Trains

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:57:34 -0700, WTF wrote:

On 8/22/09 2:43 AM, in article , "Donald
Munro" wrote:

Johnny Twelve-Point wrote:

Michael Moore on one side and Anne Coulter on the other - they're all
just as bad. You have to be really independent thinker to see through
the lies from the left:
http://www.guernicamag.com/spotlight...on_of_wendell/

WTF wrote:
Do not even think about calling their president a Nazi like you do here!
You will be in prison real quick and NO.. There is no 9th circuit court of
appeals..
No RBR over there.....
Kiss your iPhone goodbye! (or Blackberry...)
There is no "eBay Cuba"

There must be something wrong with my grep since grepping the article
doesn't find any references to Cuba.


Slick Willy screws us again:

http://jtaplin.files.wordpress.com/2...ssons-web1.jpg

Notice how the problems all started in the Clinton Era. Now that we
have "The One" in the white house, you think it'll get better??

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:28 am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
Susan Walker wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
wackilicious.
I would congratulate you on first use, were that a real word.
You one-worlders refuse to see the truth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...82775#32682775

Gee, that must be the same Glenn Beck that made Van Jones go away.
You're such an ignorant stooge.

Arguing that Glenn Beck is a really smart cool guy disqualifies you from
calling someone a stooge. His appeal is entirely emotional.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:22 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Susan Walker wrote:
There are some wackos out there.
That's undeniably true but ours are particularly wackilicious.
You leftists think it's OK for our president to indoctrinate children
with socialist ideas like "work hard" and "stay in school"?

I can't say I wasn't warned.

Stooge who'll believe anything,

That wasn't what it was about.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-sc...roversy/655701

"Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration
created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online,
originally recommended having students 'write letters to themselves
about what they can do to help the president.'"

They changed it after every one other than the true believers saw it
for what it was: a creepy cult-of-personality *lesson plan* from the
central government to teachers on a local level.

Your position isn't what's being argued.

You're saying that the speech was fine and perfectly suitable for
consumption by the masses. You have issues only with the lesson plans.

Learn to distinguish one thing from another. Not everything is the same
as everything else. Lesson plans are not speeches.

I remember Bill C using the phrase "illegals" -- was he talking about
people like this (courtesy of Obama presented by Moveon.org + Rahm
Emmanuel):

"Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn't speak
English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown
went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either."

On Sep 7, 3:06*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:



On Sep 4, 9:22 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Susan Walker wrote:
There are some wackos out there.
That's undeniably true but ours are particularly wackilicious.
You leftists think it's OK for our president to indoctrinate children
with socialist ideas like "work hard" and "stay in school"?

I can't say I wasn't warned.

Stooge who'll believe anything,

That wasn't what it was about.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-sc...roversy/655701

"Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration
created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online,
originally recommended having students 'write letters to themselves
about what they can do to help the president.'"

They changed it after every one other than the true believers saw it
for what it was: a creepy cult-of-personality *lesson plan* from the
central government to teachers on a local level.

Your position isn't what's being argued.

You're saying that the speech was fine and perfectly suitable for
consumption by the masses. You have issues only with the lesson plans.

Learn to distinguish one thing from another. Not everything is the same
as everything else. Lesson plans are not speeches.

Dumbass,

You don't understand.

Obama intends to indoctrinate our children
to "work hard" and "stay in school."

Many of those children are in PUBLIC schools and
Obama wants to keep them there.
This speech is nothing more than an attempt to
prop up the Kommie Public School system. It has
no doubt been ordered by the Puppet Masters at
the Teachers' Unions.

Those children should be free to make the choice to
become independent agents functioning in a free
marketplace of labor if they want. I can't advocate
children dropping out of school to work as lookouts
for neighborhood dealers, even if it is a rational
economic choice, but perhaps they could find more
suitable work as pickpockets on the subway or
doing those shady door-to-door candy sales for
"scholarships."

Ben

P.S.
As for Glenn Beck, Rockefeller conspiracy theories are
a sure sign that a demagogue has run out of new pastures
on which to graze his flock. However, I thought Beck
would be funnier without Olbermann's interruptions -
I don't need KO to tell me that GB is a few cogs short
of a cassette.

wrote:
On Sep 7, 3:06 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:



On Sep 4, 9:22 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Susan Walker wrote:
There are some wackos out there.
That's undeniably true but ours are particularly wackilicious.
You leftists think it's OK for our president to indoctrinate children
with socialist ideas like "work hard" and "stay in school"?
I can't say I wasn't warned.
Stooge who'll believe anything,
That wasn't what it was about.
http://news.aol.com/article/obama-sc...roversy/655701
"Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration
created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online,
originally recommended having students 'write letters to themselves
about what they can do to help the president.'"
They changed it after every one other than the true believers saw it
for what it was: a creepy cult-of-personality *lesson plan* from the
central government to teachers on a local level.
Your position isn't what's being argued.

You're saying that the speech was fine and perfectly suitable for
consumption by the masses. You have issues only with the lesson plans.

Learn to distinguish one thing from another. Not everything is the same
as everything else. Lesson plans are not speeches.

Dumbass,

You don't understand.

Obama intends to indoctrinate our children
to "work hard" and "stay in school."

Many of those children are in PUBLIC schools and
Obama wants to keep them there.
This speech is nothing more than an attempt to
prop up the Kommie Public School system. It has
no doubt been ordered by the Puppet Masters at
the Teachers' Unions.

Those children should be free to make the choice to
become independent agents functioning in a free
marketplace of labor if they want. I can't advocate
children dropping out of school to work as lookouts
for neighborhood dealers, even if it is a rational
economic choice, but perhaps they could find more
suitable work as pickpockets on the subway or
doing those shady door-to-door candy sales for
"scholarships."

Ben

P.S.
As for Glenn Beck, Rockefeller conspiracy theories are
a sure sign that a demagogue has run out of new pastures
on which to graze his flock. However, I thought Beck
would be funnier without Olbermann's interruptions -
I don't need KO to tell me that GB is a few cogs short
of a cassette.


Did you type that in an overly intellectualized, almost feminine Ayn
Rand voice or in a crying, screaming, almost feminine Glenn Beck voice?
Who you're pretending to be makes all the difference.

On Sep 7, 5:36*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

Did you type that in an overly intellectualized, almost feminine Ayn
Rand voice or in a crying, screaming, almost feminine Glenn Beck voice?
Who you're pretending to be makes all the difference.

Dumbass,

There is none of the effete intellectual and nothing
feminized or weak about Ayn Rand, the hard-headed
prophet of our glorious objectivist future.

Sincerely,
Ayn Rand

wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:36 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Did you type that in an overly intellectualized, almost feminine Ayn
Rand voice or in a crying, screaming, almost feminine Glenn Beck voice?
Who you're pretending to be makes all the difference.

Dumbass,

There is none of the effete intellectual and nothing
feminized or weak about Ayn Rand, the hard-headed
prophet of our glorious objectivist future.

Good. I'm glad you're doing this. Now that SotS is out of the closet,
something had to be done to restore balance. Thanks for taking one for
the team.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:55:49 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:

"Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration
created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online,
originally recommended having students 'write letters to themselves
about what they can do to help the president.'"

That's a bad thing? Helping the person who is charged with leading
our government in the face of a range of huge problems?

That's offensive?

Why?

If you truly believe that grade school children could "help the President"
then perhaps you don't need anyone to explain anything to you.

Did you complain when Reagan spoke to schoolchildren? George HW Bush? George W
Bush? GWB said that he wanted kids to write him to tell how to help improve schools.
But that was okay with you, I guess. But you and your BFF Greg see !Danger!

I'm having a hard time finding the "indoctrination" portions of this:

http://tinyurl.com/laf8kt

By the way, Slave-o, you want to complain about "cults of personality? Have you
forgotten the last eight ****ing years? Read Greenwald's take:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/02/bush/

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sep 7, 7:42*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:36 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Did you type that in an overly intellectualized, almost feminine Ayn
Rand voice or in a crying, screaming, almost feminine Glenn Beck voice?
Who you're pretending to be makes all the difference.

Dumbass,

There is none of the effete intellectual and nothing
feminized or weak about Ayn Rand, the hard-headed
prophet of our glorious objectivist future.

Good. I'm glad you're doing this. Now that SotS is out of the closet,
something had to be done to restore balance. Thanks for taking one for
the team.

Socialist dinosaur,

What "team"? Teams are an outmoded collectivist
instrument of coercion. There are no teams. There
are only individuals, and at best individual interests
that temporarily align to allow a moment of cooperation.
But cooperation is for the weak. The strong man
does not count on assistance, nor require it. Ayn Rand
sneers at you and your "domestiques."

Sincerely,
Ayn Rand