More dumb**** liberals...

On 8/3/08 2:22 PM, in article ,
"Fred Fredburger" wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"ST" wrote in message
...

Damn you guys are idiots..............

The worst part about this is they're the bright ones.


One thing is kind of cool about this demonstration.

The Seattle-Tacoma area has better than a million people living in it.
When they tried to organize this protest, only 7 people showed.

It's crazy to protest when people or equipment are returning from
battle. The people who showed for this protest in reality demonstrated
the definition of "lunatic fringe". That's all.

Why do you only point to the second protest when you are trying to prove
your whiney ass point?

On 8/3/08 2:54 PM, in article
, "Bill C"
wrote:

On Aug 3, 5:19*pm, ST wrote:

Quit ****in playing word games assbag!
These wackos want NO military PERIOD!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So? That's pretty much the Quaker position too. I disagree as does
most of the Country. That's how it's supposed to work. Unless they
actually take illegal action against the military or it's people
that's what we are supposed to be about.
One of the guarantees was supposed to be defending unpopular,
offensive speech. It's unpatriotic to change that. Lots of that
happening here today though. I still take the oath I took seriously
andI'll defend these folks while they exercise their rights. I think
the PC speech code crap is garbage, I think blocking affirmative
action bake sales is crap, and silencing these people would be crap.
my personal opinion is that they ought to be down at the Federal
Building, or down in Olympia, or outside the pol's offices raising
hell but that's strategy, not arguing they shouldn't be doing it.
Don't like it, get out there with your friends. You should be able to
get more than a handfull to turn out in the middle of nowhere.
I'm proud of the fact that they ARE out there, and AREN'T dragged off
and beaten, or shot for speaking out. That's what I signed the
contract to defend and protect.
Bill C

Bill!
Now you are missing the point! I am doing the same as them!

I DISAGREE with what they are doing. Do you get it? How can these guys
protect all those weirdo's but I am wrong to speak?

Unless they take legal action? Have you seen what they have done in San
Francisco? How many colleges have banned ROTC and any military presence?

On Aug 3, 5:19*pm, ST wrote:

Quit ****in playing word games assbag!
These wackos want NO military PERIOD!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So? That's pretty much the Quaker position too. I disagree as does
most of the Country. That's how it's supposed to work. Unless they
actually take illegal action against the military or it's people
that's what we are supposed to be about.
One of the guarantees was supposed to be defending unpopular,
offensive speech. It's unpatriotic to change that. Lots of that
happening here today though. I still take the oath I took seriously
andI'll defend these folks while they exercise their rights. I think
the PC speech code crap is garbage, I think blocking affirmative
action bake sales is crap, and silencing these people would be crap.
my personal opinion is that they ought to be down at the Federal
Building, or down in Olympia, or outside the pol's offices raising
hell but that's strategy, not arguing they shouldn't be doing it.
Don't like it, get out there with your friends. You should be able to
get more than a handfull to turn out in the middle of nowhere.
I'm proud of the fact that they ARE out there, and AREN'T dragged off
and beaten, or shot for speaking out. That's what I signed the
contract to defend and protect.
Bill C

"ST" wrote in message
...
On 8/3/08 2:22 PM, in article
,
"Fred Fredburger" wrote:

One thing is kind of cool about this demonstration.

The Seattle-Tacoma area has better than a million people living in it.
When they tried to organize this protest, only 7 people showed.

It's crazy to protest when people or equipment are returning from
battle. The people who showed for this protest in reality demonstrated
the definition of "lunatic fringe". That's all.

Why do you only point to the second protest when you are trying to prove
your whiney ass point?

Because the first protest was a year ago. Now that it is plain that we're
winning the war against the Islamic extremists there are a whole lot fewer
people willing to bet on the death of the USA. It is GOOD to show that
demonstration and those demonstrating for what they are.

Remember that in the past the news services would ignore anyone protesting
FOR the government position even in the thousands while putting anyone
anti-government on the news and using photos taken in such a way as to make
a small group of kooks look like a large group of normal people. That ain't
happening anymore. The TV services have finally started seeing the twisted
Liberal views have started destroying their audience and their popularity
and they are beginning to get the idea that if they lie on the news people
will stop watching them.

The Liberal control of the media is beginning to weaken. If we could get the
news to be JUST the news and not a Liberal plan to control the population
we'd be far far ahead.

But imagine what people like Munro and Schwartz would be like if their
leaders stopped ordering them to follow their leaders?

On 8/3/08 3:06 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Donald Munro wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:
Big deal. Less than a dozen confused, ineffectual people milling about.
And that's all it takes to get you wound up. Goddamn, you're a delicate
one.

Are you sure its not because he gets off on being outraged ?

+5 insightful.

Steve Taylor is part of the "always outraged" brigade, along with Michelle
Malkin
and Debbie "K-Mart Koulter" Schlussel. There's definitely some satisfaction at
being
outraged for them.


Wrong again assbag! I only bother to post here when I AM outraged!

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Donald Munro wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:
Big deal. Less than a dozen confused, ineffectual people milling about.
And that's all it takes to get you wound up. Goddamn, you're a delicate
one.

Are you sure its not because he gets off on being outraged ?

+5 insightful.

Steve Taylor is part of the "always outraged" brigade, along with Michelle Malkin
and Debbie "K-Mart Koulter" Schlussel. There's definitely some satisfaction at being
outraged for them.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

One of the guarantees was supposed to be defending unpopular,
offensive speech. It's unpatriotic to change that.

While you're correct here remember that the media run by the Liberals have
taken these MINORITY views and advertised them as MAJORITY views. They have
lied and twisted everything in order to control the population when the
founders expect a free press to keep people informed of those who would
control them.

That's one of the reasons that the "Democrat" congress is trying to pass
laws against talk radio which is strongly conservative.

I think the PC speech code crap is garbage, I think blocking affirmative
action bake sales is crap, and silencing these people would be crap.

Nevertheless we'll hear all about how put upon the Liberals are as they are
trying to murder the Conservatives.

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Aug 3, 5:19*pm, ST wrote:

Quit ****in playing word games assbag!
These wackos want NO military PERIOD!- Hide quoted text -

Don't like it, get out there with your friends.

Like this?

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/Morans.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Aug 3, 5:52*pm, ST wrote:
On 8/3/08 2:54 PM, in article
, "Bill C"





wrote:
On Aug 3, 5:19*pm, ST wrote:

Quit ****in playing word games assbag!
These wackos want NO military PERIOD!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*So? That's pretty much the Quaker position too. I disagree as does
most of the Country. That's how it's supposed to work. Unless they
actually take illegal action against the military or it's people
that's what we are supposed to be about.
*One of the guarantees was supposed to be defending unpopular,
offensive speech. It's unpatriotic to change that. Lots of that
happening here today though. I still *take the oath I took seriously
andI'll defend these folks while they exercise their rights. I think
the PC speech code crap is garbage, I think blocking affirmative
action bake sales is crap, and silencing these people would be crap.
*my personal opinion is that they ought to be down at the Federal
Building, or down in Olympia, or outside the pol's offices raising
hell but that's strategy, not arguing they shouldn't be doing it.
*Don't like it, get out there with your friends. You should be able to
get more than a handfull to turn out in the middle of nowhere.
*I'm proud of the fact that they ARE out there, and AREN'T dragged off
and beaten, or shot for speaking out. That's what I signed the
contract to defend and protect.
*Bill C

Bill!
Now you are missing the point! I am doing the same as them!

I DISAGREE with what they are doing. Do you get it? How can these guys
protect all those weirdo's but I am wrong to speak?

There's a huge chunk of the population, on both sides, that only wants
to defend the speech they agree with, and you know that. I'm happy to
have you, and Coulter, and Malkin, and Sheehan, and Farrakhan.
Even the Westboro Baptist idiots.

Unless they take legal action? Have you seen what they have done in San
Francisco?
Yep I think the City has crossed the line, and I would cut funding to
them, and their National Guard units, and NOT provide Federal disaster
response in any emergency. Screw them having it both ways.
How many colleges have banned ROTC and any military presence? Same
thing, cut their funding, make them go the private route. Then they
would be perfectly within their rights.
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
When was the last time an Iraqi did any of these things... ?

I understand that you aren't able to make the connection. Given enough
time
you might grow smart enough to figure it out.

There is no connection... if you know of one, then tell us about it.

Which democratic government was it that we overthrew because of corporate
interests again?

Chile and Iran come to mind... and surely there have been more... and
of course many that were not democratic... Afganistan and Iraq being
the most recent.

Now you'll have to explain this again - Chile? Allende was a communist and
after assuming power in a curious manner that had mostly to do with the
assassination of General Schneider, proclaimed anyone that held property of
more than 80 hectares to be illegal and seized the land for
"redistribution".

Apparently the stupid Americans of today think that somehow it was necessary
for the CIA to push the Chilean middle class into revolt against someone who
was trying to destroy the middle class of Chile. It should be noted that
Allende committed suicide because he was about to be captured by the
perpetrators of the coup. It should be noted that Allende's popularity never
rose above his election margins and that he himself turned the opposition
from dislike to bitter hatred.

According to those Liberals here, the US should have been happy to have
billions of dollars of investments in Chile by American companies seized and
stolen by a communist proclaiming "public" ownership. The American
government, according to the fools here, should never have taken any actions
to work against such a policy.

You are engaged in a seriously bad case of historical revisionism, Tom. Okay,
you're actually just lying about what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean...tion_of_copper

As for Iran - maybe you ought to tell us all about this marvelous democracy
you believe existed there and when?

Tom always likes to ignore what the CIA and MI5 did to the *democratically
elected* leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, in '53. Of course, he also likes to claim
that the Iranians really liked the Shah of Iran - his "Iranian prince friend" told
him so.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?