[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?

I'm sure the "official" ****uplican propaganda lays the blame for this problem
on the "liberals". But I'd like to hear you folks rationalize it anyway.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:
Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something


Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?


A valid and necessary use of tax money.
Only governments can provide road networks.
However,having one class of citizenry totally support the lives and
lifestyles
of another class of citizenry is not necessary.
But providing opportunities such as education is worthwhile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?

A valid and necessary use of tax money.
Only governments can provide road networks.
However,having one class of citizenry totally support the lives and
lifestyles
of another class of citizenry is not necessary.
But providing opportunities such as education is worthwhile

There's a lot less "supporting" going on than you think.

This is a republican bogeyman.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

Apparently Sacky believes whatever falls out of Witless's slobbering maw.

Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?

A valid and necessary use of tax money.
Only governments can provide road networks.
However,having one class of citizenry totally support the lives and
lifestyles
of another class of citizenry is not necessary.
But providing opportunities such as education is worthwhile

There's a lot less "supporting" going on than you think.
This is a republican bogeyman.

That doesn't mean the ****uplicans aren't entitled to be afraid of it. If they
restricted their afraiding to what is real and measurable, they'd be
petitioning Alaska to have Sarah Pailin' deported to Russia.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?

A valid and necessary use of tax money.
Only governments can provide road networks.
However,having one class of citizenry totally support the lives and
lifestyles
of another class of citizenry is not necessary.
But providing opportunities such as education is worthwhile

There's a lot less "supporting" going on than you think.


THen that outside income of AFDC adults constitutes welfare fraud.


This is a republican bogeyman.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?


probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 6, 11:17*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

Now here's the conundrum: Has it crossed any of your tiny little minds that
the sad condition of America's transportation infrastructure is the direct
result of underfunded governments? You scrimp and save to buy the nicest car
you can find, then you have to drive it over crumbling roads and bridges.
Tires, suspensions, windshields, steering systems, and even sheet metal pay
the price. Is this a good tradeoff? How about all the time spent idling in
traffic jams because of emergency repair work?

A valid and necessary use of tax money.
Only governments can provide road networks.
However,having one class of citizenry totally support the lives and
lifestyles
of another class of citizenry is not necessary.
But providing opportunities such as education is worthwhile

There's a lot less "supporting" going on than you think.

THen that outside income of AFDC adults constitutes welfare fraud.

Nice try.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 6, 11:19*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 6, 11:22*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

2pid is a moron nonpareil and Clyde recently has been running a close
second.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Set, 00:22, George M. Middius wrote:
Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

Basically, you know who his employer is and generally waht he does.
the best i can figure out about you is that you walk the gate areas of
the airport,
pretending to be blind.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 2:43*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 7 Set, 00:22, George M. Middius wrote:

Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something..

Basically, you know who his employer is and generally waht he does.
the best i can figure out about you is that you walk the gate areas of
the airport,
pretending to be blind.

So have I ever served, Clyde?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Set, 04:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:43*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 7 Set, 00:22, George M. Middius wrote:

Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

Basically, you know who his employer is and generally waht he does.
the best i can figure out about you is that you walk the gate areas of
the airport,
pretending to be blind.

So have I ever served, Clyde?



not at my table.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Sacky duhed:

Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

Basically, you know who his employer is and generally waht he does.

Do I? I've speculated he works at Qualcomm based on faint hints he's dropped.
Are you confirming my guess? If so, this is the first direct confirmation from
anybody. However, it didn't come from Witless himself, so my statement stands.

And if you think I know what he does, even generally, you're tripping again. I
am quite certain he doesn't work in sales, marketing, documentation, tech
support, or any other department that requires adequate communication skills.
Other than that, I have no idea.

the best i can figure out about you is that you walk the gate areas of
the airport,
pretending to be blind.

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Set, 07:44, George M. Middius wrote:
Sacky duhed:

Sacky pouts and whines.

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?
probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

duh-Scottie never tells us about his "work" either. All he does is complain
when we don't find out by using a detective or mindreading or something.

Basically, you know who his employer is and generally waht he does.

Do I? I've speculated he works at Qualcomm based on faint hints he's dropped.
Are you confirming my guess? If so, this is the first direct confirmation from
anybody. However, it didn't come from Witless himself, so my statement stands.

And if you think I know what he does, even generally, you're tripping again. I
am quite certain he doesn't work in sales, marketing, documentation, tech
support, or any other department that requires adequate communication skills.
Other than that, I have no idea.

the best i can figure out about you is that you walk the gate areas of
the airport,
pretending to be blind.

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

My guess is that George is a major in a US Army field artillery
unit, and that he resigned and then reinrolled when Obama was elected,
so
that he could try to politicize his unit.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 10:29*am, ScottW2 wrote:

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?

That's very nice of you, 2pid, but you'll only get credit in heaven.
LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 11:41*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 7 Set, 07:44, George M. Middius wrote:

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

My guess is that George is a major in a US Army field artillery
unit, and that he resigned and then reinrolled when Obama was elected,
so
that he could try to politicize his unit.

And if you were paying any attention at all you'd know the opposite is
true.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?
That's very nice of you, 2pid, but you'll only get credit in heaven.
LoL.

Scottie's posts should come with a warning sign: "Beware of mental quicksand."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

My guess is that George is a major in a US Army field artillery
unit, and that he resigned and then reinrolled[sic] when Obama was elected,
that he could try to politicize his unit.

And if you were paying any attention at all you'd know the opposite is
true.

Sacky probably believes you're a professional writer.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 2:53*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

My guess is that George is a major in a US Army field artillery
unit, and that he resigned and then reinrolled[sic] when Obama was elected,
that he could try to politicize his unit.

And if you were paying any attention at all you'd know the opposite is
true.

Sacky probably believes you're a professional writer.

Is it just coincidence that two of RAO's biggest dunces cannot write?
I don't think Clyde is as jealous of good writing as 2pid is though.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

If that's your idea of "figuring", I'd like to hear your attempt at wild
guesses based on zero facts.

My guess is that George is a major in a US Army field artillery
unit, and that he resigned and then reinrolled[sic] when Obama was elected,
that he could try to politicize his unit.

And if you were paying any attention at all you'd know the opposite is
true.

Sacky probably believes you're a professional writer.

Is it just coincidence that two of RAO's biggest dunces cannot write?
I don't think Clyde is as jealous of good writing as 2pid is though.

The Ferstlerian once said he is probably the best writer on all of Usenet. We
had to wake everybody up to laugh him out the door.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless tries to herd some imaginary sheep into his private black hole of
illogic.

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?

I pay exactly what my accountant says I owe, but it's way
more than my fair share.

WARNING! Quicksand!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless's late-summer yapdown gathers momentum.

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?
That's very nice of you, 2pid, but you'll only get credit in heaven.
LoL.

Scottie's posts should come with a warning sign: "Beware of mental quicksand."

George doesn't like to know he isn't carrying his weight.

Have you noticed that nobody has asked you to explain your moronic claim? Why
do you think that is?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

woof! yapyapyap! grrr...

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?
That's very nice of you, 2pid, but you'll only get credit in heaven.
LoL.

Scottie's posts should come with a warning sign: "Beware of mental quicksand."

George doesn't like to know he isn't carrying his weight.

Have you noticed that nobody has asked you to explain your moronic claim? Why
do you think that is?

Because I've explained it to you before. You were a load on society
then, your probably gonna be banned from resuscitation with Obamacare
in the near future.

So the only reason you made your fatuous claim is to entice me to reply? How
many "debating trade" points did you "earn" today, Witless?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 7:23*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:27*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:29*am, ScottW2 wrote:

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?

*I pay exactly what my accountant says I owe, but it's way
more than my fair share.

Oh, that's right. You've claimed your "fair share" is "gov't spending
divided by the number in the population" or some such horse****.

LOL! Once an imbecile always an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 7:52*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Witless tries to herd some imaginary sheep into his private black hole of
illogic.

*But I do pay more than my
fair share of taxes. *Do you?

Oh, so you pay more than your accountant says you should?

*I pay exactly what my accountant says I owe, but it's way
more than my fair share.

WARNING! Quicksand!

Nah, just 2pid's run-of-the-mill imbecility.

[UnsteadyKen]

George M. Middius said...

WARNING! Quicksand!

Where?

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

UnsteadyKen said:

WARNING! Quicksand!

Where?

Well done!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 10:32*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:21*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

* It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

LMAO!

2pid, was that why you never served? Because you couldn't "be
considered"? LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

* It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

Witlessmongrel's incisive intellect informs him that ideological purity is
the primary qualification for a man or woman under arms. Military
training, leadership ability, and all the other buzzwords you soldier
types like to drop are just smoke. What's important in Witlessmongrel's
enlightened dimension is the willingness to dispense with time-wasting
verification of facts and pointless exercises in logic. Our superior
armaments mean we are right about everything, and our enemies -- both
declared and potential -- must pay the price for our investments.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 7, 10:44*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

* It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

Witlessmongrel's incisive intellect informs him that ideological purity is
the primary qualification for a man or woman under arms. Military
training, leadership ability, and all the other buzzwords you soldier
types like to drop are just smoke. What's important in Witlessmongrel's
enlightened dimension is the willingness to dispense with time-wasting
verification of facts and pointless exercises in logic. Our superior
armaments mean we are right about everything, and our enemies -- both
declared and potential -- must pay the price for our investments.

Oh, so what 2pid wants is a political commissar. Why does he insist on
trying to oppress my differing POVs? LoL.

The political commissar held military rank equaling that of the unit
commander to whom he was attached, moreover, the commissar also had
the military authority to countermand the unit commander’s orders when
required.

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

In looking at this I can see why 2pid would like it. You get to make
decisions based on politics and not tactical or strategic need. For
someone with no training or experience in either that would be ideal.
As another bonus the commissars were "ideologically stable". LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 11:42*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32*am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

* It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

*When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 1:44*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:24*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42*am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32*am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41*am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

* It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

*When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

*I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist

BZZZZZT. What a simp.

Yoiu still need to look up "socialist" before you wet yourself in
public...again. LoL.

is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.

Alternatively, not being so set in concrete that you "stay the course"
when a party stops representing what you believe in. That could be
considered a good thing (by someone with a brain).

No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

So being stable is something people accuse one another of.

'Brilliant'. (Which is something nobody will accuse you of being,
2pid.) LoL.

[UnsteadyKen]

George M. Middius said...

Well done!

Woohoo! A reply from foreign parts.

IP block circumvented I hope.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

UnsteadyKen said:

Well done!

Woohoo! A reply from foreign parts.
IP block circumvented I hope.

I understand your words, but your meaning is elusive.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Sep 8, 1:44�pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:24�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42�am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32�am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41�am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

� It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

�When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

�I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are disillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true only illuminates your real reason for being here...to
argue like a petulant child.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 8:40*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:05*pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:





On Sep 8, 1:44 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41 am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are disillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true

LoL. *It's barfs of nonsense like this which reveal the depth of your
fruadulence.
*While many conservatives, myself included, oppose many republican
initiatives, particularly under bush, virtually none of them
became socialist sheep.
Is it really so hard or simply too depressing to just be yourself?

Define "socialist".

You really don't know what the word means. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 9:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:40*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:05*pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Sep 8, 1:44 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41 am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are disillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true

LoL. *It's barfs of nonsense like this which reveal the depth of your
fruadulence.
*While many conservatives, myself included, oppose many republican
initiatives, particularly under bush, virtually none of them
became socialist sheep.
Is it really so hard or simply too depressing to just be yourself?

Define "socialist".

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
of production and distribution of goods (or services)
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
goods and pay according to work done

I added (or services).

Perfect!

Now apply those definitions to me.

Uh-oh! It doesn't work! Now what?

[vinyl anachronist]

On Sep 8, 8:40�pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:05�pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:





On Sep 8, 1:44 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41 am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are disillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true

LoL. �It's barfs of nonsense like this which reveal the depth of your
fruadulence.
�While many conservatives, myself included, oppose many republican
initiatives, particularly under bush, virtually none of them
became socialist sheep.
Is it really so hard or simply too depressing to just be yourself?

I really wish there was some substance to the things you say. If you
think hundreds of thousands of conservatives weren't disillusioned
with the Bush administration, you're ****ing high.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 9:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:32*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:11*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 7:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:40*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:05*pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Sep 8, 1:44 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:55 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:21 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:41 am, George M. Middius wrote:

Here's a question that may discombobulate some of you republican loyalists.

It's well known that your highest priority for government is that taxes be
lowered. You believe that having money in your pocket is the highest form of
freedom known to man. You folks loathe taxation because so much of YOUR money
goes to pay for welfare for THEM.

THEM means "you"

If you were ever to rise to the taxpaying class
you might finally understand something

Is George one of the dreaded welfare class?

probably
he never tells us about his 'work"
what is it, selling pencils at the airport?

I've told you about mine.

You and 2pid prefer to whine that
I've never served" because...

I'm actually uncertain as to the why, but threre it is.

It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are disillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true

LoL. *It's barfs of nonsense like this which reveal the depth of your
fruadulence.
*While many conservatives, myself included, oppose many republican
initiatives, particularly under bush, virtually none of them
became socialist sheep.
Is it really so hard or simply too depressing to just be yourself?

Define "socialist".

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
of production and distribution of goods (or services)
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
goods and pay according to work done

I added (or services).

Perfect!

Now apply those definitions to me.

*You oppose the government option for Obamacare? Yes or No.

No.

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Do you 'think' we're getting our money's worth spending over 16% of
the world's largest economy on healthcare? (I already know that 2pid
will answer "yes", so I won't ask. Smart people know the correct
answer including some republicans even. LoL.)

Do you believe that our spending over 16% of our GDP on healthcare
puts us at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis those nations spending
10% or less? Yes or no.

*Do you oppose gov't ownership of GM? *Yes or No.

Yes.

Uh-oh! It doesn't work! Now what?

See above.

Indeed, see above.

Words have meanings, 2pid (a concept that you'll never get). There
are, and alwys will be aspects of the US that lean socialist. Even if
one supports those aspect with their entire being they aren't
"socialists".

What a ****ing numbskull.

BTW, how do you like the US gov't building a car plant in China?

Is the labor there cheaper? LoL.