Calling all Belgians

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:04:17 -0500, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

PS I still think arguing with a retard is not a sign of
intelligent life.

And looking for signs of intelligent life on rbr is?

If intelligent life looks in on rbr, it is considered good form to
leave no signs behind and not disturb the indigenous life forms.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Apr 18, 9:04 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Awaiting some Robert Traver, classic, Upper Peninsula of Michigan,
trout chasing books.

Traver drank bourbon from an old tin cup while fishing. The
tin cup because he thought it tasted better that way. Bourbon
because if he was going to drink he wanted to know it. Traver
did not go fishing with lite beer.

One of these summers I am going to walk the Fox River Trail
in the UP where Hemingway took Nick Adams almost a century
ago, at a time when he was more interested in fishing than
getting on with his life.

Bob Schwartz

PS I still think arguing with a retard is not a sign of
intelligent life.

That's cool stuff. I'd love to go see and hike some of those places
sometime.
I also agree with the PS but we all have our faults and perversions.
Bill C

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article . com,
Bill C wrote:

On Apr 17, 3:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Kveck, you are a lying son of a bitch because that's what you want to be.
Looks like these lying Commies agree with Kveck too!:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-06-voa14.cfm

Pentagon Probe Finds No Ties Between Saddam, Bin Laden
By VOA News
06 April 2007

Next he'll be thundering about the Duelfer Report. Snicker...


25 years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke derisively of "knee jerk liberals"
when speaking of those who responded from their ideology instead of
responding to reality. The phrase was descriptive of a common enough
problem to gain widespread usage. It was the right phrase for the time.

Now Bush has turned everything sideways. That phrase does not apply to
people like Ann Coulter or Tom Kunich, but the idea clearly does. What
do we call people like this? Rabid Republicans, perhaps? I considered
"Retarded ..." instead but it's probably not PC enough.

Bill C wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Kveck, you are a lying son of a bitch because that's what you want to be.

Looks like these lying Commies agree with Kveck too!:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-06-voa14.cfm

Pentagon Probe Finds No Ties Between Saddam, Bin Laden
By VOA News
06 April 2007

Bill C


And while we're on the subject, check out the rant by this commie, pinko
*******:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17516.htm

On Apr 18, 5:10 pm, Fred Fredburger wrote:

25 years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke derisively of "knee jerk liberals"
when speaking of those who responded from their ideology instead of
responding to reality. The phrase was descriptive of a common enough
problem to gain widespread usage. It was the right phrase for the time.

Now Bush has turned everything sideways. That phrase does not apply to
people like Ann Coulter or Tom Kunich, but the idea clearly does. What
do we call people like this? Rabid Republicans, perhaps? I considered
"Retarded ..." instead but it's probably not PC enough.

Dude,

They want this reaction from you. Particularly Coulter, who
is transparently an impresario of outrage, not someone interested
in persuasion of the nonconverted; but even more rational-seeming
people (even somebody like Dinesh D'Souza) who look like they
are trying to make an argument, are really just feeding off your
denunciations.

But you already hit on the solution: call them "knee jerk liberals."
It's the only thing that will get their goats. Given their fondness
for unrestricted government power, it's also only sort of
inaccurate, which is as close as passes for truth in modern
political discourse.

Ben
knee jerk procrastinator

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:10:55 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

25 years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke derisively of "knee jerk liberals"
when speaking of those who responded from their ideology instead of
responding to reality. The phrase was descriptive of a common enough
problem to gain widespread usage. It was the right phrase for the time.

Now Bush has turned everything sideways. That phrase does not apply to
people like Ann Coulter or Tom Kunich, but the idea clearly does. What
do we call people like this? Rabid Republicans, perhaps?

I don't agree. A knee jerk liberal (of which I am one) is a person
who, in the absense of specific information or time for careful
consideration of the details of a particular situation, will choose
the leftist or more liberal choice. A knee jerk conservative would do
the same thing toward the right. It doesn't mean they *always* go left
or right. It means they tend to quickly go that way.

Coulter and Kunich are not like that -- they are far more extreme.
It's not that they just tend toward the right in the absense of more
specific information or time for consideration. It's that that they
actively aim to distort reality and avoid ever having to reconsider
their views. They're analogous to a radically leftwing person --
perhaps a communist party leader or someone like that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:10:55 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

25 years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke derisively of "knee jerk liberals"
when speaking of those who responded from their ideology instead of
responding to reality. The phrase was descriptive of a common enough
problem to gain widespread usage. It was the right phrase for the time.

Now Bush has turned everything sideways. That phrase does not apply to
people like Ann Coulter or Tom Kunich, but the idea clearly does. What
do we call people like this? Rabid Republicans, perhaps?

I don't agree. A knee jerk liberal (of which I am one) is a person
who, in the absense of specific information or time for careful
consideration of the details of a particular situation, will choose
the leftist or more liberal choice. A knee jerk conservative would do
the same thing toward the right. It doesn't mean they *always* go left
or right. It means they tend to quickly go that way.

Coulter and Kunich are not like that -- they are far more extreme.
It's not that they just tend toward the right in the absense of more
specific information or time for consideration. It's that that they
actively aim to distort reality and avoid ever having to reconsider
their views. They're analogous to a radically leftwing person --
perhaps a communist party leader or someone like that.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe it's largely a matter of
perspective. Your perspective on "knee jerk" liberals allows for them to
be reasonable people. I don't believe R.R. necessarily meant it that way.

All analogies fall apart at some level. For instance: while I feel
confident that GWB's legacy will be at least as damaging to
conservatives as Jimmy Carter's was to liberals, I am equally confident
that our friends in Stockholm wont bail GWB out with a Nobel Peace Prize
like they did for Carter. So the analogy only stretches so far...

On 18 Apr 2007 17:31:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Particularly Coulter, who
is transparently an impresario of outrage, not someone interested
in persuasion of the nonconverted; but even more rational-seeming
people (even somebody like Dinesh D'Souza) who look like they
are trying to make an argument, are really just feeding off your
denunciations.

Coulter is the writers version of Madonna. Madonna proved twenty
years ago that an artist with only mediocre talent can become a
superstar if they create enough controversy.

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stealing documents to hide them. What were Ollie North and Fawn Hall
doing? Destroying documents.
What's your point?

That you are willing to either be completely stupid or to lie about it
because it is pertinent to your false claims:

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

" He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies
and cutting three up with scissors. Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ
investigators and returned to the archives."

These are eyes only briefings and each person who gets on gets it only when
they are having the briefing and then hands it back in at the end of the
meeting. Usually they have made specific hand written notes on these
documents.

Berger was destroying the proof that the Clinton administration knew what a
danger Osama Bin Laden was and that they turned down an attempt to hand him
over to us.

On Apr 18, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Berger was destroying the proof that the Clinton administration knew what a
danger Osama Bin Laden was and that they turned down an attempt to hand him
over to us.

Yet another "Clinton did it first" argument.

Bret