| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: "Clyde Slick" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:05:45 -0500 Turn on your sarcasm detector  Sorry, it was adjusted for Shhh! Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*? Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously. Its a detector, moron. I had to set it to detect as little as .00001 microns to find any humor from you. Its still scanning. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:27:47 -0500 Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*? Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously. Its a detector, moron. I had to set it to detect as little as .00001 microns to find any humor from you. Its still scanning. How can you possibly joke around at a time like this? We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL! |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: "Clyde Slick" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:27:47 -0500 Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*? Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously. Its a detector, moron. I had to set it to detect as little as .00001 microns to find any humor from you. Its still scanning. How can you possibly joke around at a time like this? We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL! Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head down? Good insight. For a change. You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your part that no matter how reasonable and logical Mr. Atkinson is, he's never going to get anywhere with you, that you're never going to admit error or even clarify the assertions he demands you clarify. Is this correct, because that's how your post reads? |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:32:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:46:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman and George Middius as they made vile personal attacks of various kinds on me. So you think that George Middius needs the encouragement of a third party to make vile personal attacks on you? If you can't figure out the difference between that and what I just said Paul, then you are really too stupid to bother with at all. I see your sense of humour is as sharp as ever, Arnie. |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head down? Good insight. For a change. You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your part that no matter how reasonable and logical Mr. Atkinson is, he's never going to get anywhere with you, that you're never going to admit error or even clarify the assertions he demands you clarify. Atkinson's biggest problem is Atkinson, not me. Is this correct, because that's how your post reads? It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. I guess you've pre-qualified yourself. |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:47:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head down? Good insight. For a change. You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your part that no matter how reasonable and logical Mr. Atkinson is, he's never going to get anywhere with you, that you're never going to admit error or even clarify the assertions he demands you clarify. Atkinson's biggest problem is Atkinson, not me. Er........no. Is this correct, because that's how your post reads? It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. I guess you've pre-qualified yourself. A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how intelligent I am. :-) |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
paul packer said: It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how intelligent I am. :-) Sounds entertaining. Be a natty bloke and cross-post some of that exchange. |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:20:13 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how intelligent I am. :-) Sounds entertaining. Be a natty bloke and cross-post some of that exchange. You don't know where aus.hi-fi is, George? |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Wed, Feb 8 2006 7:05 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" How can you possibly joke around at a time like this? We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL! Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight. Typical conservative. Stifling dissent at any cost, including death. I, for example, do not hope that you die. I'm just hoping that you grow some brains. Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Wed, Feb 8 2006 7:05 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" How can you possibly joke around at a time like this? We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL! Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight. Typical conservative. Stifling dissent at any cost, including death. I, for example, do not hope that you die. I'm just hoping that you grow some brains. Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
Clyde Slick said: Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages. |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
Clyde Slick said: Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages. Huh? Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages. It wasn't an issue when he was running. Really?! http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040224-2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...lections/2004/ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3A9LLVI1.DTL Enough facts for you? |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages. Huh? Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages. It wasn't an issue when he was running. Really?! http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040224-2.html one spech 9 months before the election, ho hum http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...lections/2004/ irrelevant to the subject http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3A9LLVI1.DTL opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. Enough facts for you? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. What does this mean when it's correctly spelt? |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. What does this mean when it's correctly spelt? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. What does this mean when it's correctly spelt? One of your balls has just been cut off. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: paul packer
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 6:25 pm Email: (paul packer) opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. What does this mean when it's correctly spelt? It means the text converter was broken again during Rush's radio broadcast so that slick couldn't see how it was spelled. You can always tell someone who is brainlessly quoting what they heard Rush say because they used tired old phrases like 'feminazi,' 'tree-hugging environmentalist whacko,' 'eco-terrorist,' and so on. Don't you have brainless neocon fascist radio broadcasts in Oz? |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: paul packer Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 6:25 pm Email: (paul packer) opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi. What does this mean when it's correctly spelt? It means the text converter was broken again during Rush's radio broadcast so that slick couldn't see how it was spelled. You can always tell someone who is brainlessly quoting what they heard Rush say because they used tired old phrases like 'feminazi,' 'tree-hugging environmentalist whacko,' 'eco-terrorist,' and so on. Don't you have brainless neocon fascist radio broadcasts in Oz? Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:22 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately. It's OK. Once you're brainwashed, you only need freshening up once in a while. |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:22 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately. It's OK. Once you're brainwashed, you only need freshening up once in a while. You deprogramming efforts are in a sorry state. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 11:38 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" You deprogramming efforts are in a sorry state. But I like you just as you are. I'd never dream of deprogramming you. You're kind of like the court jester. You make an ass of yourself and we all get to laugh at you. |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:02 am Email: "Clyde Slick" Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. You're not if you voted for bushie. |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:02 am Email: "Clyde Slick" Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. You're not if you voted for bushie. That is complete bull****, and you know it. You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions. You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests .. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. You're not if you voted for bushie. That is complete bull****, and you know it. Sorry, it's reality and not bull****. You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions. Go back and read what I wrote a couple of days ago. Even nob agreed with it. It is logical. It is true. You cannot argue your way around it, no matter how hard you huff and puff. If you supported bushie, you supported banning stem cell research whether or not you personally agree with that ban. Apparently it wasn't important enough to you for you to vote otherwise. You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests I alluded to no such thing. You've missed the point again, Mr. One Dimension. Go back and reread what I wrote (not that I think you'll get it this time either...). |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't likely though. Huh? I'm in favor of it. You're not if you voted for bushie. That is complete bull****, and you know it. Sorry, it's reality and not bull****. You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions. Go back and read what I wrote a couple of days ago. Even nob agreed with it. It is logical. It is true. You cannot argue your way around it, no matter how hard you huff and puff. If you supported bushie, you supported banning stem cell research whether or not you personally agree with that ban. Apparently it wasn't important enough to you for you to vote otherwise. You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests I alluded to no such thing. You've missed the point again, Mr. One Dimension. Go back and reread what I wrote (not that I think you'll get it this time either...). you are the one making one dimensional claims. Voting for a candidate is NOT the same as supporting all og his positions. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 7:28 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" you are the one making one dimensional claims. Nope. Take a course in logic sometime. It will (perhaps) make you appear less stupid. Voting for a candidate is NOT the same as supporting all og his positions. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. (My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.) |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 7:28 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" you are the one making one dimensional claims. Nope. Take a course in logic sometime. It will (perhaps) make you appear less stupid. Voting for a candidate is NOT the same as supporting all og his positions. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign. The ballot says NOTHING about positions It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. I don't support anything I do not agree with. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten paychecks for doing that, you supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)
I love it when I'm right. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign. The ballot says NOTHING about positions God, but you're a dumb one. It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. I don't support anything I do not agree with. Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten paychecks for doing that, you supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not. LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary. Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really stupid right now. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... (My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.) I love it when I'm right. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign. The ballot says NOTHING about positions God, but you're a dumb one. It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. I don't support anything I do not agree with. Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten paychecks for doing that, you supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not. LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary. Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really stupid right now. You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research. It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO. So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell research. ScottW |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... (My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.) I love it when I'm right. So jerking off is your thing, I'm not one to criticize you for it. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign. The ballot says NOTHING about positions God, but you're a dumb one. It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. I don't support anything I do not agree with. Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten paychecks for doing that, you supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not. LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary. No, I don't live in Baltimore, where the Dems pay for votes. Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really stupid right now. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"ScottW" wrote in message news:ioxIf.119888$0G.98455@dukeread10... "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... (My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.) I love it when I'm right. When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for his positions on..." I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign. The ballot says NOTHING about positions God, but you're a dumb one. It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to you to alter your voting behavior. I don't support anything I do not agree with. Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell research, whether you meant to or not. By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten paychecks for doing that, you supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not. LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary. Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really stupid right now. You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research. It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO. So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell research. ScottW you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush supports all his positions. He claims to have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not "support" it. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO. It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after all, cater to his pro-life base. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-1.html So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell research. It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate. You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support. By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of their positions. You do not have to agree with all of their positions, but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions. In voting for bushie, someone may think, "stronger military, less taxes, pro-business, conservative Supreme Court" and agree with AND support those positions. You also get drilling in the ANRW, pro-life, support of ID in public schools, banned stem cell research, lowered seperation of church-state separation, and everything else that bushie stands for. In supporting the candidate, you have supported those positions, even though you may disagree with them. When you vote for a candidate, for example, Arny, you are not just voting for Arny. You are also voting for what he stands for. All of it. That does not mean that you agree with all of it. But you cannot separate them out. Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true. |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 10:14 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush supports all his positions. He claims to have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not "support" it. I don't really care if you believe that I spent 21 years in the military or not. I have the 20-year letter, and I am in the Retired Reserve. I have not paraded as a "peacenik" but given your limited understanding of the English language it does not surprise me that you might think so. I have been deployed as a part of the 'war' on terror. I support rooting out terrorists. I do not support illegal activities in its name. That puts us on a lower level, a hypocritical level, that we are better than. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use in fighting terrorists. Simply because you're too obtuse to get a point does not mean that the point isn't valid. Now go to bed, junior. You're looking pretty stupid again. |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you. Support: To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. You supported bushie. Therefore, you supported his policies. All of them. Agree: To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on that. Our views on the election agree. You *supported* bushie and therefore his policies. You don't *agree* with all of bushie's policies. Are you really this stupid? It's not a hard concept. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research. It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO. It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after all, cater to his pro-life base. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-1.html So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell research. It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate. Yes, one votes for a candidate, but not necessarily supoorts all of his positions. I voted for Bush, I also voted for Sen. Mikulski. Many of their positions are as diffrerent as night and day. Which ones did I support or not support? You tell me. Mikulski if for stem cell research, Bush is against it. Looks like YOU are the one dimensional man. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Clyde Slick Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 10:14 pm Email: "Clyde Slick" you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush supports all his positions. He claims to have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not "support" it. I don't really care if you believe that I spent 21 years in the military or not. I have the 20-year letter, and I am in the Retired Reserve. I have not paraded as a "peacenik" but given your limited understanding of the English language it does not surprise me that you might think so. I have been deployed as a part of the 'war' on terror. I support rooting out terrorists. hehe, not if you voted for Kerry. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it. no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you. Support: To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. You supported bushie. Therefore, you supported his policies. All of them. Agree: To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on that. Our views on the election agree. You *supported* bushie and therefore his policies. You don't *agree* with all of bushie's policies. I didn't support him, I voted for him. I also voted for other candidates with vastly different positions. Its not that simple and one dimensional as your thinking. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 10:56 am Email: "Clyde Slick" I didn't support him, I voted for him. LOL! I also voted for other candidates with vastly different positions. Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them? Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter than you. |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research. It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO. It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after all, cater to his pro-life base. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-1.html You're only talking about restricting federal funding. Still not a ban. Private funded research can do what it wants. So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell research. It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate. You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support. Sure I do, and I tell them often when I don't agree with their positions. By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of their positions. Thats silly... thats like claiming if I buy an album then I must like all the songs. You do not have to agree with all of their positions, but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions. Not at all... I can lobby against their positions... I can petition against their positions. In voting for bushie, someone may think, "stronger military, less taxes, pro-business, conservative Supreme Court" and agree with AND support those positions. You also get drilling in the ANRW, pro-life, support of ID in public schools, banned stem cell research, lowered seperation of church-state separation, and everything else that bushie stands for. In supporting the candidate, you have supported those positions, even though you may disagree with them. When you vote for a candidate, for example, Arny, you are not just voting for Arny. You are also voting for what he stands for. All of it. That does not mean that you agree with all of it. But you cannot separate them out. Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true. Its unrealistic, simplistic, myopic and absurd. Therefore it's false. ScottW |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Question Mikey is Afraid to Answer | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
