[Eeyore]

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/trans...ion/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 17, 9:09 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups, or are you
in a minority of one?

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

Wow. If that was the case, I'd have written the poll like this:

If the government could do just one thing, which would you prefer?

1. Remove your scrotum or nipples with acid and a wire brush
2. Invest in public transportation

Or

If the government could do just one thing, which would you prefer?

1. Raise your taxes by 30% to cover damage to the environment
2. Invest in public transportation

Being very conservative, I'm sure you do not know which one to choose
now.

Of course, it is always possible that they expected the result that
they got, which they then used as an opportunity to explain why they
feel that is the wrong choice.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

Or, as perhaps another possibility, which you can also assume, people
will usually vote for whatever selfishly benefits them immediately the
most.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/trans...ion/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

**Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?

Trevor Wilson

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups

You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.

'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
either.

Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.

Clearly

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/trans...ion/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

**Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?

Why do you think the majority of visitors to the FoE site are ignorant people
? It sounds pretty unlikely to me. Most won't even know who they are.


Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 17, 10:37 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups

You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.

Yes, I did, You made it sound like they were totalitarians, with
secret cabinets, brown-shirted secret police and so on. Other groups
might imply there is a groundswell of opposition. Are the "greens" the
only game in town? Or are you the lone donkey, braying opposition in
the wilderness?

'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
either.

You were talking about what political parties are doing. Christ, but
you're an emotional one. Calm down, have some tea. Maybe you should
have a crumpet too. I prefer strumpets.

Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.

What I'm wondering is why you're so worked up about it. There are
fringe groups here too, concerning all sorts of things from far right
to far left. So you have a continuum there from "Actively fight AGW
using any means" to "do nothing, AGW is not an issue" to "stop air
travel and all technology and go to an agrarian civilization like
there was in the sixteenth century". I do not know the UK as far as
where these groups fall in the continuum.

I fail to see what the big deal is. Your population will decide for
itself what it's willing to do. If your labour or conservative parties
do politically unpopular things, they will lose their power. If you're
in the minority, then too bad. In our case here, we Dems were in the
majority in 2000 and *still* had to put up with bushie and his cabal.
Most people I talk to here either want to do more concerning AGW or
they are not paying attention and don't care one way or the other. If
your population feels like you do, then there's nothing to worry
about.

Clearly

You jump to a lot of conclusions.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/trans...ion/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

**Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?

Why do you think the majority of visitors to the FoE site are ignorant
people
?

**Non-sequitur. READ what I wrote.

It sounds pretty unlikely to me. Most won't even know who they are.


Trevor Wilson

[Fella]

You would know about "own goal"s.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Dec, 05:09, Eeyore
wrote:
I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..


public transportation 'only goes so far.'

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..


public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 12:45 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Eeyore
wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups

You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.

'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
either.

Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.

Bingo.

Look, 2pid! you found another friend!

Um, guys, I really hate to be a bother and all, but you see, to many
people words do have meanings. The funny thing is on a forum like RAO
that's all you get to see. No voice inflections, no body language, no
eye contact. All you get are the words that the poster chooseo to use
to make their point.

So, for example, when the donkey says "all greens", I tend to believe
that he really means "all greens". Not "some", not "a portion
thereof", not "the greens that I don't like" and so on. And here we
see that when the donkey's words are questioned, it's "obfuscation".
And (of course) 2pid, being 2pid, agrees.

See how this works guys? Here's another example: when I got here and
when I first saw 2pid's posts, I realized that he'd been shorted in
the brains department. So I called him "stupid". Later, after having a
chance to see him in action some more, I realized that "stupid" was
not the appropriate word for him and I began using "moron". Even later
I realized that "moron" was again insufficient and began using
"imbecile".

Now if I had just jumped in with "imbecile" 2pid could have argued, "I
am not an imbecile, I am only a moron". But by carefully choosing my
words, he has not been able to argue about his imbecility.

2pid's communications dysfunctions are too numerous to even broach.
Thankfully there is no need to as they are quite obvious to everybody
on RAO.

So we have two of the weakest communicators here whining that they are
often misunderstood. Clarification equals "obfuscation". Now how does
that work?

Yes, 2pid, "Bingo".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 11:02 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
competitive price.

In another post I just mentioned how difficult it would be to get round London
without the Tube for example.

However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

I'm sure you can name some other where the opposite is true. Take Calcutta
for example, or Moscow, or New York... All of them afford commuters a
leisurely and comfortable trip. You English certainly have the worst time
of it.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

I'm sure you can name some other places where the opposite is true. Take
Calcutta for example, or Moscow, or New York... All of them afford
commuters a leisurely and comfortable trip. You English certainly have the
worst time of it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 5:07 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





Eeyore wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
competitive price.

But let me guess: you would have voted "reduce fuel taxes" instead of
"Invest in public transport".

Am I right?

In another post I just mentioned how difficult it would be to get round London
without the Tube for example.

I never needed a car in Rome. either.

However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.

I don't believe it is a universal panacea either. I also do not claim
to know the infrastructure in the UK. I will say it is vastly
underdeveloped here in the US in most cities. It's far more efficient
as far as fuel and pollution. Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
this.

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

I used to live in Boston. I drove to work exactly once. my first day
there. After that it was worth the $35/month for a pass (at that time,
it may be $150 now, and it would still be worth it), sardine or not.

I admit it: I think we should turn back the clock here in many
instances by investing in more public transport, more city-to-city
rail links on busy routes, and more shipping via rail instead of
"lorrie". Not as a *substitute* in all cases though. For example, if I
go to Chicago from here it's about a six-hour drive. It's very nearly
a wash even though the flight time is less than an hour once you
factor in parking, arriving early to meet TSA rquirements, checking
bags, picking up bags, arranging for transportation there, etc. And
it's cheaper. I'd love a good rail link.

We have "sane" lanes on our freeways here. You cannot use them if you
are driving alone during rush hour. Carpools and motorcycles can use
them, or individuals can buy a transmitter and charge it to an account
if they use these lanes. A one-way trip can cost $8 during peak times,
plus they have to buy the transmitter. Like a tax, it's just a way to
try to get people to alter the choices they make, or to alter their
behavior. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
competitive price.

But let me guess: you would have voted "reduce fuel taxes" instead of
"Invest in public transport".

Am I right?

Without more detail I don't think either is right.

1. I don't see any compellling need to reduce fuel taxes. There is an argument that high
fuel taxes are putting UK truck operators at a disadvantage with continental operators
and that probably deserves attention.

2. Government DOES invest in public transport already. I'm in favour of continuing that
at some modest level. I'm not in favour of massive hand-outs for public transport
however. There's a very compelling argument that they should be made financially
competitive first rather than encourage inefficient operation.

Currently we have this nonsense ....

"THE Government struck a secret deal with Britain’s biggest train company to double
fares on some routes as the cheapest way of reducing overcrowding.

Cheap day returns are no longer valid between 4.30pm and 7pm, forcing people to buy much
more expensive standard returns.

Fares between St Albans and London have increased from £7.90 to £14.50 for people who
want to travel home during that 2½-hour period."

That's £14.50 ( $30) for a 40 mile round trip btw.


Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.

I don't believe it is a universal panacea either.

We can agree on that then.


I also do not claim
to know the infrastructure in the UK. I will say it is vastly
underdeveloped here in the US in most cities. It's far more efficient
as far as fuel and pollution.

Only when utilisation is high it has to be said. When I see full-size buses passing with
only one or two or NO passengers, all it's doing is providing a very expensive service
for those without cars mainly.


Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
this.

It depends what it's spent on.

After what seems like decades of dithering, the London 'Crossrail' link is finally being
built.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

Now that deserves investment as it'll produce important infrastructure benefits.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

I used to live in Boston. I drove to work exactly once. my first day
there. After that it was worth the $35/month for a pass (at that time,
it may be $150 now, and it would still be worth it), sardine or not.

A monthly season ticket from St Albans to London (a 20 mile journey) would appear to
cost around £230 ( $460).


I admit it: I think we should .... more shipping via rail instead of
"lorrie". Not as a *substitute* in all cases though.

Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

The other big problem with rail is that if there isn't a railhead near you, sending
goods part of the way by train may be counter-productive with all the on and offloading
between road and rail. It'll certainly be slower.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie hnawked:

Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie hnawked:

Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them. I
know for a fact that some US rail lines experience freight/passenger service conflicts too.

Worldwide, freight and passenger traffic share the same tracks.

Now tell me more about that sky you're afraid of falling on your head will you ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.

Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
rails.

know for a fact that some US rail lines experience freight/passenger service conflicts too.

Only in a few congested areas between Baltimore and Boston.

Worldwide, freight and passenger traffic share the same tracks.

You're not credible. You took your netnym from a fictional donkey, for
chrissakes.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

You're not credible.

And you are ?

Bwahahahaahhahaaa !

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brayed:

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.

Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
rails.

The US track gauge is identical to ours. Not wider at all. I see nothing about it being different
for freight here. It would be highly illogical anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge#United_States

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie joins the IKYABWAI Club.

You're not credible.

And you are ?

Scottie, Poopie, and Kroo
Crying together in the loo
"Mommy, mommy, Georgie made me cry!"
Said Mommy with her sweetest smile
"I know you are but what am I?"

[George M. Middius]

New depths of unimaginable idiocy.

words do have meanings.

More obfuscation.

Feeling sorry for yourself, Scooter? Or is that "you'reself"? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

And still aNOTHer IKYABWAI from Scottie Witlessmongrel.

New depths of unimaginable idiocy.

words do have meanings.

More obfuscation.

Feeling sorry for yourself, Scooter?

Nah, I feel sorry for you

Of course you're too much of a coward to answer my point, so you take
refuge in a babyish IKYABWAI. By now you might have notched up as many of
them as the Krooborg has, although god knows nobody wants to do an exact
count.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
...
Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
this.

Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
Word do have meaning for some people.

California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.

And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that works.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 10:06 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...

Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
this.

Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
Word do have meaning for some people.

More obfuscation. Poor 2pid! He has nothing!

(George, I actually am sorry for the IKYABWAI but I couldn't resist.)

Now, 2pid, let's talk about those "words that have meanings". You
know, like "morality".

lol Lol LoL LOL!

California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.

When I was in San Francisco, BART seemed to work well and was not
empty.

But as one "all" those greens....you think busses running around almost empty
cuz they won't get you where you need to go is a good thing.

I would imagine, based on this, that you are an advocate of public
transportation and you that are actively working to make it more
efficient near you instead of just whining. Good for you! We have no
basis for disagreement then.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 9:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...





On Dec 18, 11:02 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

Only because there will be more people.

Is that the only reason?

Good! Then that's settled!

Anybody willing to get to the bottom line of this issue?

That public transportation is necessary, that's it's more efficient,
and that it pollutes less? Sure.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

.. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 03:57, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
Poopie hnawked:

Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

that leaves us out

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 04:09, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
Poopie brayed:

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.
Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.

Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
rails.


not in the usa. guage is the same

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie joins the IKYABWAI Club.

You're not credible.

And you are ?

Scottie, Poopie, and Kroo
Crying together in the loo
"Mommy, mommy, Georgie made me cry!"

You rate your effect way too highly LOL !

You're amusing to play with for a while but the value invariably wears
off after a while.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.

Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
police matter.

Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
Whatever are we to do?

I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!

You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
anything. Thank you for pointing that out.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.

Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
be as severely educated as you're's is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:11 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.

Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
be as severely educated as you're's is.

Please do not blame me. It is not my fault. I attended an institution
of higher education and therefore have been indoctrinated into the
hypocritical liberals. When I accepted my diploma, BTW, I also signed
away my integrity.

It is these liberal institutions ("Liberal Arts"? WTF?) that are to
blame. Oh, and Mary Mapes. We can't forget that bitch.

As an aside, this just occurred to me: why do you suppose that using
the word "bitch" is not acceptable to Clyde when it is used in black
culture, yet Clyde has remained curiously and absolutely silent on the
several occasions that his good buddy 2pid has used it? Oh well. I'm
quite sure that there's a non-hypocritical reason that my lack of
integrity obscures.

One reason I can think of is that 2pid is black and Clyde's blanket
condemnation of that culture using the word "bitch" covers 2pid as
well.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 23:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.

Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
police matter.

Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
Whatever are we to do?

stop making things up.

I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!


you can vote for one with no integrity, if you choose.

You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
anything. Thank you for pointing that out.- Ascunde citatul -

they don't have the integrity to stand up
for women's rights, if it means ****ing
off other factions of the liberal alliance.