"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.

Sandman wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:


Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his

politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.


I approve that !

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.

And you are also known to everyone as a consistent liar.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.
Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.
Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.



IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they
claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want some
time to speak at their convention and you will not see them.

As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the country,
only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's
money.

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to
grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more conservative.
If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be either
very good or very scary.

Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from
power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative approach
over a liberal one every time.

I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE, The
Education Department, and the EPA.

As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a bit.
Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states.

I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem attacks
soon to follow.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke.
Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites
like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.
Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.



IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they
claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want
some
time to speak at their convention and you will not see them.


Yeah, but it cuts the opposite way for the Reps. Just a week or two ago,
there was a big venting against Specter for being pro life. They siad he
shouldn't be running the Judiciary commitee because of that.

As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the country,
only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's
money.


Mostly, yes, but from time to time, the rep's do that with subsidies and tax
breaks for corps or industries.

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.


He is more in tune with the cons, look at pro life, tax cutting
as examples.



When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to
grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more
conservative.
If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be
either
very good or very scary.


A veto proof Senate is a dream, anyway, "at least"' for now.
only 1/3 are up for election.


Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP
from
power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative
approach
over a liberal one every time.


an antiabortion ruling would be scary. Its too late to try
and put that genie back in the bottle.


I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE, The
Education Department, and the EPA.

As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a
bit.
Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states.


There needs to be a national concensus and policy on those issues.
I have no problem with there being an EPA. Its the rules that are the
problem.

I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem
attacks
soon to follow.


Nah, you put up a more and reasoned and intelligent post, than usual.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist "at least" one dig!)




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil"
wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke.
Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites
like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows
where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.
Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party. And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.



IMO, one of the sad things about the current Democrat party is that they
claim to be pro-choice but let someone who happens to be pro life want
some
time to speak at their convention and you will not see them.


Yeah, but it cuts the opposite way for the Reps. Just a week or two ago,
there was a big venting against Specter for being pro life. They siad he
shouldn't be running the Judiciary commitee because of that.

I missed that, who was venting?

As to fiscal policy, they have no desire to do what works for the
country,
only what works at getting votes, namely more handouts of other people's
money.


Mostly, yes, but from time to time, the rep's do that with subsidies and
tax
breaks for corps or industries.


I don't think companies should be paying any taxes, since they just mean
higher prices. I've never thought subsidies are good idea.

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.


He is more in tune with the cons, look at pro life, tax cutting
as examples.

The vast majority of the GOP believe in tax cutting. Most are pro-life
AFAIK.


When he gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues to
grow government the way he has been, or if he will become more
conservative.
If he gets a veto proof Senate as I think he's likely to, it might be
either
very good or very scary.


A veto proof Senate is a dream, anyway, "at least"' for now.
only 1/3 are up for election.


Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP
from
power in the future. For fiscal policy, I take a real conservative
approach
over a liberal one every time.


an antiabortion ruling would be scary. Its too late to try
and put that genie back in the bottle.

It would just throw it back to the states but the Dems would jump on it with
both feet and the GOP would likely suffer massively.


I can rememember when they were talking about getting rid of the DOE,
The
Education Department, and the EPA.

As far as I'm concerned they could go and the country wouldn't suffer a
bit.
Nothing they do that can't be handled by the states.


There needs to be a national concensus and policy on those issues.

Why? The energy sopurces we have are in abundant supply. There are people
workiong on alternatioves but there really is no need for a replacement.
The future will be fusion engines, but not for a long time.

I have no problem with there being an EPA. Its the rules that are the
problem.

My problem is that the regulation is capricious and uneven.

People in their own states are the best at finding who's polluting what and
where.


I will now be getting ready for the torrent of flames and ad hominem
attacks
soon to follow.


Nah, you put up a more and reasoned and intelligent post, than usual.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist "at least" one dig!)

Of course you could, you chose not to.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.

Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from
power in the future.

There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently
anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here.

On 28 Nov 2003 23:16:03 -0800, (Jacob Kramer) wrote:

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.

Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP from
power in the future.

There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently
anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here.

Sure, they're anti-choice, and if the GOP could snap their fingers and
magically do away with abortion, they probably would. But actually
going through the process of getting Roe v Wade overturned is a bigger
commitment than I think they're willing to make. The GOP would
forever be known as the people that got rid of the right to choose,
and that would risk alienating the large number of people that vote
Republican, but are pro-choice. I don't think they're willing to take
that chance.

Scott Gardner

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On 28 Nov 2003 23:16:03 -0800, (Jacob Kramer) wrote:

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.

Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v
Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP
from
power in the future.

There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently
anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here.

Sure, they're anti-choice, and if the GOP could snap their fingers and
magically do away with abortion, they probably would. But actually
going through the process of getting Roe v Wade overturned is a bigger
commitment than I think they're willing to make. The GOP would
forever be known as the people that got rid of the right to choose,
and that would risk alienating the large number of people that vote
Republican, but are pro-choice. I don't think they're willing to take
that chance.


Anti-abortin laws, and their enforcement, would make prohition look like a
cakewalk through an ice cream factory. It would be ugly and devisive.
We can't be throwing women and doctors into jail over this. We have better
things to do with law enforcement resources.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...

Anti-abortin laws, and their enforcement, would make prohition look like a
cakewalk through an ice cream factory. It would be ugly and devisive.
We can't be throwing women and doctors into jail over this. We have better
things to do with law enforcement resources.

What is your basis for thinking this? Before Roe v. Wade,
anti-abortion laws at the state level were in fact legal, and would be
again if the 5-4 balance of the Supreme Court were changed by the
addition of a single pro-life Supreme Court justice.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.


You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan??




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.


You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan??

Yes. Domestically, Bush proposed privatization of Social Security,
the largest federal program, while Reagan increased Social Security
taxes in what was the largest tax increase in American history until
that time. Bush also has partially privatized Medicare. There was
nothing comparable to the 1100 page Patiot Act under Reagan. Reagan
also appointed Anthony Kennedy, who wrote one of the most important
decisions for gay rights, Romer v. Evans, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who
has consistently supported Roe v. Wade. Reagan did favor prayer in
schools, but Bush has proposed diverting public school money to
parochial schools, and public support of other religious institutions
through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Their tax cuts have
been similar, although Bush's are larger.

The unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for sheer scale, is
without parallel in American history since James Polk invaded Mexico.
Reagan did mount a lot of covert operations, but the ideological
embrace of American global superiority based on military power, as
embodied in the 2002 National Security Strategy, has no precedent at
any time in U.S. history. Reagan also negotiated a number of
international arms control agreements and generally stressed
negotiation, while Bush has unilaterally withdrawn from many
treaties--the ABM treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC--and been
contemptuous of diplomacy, the UN, and other countries.

Reagan was very conservative, but Bush is even more conservative,
although he portrays himself as a moderate, while Reagan didn't. To
find someone comparable to Bush, I think you really have to go back to
William McKinley. Even Harding and Coolidge were isolationists.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to
a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.


You are saying he is more conservtive than Reagan??

Yes. Domestically, Bush proposed privatization of Social Security,

It needs to be done soon.

the largest federal program, while Reagan increased Social Security
taxes in what was the largest tax increase in American history until
that time. Bush also has partially privatized Medicare.

And stolen another issue from the Dems. You need to understand that if they
don't get privatized they are going to bankrupt us.

There was
nothing comparable to the 1100 page Patiot Act under Reagan.

It's all been done before under FDR.

Reagan
also appointed Anthony Kennedy, who wrote one of the most important
decisions for gay rights, Romer v. Evans, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who
has consistently supported Roe v. Wade.

Nobody ever knows how a Supreme Court Justice will vote.

Reagan did favor prayer in
schools, but Bush has proposed diverting public school money to
parochial schools, and public support of other religious institutions
through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

Because he wants the money to go where it works best. The teachers unions
don't want any change because they know they will suffer by comparison.

Their tax cuts have
been similar, although Bush's are larger.

Only as a total number of dollars. As a % they are tiny.


The unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for sheer scale, is
without parallel in American history since James Polk invaded Mexico.

It was not unprovked, or unilateral.

Reagan did mount a lot of covert operations, but the ideological
embrace of American global superiority based on military power, as
embodied in the 2002 National Security Strategy, has no precedent at
any time in U.S. history.

Your forgetiing Clinton.

Reagan also negotiated a number of
international arms control agreements and generally stressed
negotiation, while Bush has unilaterally withdrawn from many
treaties--the ABM treaty,

Because there was no more USSR with whom the treaty was made. The Kyoto
accord has nothing to do with Bush, the Senate rejected it.

the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC--and been
contemptuous of diplomacy, the UN, and other countries.


because the UN has become totally impotent.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

I don't quite get why they hate Bush so much, he's really closer to a
conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.

This is a truly incredible statement. Bush is the most right-wing
president in over 100 years.

Nonsense, Reagan was more to the right.

Certainly scary would be a Supreme court that might overturn Roe v Wade,
although I doubt that would happen since it would probably keep teh GOP
from
power in the future.

There is no reason to think this. The GOP has been consistently
anti-choice for 20 years. You are engaging in wishful thinking here.

No, I'm considering political reality.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke. Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.

If you were true to the principles you espouse on RAO you would have
registered as a Republican. As a "registered Democrat" you voted for George
Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush vehemently opposes all the liberal
social issues you have claimed to support. And every political post you put
up on RAO is straight out of the PNAC neo-con textbook of BS phraseology.
And you will undoubtedly vote for Bush again in 2004.

Can we spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party.

As in Adlai Stevenson and JFK?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You call people like me (and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few)
who ARE true to the "traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the
late 50's and early 60's Democratic party" *radical libs*. ROTFLMAO!
Hypocrisy gone wild!

And you wonder why you've lost all credibility?

The fact is: your political posts are indisinguishable from Duh-Mikey's, a
confessed extremist right-winger. Even that moron holds the moral ground
over you, however: he makes no pretense to be anything other than the idiot
behind the idiocy he espouses.

And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.

Translation: "I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way... bah, bah, bah."

Perhaps you should place a call to Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan,
Ahnold Gropinator, or Jerry Falwell. I'm sure any of those dumbed-down
confused crytpo-fascists would be more than happy to offer you a shoulder to
cry on.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke.
Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites
like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.

If you were true to the principles you espouse on RAO you would have
registered as a Republican. As a "registered Democrat" you voted for
George
Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush vehemently opposes all the
liberal
social issues you have claimed to support. And every political post you
put
up on RAO is straight out of the PNAC neo-con textbook of BS phraseology.
And you will undoubtedly vote for Bush again in 2004.

Can we spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?


Why don't you just throw out every Democrat who
voted for Bush, while youare at it.Youshould also enfoce a liberal
'purity' test, and remove those who are not liberal enopugh for
tastes. Gee, after yoiu get in power, why not enslave
them all in a Gulag?
Now everyone can see why I have problems with ultra lib
type democrats. I grew up in the love generation
all I see from you guys is mean spirited hatred.
it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some
mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake.



Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party.

As in Adlai Stevenson and JFK?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You call people like me (and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, just to name a
few)
who ARE true to the "traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the
late 50's and early 60's Democratic party" *radical libs*. ROTFLMAO!
Hypocrisy gone wild!

And you wonder why you've lost all credibility?

The fact is: your political posts are indisinguishable from Duh-Mikey's, a
confessed extremist right-winger. Even that moron holds the moral ground
over you, however: he makes no pretense to be anything other than the
idiot
behind the idiocy he espouses.


Youare not reading correctly, I disagree with him as much as you.


And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.

Translation: "I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way... bah, bah,
bah."

Perhaps you should place a call to Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Pat
Buchanan,
Ahnold Gropinator, or Jerry Falwell. I'm sure any of those dumbed-down
confused crytpo-fascists would be more than happy to offer you a shoulder
to
cry on.

And if they would, they offer me more kindness than you do.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some
mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake.

I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected
representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come
close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and
thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is
worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned
themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the
republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to
force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the
Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence.

So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and
not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the
White Men's Christian Republic.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some
mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake.

I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected
representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come
close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and
thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is
worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned
themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the
republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to
force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the
Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence.

So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and
not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the
White Men's Christian Republic.


I am talking more about popular commentators, like Krugman and Michael
Moore, and of course, folks like Sanders, who was once a friend of mine. The
pols are professionals for the most part, on both sides, and work with some
degree of civilty with each oterh.

I wouldn't lump Falwell, Robertson, Savage, and such with con pols like
Hatch, Grassley and Fritch, either.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

it was the cons that once had all the hate. yes, they have some
mean spirit to them, but you guys take the cake.

I hope you're talking about ordinary citizens and not about elected
representatives and party hacks. No party in recent history has come
close to today's republicans in terms of hatred, intolerance, and
thought control. In fact, I'd go so far as to say today's GOP is
worse than the Democrats of the Old South (the ones who aligned
themselves behind slavery). Name an issue, and you'll find the
republicans trying to oppress part of the populace, or trying to
force their hidebound morality on everyone in contravention of the
Constitution, or inciting their thug contingent to violence.

So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and
not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the
White Men's Christian Republic.

For once I agree with the Middiot, except for the characterization that I'm
one of the "people...who run thier mouths". That phrase would better
describe the Middiot-Krooborg wars.

Sandbrain is still smarting from that horrible betrayal by SockY.

So do say you meant people like Sanders who run their mouths, and
not "leaders" who want to turn back the clock to the days of the
White Men's Christian Republic.

For once I agree with the Middiot, except for the characterization that I'm
one of the "people...who run thier mouths". That phrase would better
describe the Middiot-Krooborg wars.

How's the trust fund, Mr. Armchair Liberal Lousy Lawyer?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:01 GMT, "Phil" wrote:

Reading Paul Krugman on civility is like reading Al Franken on
humor.

I think that Al Franken is hilarious. And so is P J O'Rourke.
Taken
together they offer a good spectrum of political thought...

Al Franken is, or "at least" was, a very funny guy. I despise his
politics.

As does every good crypto-fascist neo-con PNAC'er, even hypocrites
like
you
who pretend to be regestered Democrats. At least everyone knows where
Duh-Mikey stands. He's a consistent idiot.



Pretend?

I just got my new voter reg card. It says Democrat.

If you were true to the principles you espouse on RAO you would have
registered as a Republican. As a "registered Democrat" you voted for
George
Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush vehemently opposes all the
liberal
social issues you have claimed to support. And every political post you
put
up on RAO is straight out of the PNAC neo-con textbook of BS phraseology.
And you will undoubtedly vote for Bush again in 2004.

Can we spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Why would I pretend? I buy into the traditional, but
sorely abandoned, principles of the late 50's, early 60's
Democratic party.

As in Adlai Stevenson and JFK?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You call people like me (and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, just to name a
few)
who ARE true to the "traditional, but sorely abandoned, principles of the
late 50's and early 60's Democratic party" *radical libs*. ROTFLMAO!
Hypocrisy gone wild!

And you wonder why you've lost all credibility?

The fact is: your political posts are indisinguishable from Duh-Mikey's, a
confessed extremist right-winger.

Right winger? You're an idiot. I'm a registered Libertarian. I support Gay
marriage, legalizing drugs, abortion rights, equal rights and other so
called leftist policies.



Even that moron holds the moral ground
over you, however: he makes no pretense to be anything other than the
idiot
behind the idiocy he espouses.

Apparently you don't either. You won't be happy until we become Socialist.

And I haven't bought into Republican
agenda. Just cause I happen to question the sacred cows
of modern liberalism, doesn't mean I am a so called crypto-fascist
Comservative. My politics is probably not too far away from
Schwartzenneger's. It's sad, I don't feel welcome in either
party.

Translation: "I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way... bah, bah,
bah."

Perhaps you should place a call to Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Pat
Buchanan,
Ahnold Gropinator, or Jerry Falwell. I'm sure any of those dumbed-down
confused crytpo-fascists would be more than happy to offer you a shoulder
to
cry on.