Dominican Republic not
> in Haiti. Not that it makes much difference.
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html

I'm sure he was going to a top sex tourist destination with a bottle of
Viagra simply to do a spot of cycling [1]. I'm not sure about the state
of the roads, you might want to rent or bring an MTB and not something
road oriented.

http://www.gonomad.com/transports/0602/dominican.html

[1] See that, cycling content. ;-)

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, The
best cyclist is an American, the best golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold
the America's cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany
doesn't want to go to war" - unknown

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Are Liberal governments more likely
>> to install bike facilities?
>
> In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
> A stately pleasure-dome decree:
> Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
> Through caverns measureless to man
> Down to a sunless sea.

Thanx that's pretty much the answer I expected.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On May 31, 11:44 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snipped>

- more "let's blame the media" -
>
> Plus, of
> course, there's a literal "shadow government" in place that is doing
> everything possible to destroy the administration while protecting its
> enemies and antagonists, with big help from the life-minded media. It's
> just true...and obvious. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

And you prefer whom, Ann Coulter? Hmmm.....she does seem to be one of
the UnDead.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 09:44:29 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:01:24 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 08:58:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> conservatives
>>>> SHOULD be more conscientious! I mean, it's time to indict/arrest
>>>> Sandy Berglar for stealing classified documents from the National
>>>> Archives; Valerie Plame for lying to Congress just weeks ago (memo
>>>> shows she did recommend her lying hubby for ***** after all);
>>>> William Jefferson (D LA) for taking huge bribes on tape and hiding
>>>> almost $100K in his freezer; Diane Feinstein for funneling MILLIONS
>>>> to her husband's defense contracting business while serving on the
>>>> Appropriations Committee, etc etc etc etc.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe all of this?
>>>
>>> William Jefferson is in trouble and the FBI and federal prosecutors
>>> will probably get him, so that's good.
>>>
>>> But the rest?
>>>
>>> Try to think logically for a moment. Ask yourself, how is this stuff
>>> possible? How can it be that after six years of Republican control
>>> of Congress and the Executive Branch that there is some sort of cabal
>>> that is keeping people who have committed these "crimes" from
>>> prosecution.
>>
>>
>> There's no cabal, just that Republicans are not aggressive users (or
>> abusers) of the criminal justice system against their political
>> opponents.
>>
>> Remember the Clintons with hundreds of FBI files in the hands of a
>> political operative? Republicans don't pull that kind of ****.
>
>That seems exactly right (not since the Nixon days, anyway).

Hahaha -- what about, for example, Steven Biskupic's prosecution of
Georgia Thompson.

>Plus, of
>course, there's a literal "shadow government" in place that is doing
>everything possible to destroy the administration while protecting its
>enemies and antagonists, with big help from the life-minded media. It's
>just true...and obvious.

For sure there is a "shadow government" in the sense that we live in a
democracy and the opposition party should be aware of and have
policies on all governmetn issues. But your talk of it as some sort
of conspiracy is just nuts.

Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:50:22 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
wrote:
>There's no specific cabal that I've personally met with, but there are
>organized groups of powerful individuals who meet together and plot
>strategy in both parties, so it's sort of the same thing.
>
>Suggesting that Republicans don't use dirty tricks and criminal
>prosecution against their opponents is just nonsense. If there are
>more Republican prosecutions that Democrats it would just indicate
>that they are up to more dirty tricks, or are a whole lot worse at
>hiding them, or the Democrats are better at finding them. I suspect
>the first option since they seem to hide things as well as anyone and
>the Democrats just aren't very sharp.

There absolutely are corrupt Democrats at all levels of government,
but in national government in the last six or so years there was been
far more coordinated corruption and systematic corrupution on the part
of the Republican party in national politics. The slew of scandals
that contributed to congressional losses in 2006 are part of that, as
is the current US attorney scandal, the Plame case, the Abramhoff
scandals, the Delay scandal, phone jamming in the last two
presidential elections and many, many more.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:43:12 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html
>
>I'm sure he was going to a top sex tourist destination with a bottle of
>Viagra simply to do a spot of cycling [1]. I'm not sure about the state
>of the roads, you might want to rent or bring an MTB and not something
>road oriented.

I hadn't seen that. Could someone please ask Sorni if all that he
knows about Rush Limbaugh is information that Rush Limbaugh told him?
That would explain a lot.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:48:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Still, if you do a Google search on the term, you will find all kinds of
>references.
I hope you understand that all sorts of people can put stuff online
that might be wrong. And if you google search almost any common error
or mispelling you will find examples of it.

>I have never known the term 'tenter hooks,' but I have always
>known the term 'tender hooks' from my earliest childhood.
There are lots of things I "learned" when I was a little kid that were
not true.

Just saying.

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:19:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>How do you know that worldwide terrorism would not have gone up no matter
>what?

The war in Iraq is clearly a great recruiting tool for anti-American
groups. It foments hatred of our country.

The funny/sad thing about neocon dopes like yous is they say
"Terrorism is on the rise -- let's bomb more/detain more/fight more"

and also say "Terrorism is coming under control -- that proves bombing
more/detaining more/fighting more is working, so let's do more of it"

> Or do you think the Jihadists do nothing but respond
>- you know, like tic for tac?
Funny -- I'm assuming you know your error here.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:31:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well, many thousands of young and not so young are being slaughtered on our
>highways every year in motor vehicle accidents. What should we be doing
>about that, if anything?

Enforcing speed limits, making safer cars, spending more money on
driver education and road design.

And more to the point, those deaths are at least in some ways often
the outcome of something productive -- travel of vastly larger numbers
of people.

The deaths in Iraq have, at the moment, no upside.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:31:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I do not like to see the military lounging about in their barracks. I would
>rather see them gainfully employed kicking ass in the world. It would not
>bother me in the slightest if we had to stay in Iraq for the next hundred
>years. Better there than lounging about in camps in the US.
>
>We are nation of 300 million and a superpower and we can do anything we want
>to in the world. It is simply a matter of will.

You are really sick.

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:06:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3,000 dead and however many wounded are as nothing compared to
>>> all previous wars.
>>
>> Roughly 600,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the US
>> invasion of Iraq, probably a couple million has been wounded, and
>> many million have been displaced.
>
> You and Rosie McDonald need to have a love feast together. After all,
> one nut deserves another.

Bogus Blog Blather BS. (Never mind that Saddam slaughtered far more
civilians each year than even today's sectarian violence is taking. But
Rosie said that *US soldiers* have killed 625,000+ innocents; it's
ludicrous.)

Floggie wants us to lose so bad he can taste it... BS (not)

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:48:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bogus Blog Blather BS. (Never mind that Saddam slaughtered far more
>civilians each year than even today's sectarian violence is taking. But
>Rosie said that *US soldiers* have killed 625,000+ innocents; it's
>ludicrous.)

I don't know Rosie is but the Lancet study, which was scientifically
sound, estimated 600,000 deaths in Iraq beyond what would have
happened if the US had not invaded.

That is not blog blather -- that is the best estimate so far of the
impact of the war on Iraqi mortality. Sure the blogs picked it up,
but the basic information is valid as a best guess or estimate.

>Floggie wants us to lose so bad he can taste it... BS (not)

I don't want the US to lose anything, but see it happening.



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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:48:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>(Never mind that Saddam slaughtered far more
>civilians each year than even today's sectarian violence is taking.

This is not true (unless you are saying a year under Saddam resulted
in more deaths than a day in Iraq today.)

I'm not putting a numeric value on the overall impact of his
dictatorship, but in terms of numbers of bodies and insecurity of
"typical" Iraqis, the situation today is far worse than under his
reign.

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

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:08:55 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>Yea, let's hear it for secular humanism. I want to hear about how it is
>>>rooted in scientific fact and not a belief of good old Doug Taylor.
>>>
>>
>> Dumbass.
>>
>> Your assignment:
>>
>> Compare and contrast the following: 1) "belief" and 2) "religious
>> belief."
>>
>>
>> 500 words or less; you have 10 minutes.
>
>I am only impressed by scientific facts. Beliefs of any nature are for the
>young and stupid. I assure you that secular humanism is a belief no
>different from any other religious belief.

You are close but no cigar.

Belief: " the psychological state in which an individual is convinced
of the truth of a proposition"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

"Scientific facts" are nothing more than beliefs held by rational
people who come to their conclusions via scientific method.

"Religious beliefs" focus "on a system of thought, unseen being,
person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred,
divine, or of the highest truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religious beliefs, therefore, are faith/emotion based, and cannot be
empirically proven, as contrasted with scientific beliefs.

Secular humanism "is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason,
ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the
spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Consequently, if you truly subscribe to the belief in "scientific
facts", then you fall into the category of secular humanist. A
secular humanist has beliefs, to be sure, but they are reason and
science based, and not faith based. Accordingly, they are not
"religious beliefs."

Get it now?

Aren't you abashed that even though you come off as a supercilious
know it all, you are exposed as just another usenet blowhard troll?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On May 31, 8:31 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:08:55 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Yea, let's hear it for secular humanism. I want to hear about how it is
> >>>rooted in scientific fact and not a belief of good old Doug Taylor.
>
> >> Dumbass.
>
> >> Your assignment:
>
> >> Compare and contrast the following: 1) "belief" and 2) "religious
> >> belief."
>
> >> 500 words or less; you have 10 minutes.
>
> >I am only impressed by scientific facts. Beliefs of any nature are for the
> >young and stupid. I assure you that secular humanism is a belief no
> >different from any other religious belief.
>
> You are close but no cigar.
>
> Belief: " the psychological state in which an individual is convinced
> of the truth of a proposition"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
>
> "Scientific facts" are nothing more than beliefs held by rational
> people who come to their conclusions via scientific method.
>
> "Religious beliefs" focus "on a system of thought, unseen being,
> person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred,
> divine, or of the highest truth."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
>
> Religious beliefs, therefore, are faith/emotion based, and cannot be
> empirically proven, as contrasted with scientific beliefs.
>
> Secular humanism "is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason,
> ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the
> spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
>
> Consequently, if you truly subscribe to the belief in "scientific
> facts", then you fall into the category of secular humanist. A
> secular humanist has beliefs, to be sure, but they are reason and
> science based, and not faith based. Accordingly, they are not
> "religious beliefs."
>
> Get it now?
>
> Aren't you abashed that even though you come off as a supercilious
> know it all, you are exposed as just another usenet blowhard troll?-
>

Dolan can't be abashed, he is too busy getting off the tender
hooks. ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

ignoring the upcoming election and the idea of the week that next Bush
press conference no one should show up
Hugo's breaking up the local archer-daniels-midland, redistributing
farm land to the poor uneducated ignorant and backward, deserves a
close watch for the politically intolerant.
One cooler, one truck, one route, becomes many without leadership.
Cuba survives, but my knowledge of the transistion period from Batista
to socialist farming is non-existant.
maybe Hugo has experienced help from Cuba?
and what category would this fit into?
rugged individualists supported by guild and industry cooperation on a
national level?

 

[still me]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:51:19 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What started all of this? Some idiot by the name of Ozark posts a comment
>about how conservatives must be genetically deranged. Then every one else
>chips in with their 2-cents worth. If it weren't for me, that is how it
>would eternally go on these freaking cycling newsgroups. You end up thinking
>all cyclists are left of center and Bush haters. Now, we KNOW that is not
>the case - don't we?

I think 80% of the public is "Bush haters". The group likely
represents that.

>The kind of cycling folks who post to newsgroups are invariably liberal
>though. I recognize this, but that is never an excuse to gang-bang
>conservatives. I mean, just how despicable can you get?

I think they are gang-banging a neo-con, neo-facist, corrupt,
indefensible administration. Seems legit. I bet you would find more
agreement if you posted true conservative ideals instead of Rush like
rantings.