More dumb**** liberals...

On Aug 9, 6:28*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Aug 9, 9:23*pm, "Paul G." wrote:



Here's the amusing part- I'm just contrary. Back in the hippie days, I
kicked their asses. *Now the kooks are right wing, and I kick THEIR
asses. I don't like extremists.

- Show quoted text -

Coming from an elitist pinhead like you that's SO appropriate. Bush
doesn't lie, Bill and Monica never had sex, and you are a tolerant
middle of the road kinda guy.....
*Thanks for making my weekend.
*Bill C

Heh heh! I have it on the best authority that you're a camp follower
and a remf.
-Paul

On Aug 9, 6:58*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

...

On Aug 9, 9:23 pm, "Paul G." wrote:

Here's the amusing part- I'm just contrary. Back in the hippie days, I
kicked their asses. Now the kooks are right wing, and I kick THEIR
asses. I don't like extremists.

Coming from an elitist pinhead like you that's SO appropriate.

Think about this Bill - he considers conservatives (right wing to him)
"extremists". The definition of a conservative is that they want the minimal
amounts of change and then only when it is absolutely necessary. To the
pinhead that's extremism.

These aren't your father's conservatives. Record deficits,
recklessness and incompetence, ****ing all over the Constitution.
You're all a pack of scumbags.
-Paul

ST wrote:
Spell them out, be specific. I can bet you you cannot come up with any facts
that are not warm-n-fuzzy figments from the left that were not ALSO items
that were status quo during previous times..

Dude... this is like so obvious... there are well regarded stats for
all this stuff. If you are short on time, then check out the mandate
of the Neocons, decide if it is really conservative or not, and also
look at how well our current administration is following the Neocon
agenda.

The idea of conservatives being for minimal change means minimal
change from constitutional and founding father ideals of how the US
government should conduct itself domestically and abroad. Things like
gratuitous wars, military forces in over 100 countries, greater
military spending than the rest of the world combined, torture,
increased spying and a reduction of privacy, fiscal irresponsibility,
etc, are just of few of the things that "conservatives" have been
doing lately that are diametrically opposed to these values.

BTW an obvious thing to look at is the federal budget deficit chart.
Conservatives are in favor fiscal responsibility... yes? Those damn
tax and spend liberals! Well, beginning with Reagan the only president
that hasn't supported a skyrocketing increase in budget deficits is
Clinton. So if the damn liberals tax and spend, it is only the
"conservatives" who spend but don't tax. Instead they prefer to take
out loans to run and "stimulate" the economy... which is the fiscal
policy of a credit card junky. It isn't a terrible thing to do if (and
only if) we are in recession or depression, and then only for a short
time. And when the economy is good we should have a budget surplus to
compensate... and the only time that has happened in recent history
(or maybe ever?) was under Clinton.

ST wrote:
DECISIONS are made before ANY country fights a war!~
WHO fights in them are members of the military at the time!

Are you a teenager? Study history much? Your assignment for today is
to catalog all of the wars the US has been involved in and determine
whether they were fought only with "members of the military at the
time". It will be a small percentage... and none of the major wars
were fought this way.

And when you are done with that one, you can start on a list of all
the wars in world history...

Damn you sure are a stupid lefty..........

And apparently you also don't pay attention. Or maybe the world is
comprised of two kinds of people... those who agree with you and
"stupid lefties"?

In article
,
"Paul G." wrote:

Here's the amusing part- I'm just contrary. Back in the hippie days, I
kicked their asses. Now the kooks are right wing, and I kick THEIR
asses. I don't like extremists.

Offering violence is an option.

--
Michael Press

"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...

And apparently you also don't pay attention. Or maybe the world is
comprised of two kinds of people... those who agree with you and
"stupid lefties"?

Look Ron, the average person has no way of knowing anything about a war and
the motivations behind that war. They can only serve their nation in the
military as they should by following orders.

Your idea of each person making up their own mind would be fine as long as
the military wasn't protecting each and every one of us.

On Aug 9, 11:25*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*"Paul G." wrote:

Here's the amusing part- I'm just contrary. Back in the hippie days, I
kicked their asses. *Now the kooks are right wing, and I kick THEIR
asses. I don't like extremists.

Offering violence is an option.

--
Michael Press

Dumbass- your ass isn't literally dumb. Offering inanity seems to be
your option of choice.
-Paul

On Aug 10, 7:37*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


Look Ron, the average person has no way of knowing anything about a war and
the motivations behind that war

The Republicans are counting on that. As Goering said... well, we all
know what he said about sheeple.

They can only serve their nation in the
military as they should by following orders.

If our generals had resigned one after the other rather than serve
Rumsfeld/Bush we wouldn't be in this mess. What a bunch of ass-
kissing politicians. Thank God the voters voted for Democrats in the
last election, otherwise Rumsfeld would still be screwing things up.

-Pau

On 8/9/08 11:10 PM, in article
, "Ron Ruff"
wrote:

ST wrote:
Spell them out, be specific. I can bet you you cannot come up with any facts
that are not warm-n-fuzzy figments from the left that were not ALSO items
that were status quo during previous times..

Dude... this is like so obvious... there are well regarded stats for
all this stuff. If you are short on time, then check out the mandate
of the Neocons, decide if it is really conservative or not, and also
look at how well our current administration is following the Neocon
agenda.

The idea of conservatives being for minimal change means minimal
change from constitutional and founding father ideals of how the US
government should conduct itself domestically and abroad. Things like
gratuitous wars, military forces in over 100 countries, greater
military spending than the rest of the world combined, torture,
increased spying and a reduction of privacy, fiscal irresponsibility,
etc, are just of few of the things that "conservatives" have been
doing lately that are diametrically opposed to these values.

BTW an obvious thing to look at is the federal budget deficit chart.
Conservatives are in favor fiscal responsibility... yes? Those damn
tax and spend liberals! Well, beginning with Reagan the only president
that hasn't supported a skyrocketing increase in budget deficits is
Clinton. So if the damn liberals tax and spend, it is only the
"conservatives" who spend but don't tax. Instead they prefer to take
out loans to run and "stimulate" the economy... which is the fiscal
policy of a credit card junky. It isn't a terrible thing to do if (and
only if) we are in recession or depression, and then only for a short
time. And when the economy is good we should have a budget surplus to
compensate... and the only time that has happened in recent history
(or maybe ever?) was under Clinton.



Take away the dot.com blow up......
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/...ncome-2006.jpg

Take away 9/11!!!

Take away massive airline meltdowns reverberating through the economy

Take away all the other related hospitality businesses suffering as a
result..

Take away a war in the Middle East!

And what have you got left?
Clinton didling in the White House because he has not enough to keep his
roving hands busy...

On 8/9/08 11:21 PM, in article
, "Ron
Ruff" wrote:

ST wrote:
DECISIONS are made before ANY country fights a war!~
WHO fights in them are members of the military at the time!

Are you a teenager? Study history much? Your assignment for today is
to catalog all of the wars the US has been involved in and determine
whether they were fought only with "members of the military at the
time". It will be a small percentage... and none of the major wars
were fought this way.

And when you are done with that one, you can start on a list of all
the wars in world history...

Damn you sure are a stupid lefty..........

And apparently you also don't pay attention. Or maybe the world is
comprised of two kinds of people... those who agree with you and
"stupid lefties"?


Are you trying to play with words?? What part of "Wars are fought with
members of the military at the time" does not make sense?

Don't play games about people joining the service AFTER hostility's start
and that is different somehow?!?!

What the hell are you trying to say??? Just say it?

WE now had had, for a while, an all voluntary military. Is that part of your
cryptic tirade?!?! What are you crying about???