http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
that I changed all that much.




----== 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
...


Socky does a danse macabre.

And being enamored of the horrid Dubya, Cheney, Rice, et al. And for
embracing their fascist agendas in the social, fiscal, and religious
arenas. And for your heartlessness towards society's underclass. Etc.
etc. etc.

First of all, the Bush agenda is not at all Fascist.

You have to face reality at some point. Their agendas (plural, note)
are quite fascist. (Also note the correct lowercase spelling, as
opposed to your uncalled-for false capitalization, which refers
specifically to a certain Fascist party that is not of our era.)

The Bushies, in the form of Ashcroft, have taken wild and destructive
swings at the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Personal
freedoms are threatened by their police-state policies. How is that
not fascistic?


It is merely conservative. The libs are just as anvious
to trash the Bill of Rights to further their gun control
and 'secularism as a religion' agendas. And let's
not forget anti-free speech codes on campus


Dubya himself wants the government to institutionalize his own
religion as the official state religion, contrary to the express and
hallowed precept of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Again,
personal freedoms are threatened in the name of a state-sponsored
agenda. How is that not fascistic?


Making Christianoity the official
State religion is not on the agenda.

Cheney and the circle-jerk of corporate lackeys who shape the fiscal
policy have endeavored to line the pockets of people who are already
too wealthy. The tactics they use are coercive and discriminatory. How
is that not fascistic?


If proven, that would fall under the ususal category of corruption, which
knows no party boundaries

Dubya has, for the second time, appointed extremist judges to the
federal bench while the Senate is in recess. This sneaky, slimy
behavior undercuts the spirit of the Constitution in favor of an
extreme ideological agenda. How is that not fascistic?


Thay are not all that extreme. Of course, to you, anyone
to the right of Ginsburg is a fascist.


I agree with some,
but not much of their social agenda, a lot of their fiscal agenda,
and hardly any of their religious agenda. As far as my feelings
towards the underclass, I wish them all the best fortune in their
efforts to rise to the middle and upper class.

As we've suspected, you're lying to yourself.

Don't be an idiot. I don't hate poor people. I want them
to be more well off. My parents grew up poor. My
grandparents were poor immigrants. Success is the
American Dream, and I want as many of the poor
to be able to experience it as is possible.


Anybody who opposes your positions on those matters deserves
your vitriolic[sic]. So tell me about all the 'love' on the left!
Bunch of hatemongers, most of them.

If you say so, Captain Heartless.


I favor public programs that offer education and opportunity
rather than gifts, benefits, and handouts, which serve to perpetuate
helplessness. I favor public education, school vouchers,
libraries, small business loans, public transportation,
paratransportation for the disabled, head start, and various
programs for the elderly. I suppose that qualifies me
for a promotion to Major Heartless.

You can't favor such programs at the same time you support an
administration that is doing away with them.


They support some, and don't support others. My support of
the administration covers lots of issues. I don't agree
with them on all issues, but I find the Democratic agenda
to much more dangerous.

This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

You are such a slob.


Since my former tenant, who is gay, moved out,
my house has become such a mess.




----== 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
news


Socky joins with the Terrierdork in emulating duh-Mikey.

Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.

I hope you don't mean people on RAO by "they". You deserve the vitriol
because of the statements you post.


Oh dear God, yes. Anybody that might be to the right of center, must be
dealt with. What would happen to the world you love if people chose to be
other than Liberal?

You must not discuss their ideas on the merits. They must be cursed and
derided. Nmaes must called. They can't be human. Can they?

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng, is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.



You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give it
to those who don't?

It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with less
government.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather
than
that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this
ng,
is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It
has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.



You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give
it
to those who don't?

It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with less
government.

The resident tele-tubbies weighed in, tipping the scales with their obtuse
stupidity, and sure enough, their tag-team bug-eater predictably contributes
his indeterminate drivel to the babble or the rabble. The maroon brigade
sinks itself once again in its pussheap of inanity.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.


Why do you take this so personally? I don't want to throw
insults at you, but I don't want to recieve any of yours, 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 =---

"ScottW" said:

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

Would you please leave me out of this, kind Sir?
I'm neither senile nor liberal.
Well, maybe only a little

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

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


Socky said:

Why do you take this so personally? I don't want to throw
insults at you, but I don't want to recieve any of yours, either.

Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.


To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
hate mongering. Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
a hate monger. Anyone opposed to the liberal
agenda is a hate mongerer. ANyone supporting Bush is
a hate mongerer. And you still can't see why I am
so disillusioned with the left.




----== 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


Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.

If you could only live by those words, Middius.

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


Socky said:

Why do you take this so personally? I don't want to throw
insults at you, but I don't want to recieve any of yours, either.

Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.

George speaks from experience.

ScottW

"Sandman" wrote in message
...


You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

The love from the left. How sweet it is.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

You mean like when I used geographical facts to point out the flaws
in your assessment of the state of the invasion.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.

Then why do you toss it around inappropriately so frequently?

ScottW

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


Socky takes to outright lying.

Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.

To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
hate mongering.

That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?

Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
a hate monger.

That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an idiot
as well as a bigot.

More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a sham. He
voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.

To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he bashes gays
and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection Clause
of federal and state constitutions.

I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his "weakness", or
"condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as he
must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when I
first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when I
inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same mistake
once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love between
two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes, you'd
really know what getting lost going around and around in circles really
means.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php



I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.

Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.

From webster
neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

ScottW


Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather
than
that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone
but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this
ng,
is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It
has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.



You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give
it
to those who don't?

It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with
less
government.

The resident tele-tubbies weighed in, tipping the scales with their obtuse
stupidity, and sure enough, their tag-team bug-eater predictably
contributes
his indeterminate drivel to the babble or the rabble. The maroon brigade
sinks itself once again in its pussheap of inanity.


Non-response to the points acknowledged.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

Dubya himself wants the government to institutionalize his own
religion as the official state religion, contrary to the express and
hallowed precept of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Again,
personal freedoms are threatened in the name of a state-sponsored
agenda. How is that not fascistic?

Making Christianoity the official
State religion is not on the agenda.

It does not go unnoticed that your head of state believes he is doing
the work of God. The religious clap-trap permeates throughout policy
making, from foreign affairs (Axis of "evil") to sex education.


The concept of good vs evil goes way beyond the bounds
of Christianity.




----== 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
...



So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only President
in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?


Seems that my memory is better than yours.




----== 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 =---

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only President
in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?

Seems that my memory is better than yours.

Aren't you going to explain why or how?


I thought it 'self evident'
The cold war and WWII
were matters of good vs evil.
It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.




----== 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 =---

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only
President
in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?

Seems that my memory is better than yours.

Aren't you going to explain why or how?

I thought it 'self evident'
The cold war and WWII
were matters of good vs evil.
It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.

Name the president who..

"declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who also declared a
"Crusade" to slay the evildoers?"

Then we can look up the quotes.


First let's dispel the myth that Bush declared war at all.
Now, lets go to the fact that Reagan verbally
expressed the cold war in terms of good and evil,
as Bush has done about the war on terror.
If you want to get 'technical', so will I.
The nut of the matter is that Bush verbally
framed the conflict as good vs evil, Reagan verbally
framed the cold war as good vs. evil. I think that
'Kennedy did, and I would not be surprised if Johnson
and Truman said the equivalent. I don't know the exact
uttereances of Roosevvelt, but everyone here took
it as a struggle between good vs evil.




----== 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:

So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only
President
in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?

Seems that my memory is better than yours.

Aren't you going to explain why or how?


I thought it 'self evident'

I know what self-evident means, but I don't know what 'self-evident'
means. Perhaps you can explain that distinction to begin with.

The cold war and WWII
were matters of good vs evil.
It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.

You might explain how the Soviet Union viewed the USA. I'm sure your
take on it is ..... unanticipated, let's say.


I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..




----== 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
...


Der Sockfuehrer hat gesacht:

I thought it 'self evident'

I know what self-evident means, but I don't know what 'self-evident'
means. Perhaps you can explain that distinction to begin with.

Unable to answer the question?


It's a silly question


The cold war and WWII
were matters of good vs evil.
It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.

You might explain how the Soviet Union viewed the USA. I'm sure your
take on it is ..... unanticipated, let's say.


I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Now you're pretending to be as dumb as Mikey. How sad.


Then give me your answer to the question.
Don't expect me to guess what your answer is.




----== 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
...


Socky goes into hiding.

First let's dispel the myth that Bush declared war at all.

So that's it. You've committed yourself.

We are fighting undeclared wars. Congress declares war.




----== 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 =---

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that was
us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation? People
don't starve in other non-communist countries?


and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working class
under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?

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


I was alerted to this post by somebody whose stomach is stronger than
mine. I'm un-KFing you, Sanders, because Socky is making such a
spectacle of himself, and there's no such thing as too big a bonfire
when it's time to burn a witch.

Socky takes to outright lying.

Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You
shouldn't
throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.

To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
hate mongering.

That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?

Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
a hate monger.

That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an idiot
as well as a bigot.

More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a sham.
He
voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.

To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he bashes
gays
and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection
Clause
of federal and state constitutions.

I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his "weakness",
or
"condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as he
must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when I
first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when I
inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same
mistake
once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love
between
two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes, you'd
really know what getting lost going around and around in circles really
means.


So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
hetero form. Hallelujah.

I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)

Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
plain sight.

Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.

In view of your insight about Sacky's "slippery dodging", and in view of his
evasions and obfuscations on this and numerous other issues, I should amend
my above statement as follows: "I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes,
you'd know how tortuously long it takes to get thoroughly lost going around
and around in circles walking backwards, amidst seemingly endless
side-stepping."

I think what's happening in Massachusetts and San Francisco is fantastic,
and *about time*. It looks like what started as a protest is going to be
turning into a nationwide movement. And kudos to those Superior Court
judges in S.F. that just kicked those right-wing religious fanatics' arses
into late March.

And to think it all began when an obscure Governor of a small State took the
first brave step in pushing through a conservative legislature the country's
first "civil union" law. Remember, it was just a few decades ago that
statutes across this country prohibited inter-racial marriages. Isn't it
about time Americans woke up to the fact that the gay population has always
been here, is not going away, and as American citizens are entitled to *all*
of the rights the U.S. and State Constitutions guarantee to *all* American
citizens?

So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living down
the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands? Is he jealous?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that
was
us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation?
People
don't starve in other non-communist countries?


Come on, we are talking about all the atrocities under Lenin and Stalin.
People were treated as slaves of the state. Forced labor
Forced relocations, breakup of families, forced starvations.

If you wish to make a moral equivalency between the US, and
Russia (under Communism), I can't cure the blind.



and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
class
under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom
and
standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?

The issue at hand is good vs evil and the Cold War.
But, for wahtever it is worth, the Tsars sucked too.

Standard of living isn't the issue, either.
Good vs Evil.
I know just thinking about it might cause discomfort
in some people.




----== 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 =---

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
forgetful.

It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to be
criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals* into prison
camps where they are worked to death.

I thought that was us up until the civil war.

That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of the 20th
century.

Death? Did capitalism cure death?

Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during the
first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went something
like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs". Again, this shows how
incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how forgetful. Do
Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I suspect not!

Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation is not
the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the effects of
naturally-caused famines, but in the past century capitalist countries have
pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of government-policy-induced famines
seen in North Korea, USSR, China, etc.

and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
class under communism?

In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in the
standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse increases in
worker productivity that somehow took place despite state mismanagement of
the economy. The issue was called "Guns versus butter"

Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and standard of
living when the Czars ruled Russia?

From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in the
standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US vastly outpaced
increases in the standard of living in the USSR. Communism, if anything
increased this disparity.

I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian who was
working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended up living in one
of the nastier public housing projects in downtown Detroit, which was so bad
that it was subsequently dynamited. He received his undergraduate degree
from the University of Moscow, as I recall. He said that his Detroit housing
situation was vastly superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist
party members in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty
aspects, but it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other refinements that
were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even among their equivalent of
the middle class.

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that
was
us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation?
People
don't starve in other non-communist countries?


Come on, we are talking about all the atrocities under Lenin and Stalin.
People were treated as slaves of the state. Forced labor
Forced relocations, breakup of families, forced starvations.

If you wish to make a moral equivalency between the US, and
Russia (under Communism), I can't cure the blind.

Where did I make any such moral equivalency? We certainly were guilty of having
slavery. I don't think the Soviet Union was guilty of such. More people were
starving in Russia before communism than after. I am not defending communism
but I am not going to attack it with propaganda. I am not going to deny facts
that don't jive with my political ideals.



and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
class
under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom
and
standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?

The issue at hand is good vs evil and the Cold War.
But, for wahtever it is worth, the Tsars sucked too.

You cannot simply trust a country out of the context of it's own history. The
Russian people did not turn communist becuase they decided it was time to be
evil.


Standard of living isn't the issue, either.
Good vs Evil.
I know just thinking about it might cause discomfort
in some people.

It does cause me tremendous discomfort when people decide that their political
or economic ideologies boil down to good vs. evil rather than a difference of
opinion. Communism vs. capitalism was not a struggle of good versus evil. It
was a struggle between economic systems. It seems that capitalism works better
in many ways and seems to be prefered by most people. That would include
myself. But it isn't about good vs. evil. It is about finding the economic
system that best serves the needs and desires of the people.

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
forgetful.

It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to be
criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals* into prison
camps where they are worked to death.


Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and political
oppression.



I thought that was us up until the civil war.

That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of the 20th
century.


Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the average price
of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?


Death? Did capitalism cure death?

Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during the
first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went something
like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs". Again, this shows how
incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how forgetful. Do
Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I suspect not!


Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and communism? Thanks
for proving you didn't understand the point. The ability to understand and
solve problems is covered on the Mensa test. The test you are afraid to take.


Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation is not
the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the effects of
naturally-caused famines, but in the past century capitalist countries have
pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of government-policy-induced famines
seen in North Korea, USSR, China, etc.


Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more people
starve in Russia before or after communism?


and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
class under communism?

In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in the
standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse increases in
worker productivity that somehow took place despite state mismanagement of
the economy. The issue was called "Guns versus butter"


Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually makes sense.
In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own sentence.


Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and standard of
living when the Czars ruled Russia?

From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in the
standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US vastly outpaced
increases in the standard of living in the USSR. Communism, if anything
increased this disparity.


Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back and review
specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a hint, capitalism wasn't
included in my comparisons.



I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian who was
working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended up living in one
of the nastier public housing projects in downtown Detroit, which was so bad
that it was subsequently dynamited. He received his undergraduate degree
from the University of Moscow, as I recall. He said that his Detroit housing
situation was vastly superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist
party members in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty
aspects, but it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other refinements that
were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even among their equivalent of
the middle class.










His was one opinion. I am sure that most people prefer our system to that of
the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe you should get
back to us when you can figure out what is being said in the thread. Here is
yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts did I say communism was better
than capitalism. That should be a good enough anyone including an idiot such as
yourself. How about the Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
forgetful.

It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to
be criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals*
into prison camps where they are worked to death.

Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and
political oppression.

Tell that to every historian and writer who called this particular
implementation of political oppression "slavery".

I thought that was us up until the civil war.

That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of
the 20th century.

Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the
average price of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?

There is no such place as twentieth centry USSR.

Please explain the meaning of "price" in a Communist society.

Death? Did capitalism cure death?

Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during
the first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went
something like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs".
Again, this shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet
wheel. Or how forgetful. Do Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I
suspect not!

Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point.

Thanks for discrediting yourself, sockpuppet wheel.

The
ability to understand and solve problems is covered on the Mensa
test. The test you are afraid to take.

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation
is not the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the
effects of naturally-caused famines, but in the past century
capitalist countries have pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of
government-policy-induced famines seen in North Korea, USSR, China,
etc.


Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more
people starve in Russia before or after communism?

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian
working class under communism?

In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in
the standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse
increases in worker productivity that somehow took place despite
state mismanagement of the economy. The issue was called "Guns
versus butter"

Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually
makes sense. In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own
sentence.

Unlike you sockpuppet wheel, I don't have any mean time. However, it is
clear that you revel in your mean time.

Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
standard of
living when the Czars ruled Russia?

From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in
the standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US
vastly outpaced increases in the standard of living in the USSR.
Communism, if anything increased this disparity.

Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back
and review specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a
hint, capitalism wasn't included in my comparisons.

I'm quite sure that you di not compare anything, sockpuppet wheel.

You obviously can't remember what you wrote, even when it is presented in
the previous paragraph. You explicitly mentioned the American level of
freedom and standard of living.

Oh, I get it sockpuppet, you don't think that we practice capitalism in the
US.

How novel!

How wrong!

I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian
who was working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended
up living in one of the nastier public housing projects in downtown
Detroit, which was so bad that it was subsequently dynamited. He
received his undergraduate degree from the University of Moscow, as
I recall. He said that his Detroit housing situation was vastly
superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist party members
in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty aspects, but
it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other
refinements that were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even
among their equivalent of the middle class.

His was one opinion.

It was based on personal experience. Tell us about your personal experiences
with living in the USSR, sockpuppet wheel. Given how little you're willing
to admit about your pathetic life here in the US, that will be quite
entertaining!

I am sure that most people prefer our system to
that of the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe
you should get back to us when you can figure out what is being said
in the thread.

It's true that "I think I'm without fault and my opinions are
unquestionable" is being said between the lines by you in this thread,
sockpuppet wheel. What's new?

Here is yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts
did I say communism was better than capitalism.

I still haven't said that, so take this straw man argument of yours and put
it with the rest of them, sockpuppet wheel.

That should be a good
enough anyone including an idiot such as yourself. How about the
Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?

Never was chicken about Mensa tests. Unlike you, I've always had more
productive things to do. It's quite clear that your allegedly high Mensa IQ
test score is the one accomplishment in your miserable life of failure that
you're willing to discuss.

"Sandman" wrote in message ...

So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living down
the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands?

There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?

And don't try to deny the horrors of abuse the other children will
heap upon these poor kids. It will happen and there isn't a damn
thing you idealistic liberals can do about it. Is it right? No. Is it
real? Yes.

Gay unions, fine. Adoption? No, Not yet. Perhaps foster care is a
better trial run at gay parenting.

ScottW

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
*else* for that matter).

There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?


The fatc that it is a stigma is IMO a problem with those who make it so. This
is an unfortunate issue when people adopt children of another race. One could
ask the question of Muslims given the common dislike for Muslims. I think the
answer is simple. Fear of prejudice should have no bearing on the issue.


And don't try to deny the horrors of abuse the other children will
heap upon these poor kids.

People who commit such horrors of abuse are the real problem and they are the
one who should be punished for creating such horrors.

It will happen and there isn't a damn
thing you idealistic liberals can do about it. Is it right? No. Is it
real? Yes.

Yes, people do bad things but there is something that can be done about it.
Hate crimes can be addressed by the justice system as well as any other crime.
People do get away with crimes but that is not a reason to give up on fighting
it nor is it a reason to run and hide under a rock.



Gay unions, fine. Adoption? No, Not yet. Perhaps foster care is a
better trial run at gay parenting.


Because of fear of prejudice? I think not.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

888Wheel" wrote in message


Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
*else* for that matter).

Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
"bevavior" that I am noting here.

Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
his sloppy writing.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:38:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

888Wheel" wrote in message


Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
*else* for that matter).

Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
"bevavior" that I am noting here.

Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
his sloppy writing.

I see. It was your "capitol" idea, right?

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
forgetful.

It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to
be criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals*
into prison camps where they are worked to death.

Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and
political oppression.

Tell that to every historian and writer who called this particular
implementation of political oppression "slavery".


Cite them, prove they said this and give me their e mail address and I will.


I thought that was us up until the civil war.

That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of
the 20th century.

Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the
average price of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?

There is no such place as twentieth centry USSR.


Failure to answer the question noted. Given the fact that you have claimed that
nitpicking over typos is an admission of defeat I accept your admission of
defeat on this matter.



Please explain the meaning of "price" in a Communist society.


Thanks for admitting you don't understand simple words dip****. Or are you
simply so ignorant that you believe there was no monetary system in the USSR
and people didn't pay for goods with money?


Death? Did capitalism cure death?

Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during
the first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went
something like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs".
Again, this shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet
wheel. Or how forgetful. Do Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I
suspect not!

Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.


Thanks for admitting defeat again.


Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point.

Thanks for discrediting yourself, sockpuppet wheel.


Projecting again I see.



The
ability to understand and solve problems is covered on the Mensa
test. The test you are afraid to take.

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

You have admitted it by your standards of admission. Of course you can always
prove me wrong and take the test and publish the results. Yoy can prove you
aren't a coward with a substantial bet on top of it. You are chicken.



Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation
is not the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the
effects of naturally-caused famines, but in the past century
capitalist countries have pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of
government-policy-induced famines seen in North Korea, USSR, China,
etc.


Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more
people starve in Russia before or after communism?

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

No, I said it dip****. Your inability to understand what I said is noted. Look
where I said *my point* and see if you can figure out what the **** is going on
in this thread.



and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian
working class under communism?

In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in
the standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse
increases in worker productivity that somehow took place despite
state mismanagement of the economy. The issue was called "Guns
versus butter"

Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually
makes sense. In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own
sentence.

Unlike you sockpuppet wheel, I don't have any mean time. However, it is
clear that you revel in your mean time.

Guess you can't repost your car wreck of a sentence in proper English. Figures.



Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
standard of
living when the Czars ruled Russia?

From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in
the standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US
vastly outpaced increases in the standard of living in the USSR.
Communism, if anything increased this disparity.

Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back
and review specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a
hint, capitalism wasn't included in my comparisons.

I'm quite sure that you di not compare anything, sockpuppet wheel.


Thanks for yet another admission of defeat.


You obviously can't remember what you wrote, even when it is presented in
the previous paragraph. You explicitly mentioned the American level of
freedom and standard of living.

Thanks for showing just what an idiot you are Arny. I guess yo can't remember
what I wrote or the context in which I wrote it. I was clearly pointing out
that when looking at communist Russia one has to consider where they came from.
the comparison was between communist Russia and russia under the rule of the
Czars. Duh.



Oh, I get it sockpuppet, you don't think that we practice capitalism in the
US.

Obviously you don't get it. No wonder you avoid the Mensa test like the plague.


How novel!

How wrong!

Indeed your misrepresentations of my positions are, as usual, quite wrong.



I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian
who was working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended
up living in one of the nastier public housing projects in downtown
Detroit, which was so bad that it was subsequently dynamited. He
received his undergraduate degree from the University of Moscow, as
I recall. He said that his Detroit housing situation was vastly
superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist party members
in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty aspects, but
it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other
refinements that were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even
among their equivalent of the middle class.

His was one opinion.


It was based on personal experience.

I never said it wasn't dip****.

Tell us about your personal experiences
with living in the USSR, sockpuppet wheel.

I never lived there. I did however spend a lot of time in communist
Czechoslavakia. I spent a lot of time talking to the people who lived there all
their lives. You have talke d to one guy eho lived through it and I have talke
dot many. That is perhaps why I know opinions vary and you don't.


Given how little you're willing
to admit about your pathetic life here in the US, that will be quite
entertaining!


You are easily entertained by your sociopathic fantasies about the lives of
others. That is probably due to your bitterness over having lived such an
unextraordinary life of underachievement and failure to excel at anything. You
live what little life you have on the internet. Sad.



I am sure that most people prefer our system to
that of the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe
you should get back to us when you can figure out what is being said
in the thread.

It's true that "I think I'm without fault and my opinions are
unquestionable" is being said between the lines by you in this thread,
sockpuppet wheel. What's new?

I told you to get back to us when you can figure out what is being said in the
thread. Your failure to follow instructions is noted. Of course how can I
expect you to follow instructions when it is clear you cannot even understand
them.


Here is yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts
did I say communism was better than capitalism.




I still haven't said that, so take this straw man argument of yours and put
it with the rest of them, sockpuppet wheel.


So who are you agruing with when you make points about the superiority of
capitalism over communism? Are you hearing voices as you read my posts?


That should be a good
enough anyone including an idiot such as yourself. How about the
Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?

Never was chicken about Mensa tests.

Sure you were and you still are. Put up or stut up. What say we put a bet on
the results to make it more interesting. Say $500.00? Chicken?


Unlike you, I've always had more
productive things to do.

Like 90,000 posts on Usenet? LOL

It's quite clear that your allegedly high Mensa IQ
test score is the one accomplishment in your miserable life of failure that
you're willing to discuss.

What score did I allege? You are amazingly stupid. You might want to talk about
your projections of a miserable life of failuere with Dr. Richman. He might be
willing to give you some free counciling. Arny we know what a miserable life of
underachievement you have lived. I'm sorry you feel compelled to make up such
fantasies about me to feel better about yourself.

Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
*else* for that matter).

Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
"bevavior" that I am noting here.

Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
his sloppy writing.









Arny is "definately" quite a "characture."

For today's class, let us analyze the below:

From:

While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?


Let's change one word and expose this thinking (sic) for what is:

"While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an *inter-racial*
couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"

Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed

Professor Midnite

ScottW wrote:

While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?

Replace mixed racial or religous marriage and subtract 50 years and
you get the exact same question.

Professor Midnite wrote:

"While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an *inter-racial*
couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"

Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed

Amen

All that really matters is that you have a parent(or two or an extended
family or sometihng simmilar - the more the better, of course) that
loves and cares for the child more than they do for themselves.

Most gay or lesbian couples get around this by having a child
themselves - either giving birth to or getting a surrogate to
help out. Then there's no legal problems.