Discussion:
Tim Russert was the absolute best in the media business !
(too old to reply)
tobetbaa
2008-06-15 04:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.

What do you expect...?

http://surftofind.com/russert
P***@aol.com
2008-06-15 04:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist. Bill O'Reilly
uncovers the truth. Dan Rather got fired for NOT telling the truth.
All bias aside... look up sometime how many stories would not have
even been exposed if not for O'Reilly.
s***@comcast.net
2008-06-15 15:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.  Bill O'Reilly
uncovers the truth.  Dan Rather got fired for NOT telling the truth.
All bias aside... look up sometime how many stories would not have
even been exposed if not for O'Reilly.
Patrick, you ignorant slut.

Rather was telling the truth. President-Select Gee Dubya Bush was a
privileged scumbag who evaded Vietnam by slacking his duty to the
TXANG.

O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.

Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.

The War On Christmas?
The murderous American soldiers (murdered victims) at Malmedy?
Whether he grew up in Levittown or a Levitt house OUTSIDE Levittown?
Whether his father was a middle class accountant or a working class
accountant?
Whether he sexually harassed co-workers?
How many times he told guests to "Shut Up!"
The Peabody Awards he didn't win/Polk Awards his former show won after
he left?
P***@aol.com
2008-06-15 19:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.
Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.
Depends on your definition of credible.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Rave On!
2008-06-15 19:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.
Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.
Depends on your definition of credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Yeah, that's credible. Written by Bill for Bill's Network and filled
with Bill's opinions and conjectures and ill-fitted application of
erroneous facts and assumptions.

Ask Bill about the lies he perpetuated about Jeremey Glick (another
looney-toon) and the twisting of the Malmedy massacre into an American
massacre of German SS soldiers. Ask him about so many other
preposterous accusations that, when proven to be false, he refuses to
recant or issue an apology.

You can rave about O'Reilly. You can rant against Olbermann. You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!

Rave On!
Scott
--Midstream America, NJ--
THULL ‰
2008-06-15 20:45:15 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rave On!
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.
Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.
Depends on your definition of credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Yeah, that's credible. Written by Bill for Bill's Network and filled
with Bill's opinions and conjectures and ill-fitted application of
erroneous facts and assumptions.
Ask Bill about the lies he perpetuated about Jeremey Glick (another
looney-toon) and the twisting of the Malmedy massacre into an American
massacre of German SS soldiers. Ask him about so many other
preposterous accusations that, when proven to be false, he refuses to
recant or issue an apology.
You can rave about O'Reilly. You can rant against Olbermann. You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!
Rave On!
Scott
--Midstream America, NJ--
ROTFLMAO. Talking about credibility and Patard post an articl from FAUX
News(sic).

bwahaha
--
"How can The Replacements be the best band of the 80s when I've never
even heard of them?" - Jon Bon Jovi, Musician Magazine (10/89)
P***@aol.com
2008-06-15 23:37:30 UTC
Permalink
You can rave about O'Reilly. �You can rant against Olbermann. �You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. �But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!
We are complete and utter lunatics, yet Keith Olbermann goes on his
show every night and rants like a phsycopath about anyone he disagrees
with. The worst person in the world bit is getting a little old.
Plus he has nothing but left wing spin on his show. At least with
O'Reilly, when he thinks the right is wrong he will say so.
s***@comcast.net
2008-06-16 13:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
You can rave about O'Reilly. �You can rant against Olbermann. �You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. �But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!
We are complete and utter lunatics, yet Keith Olbermann goes on his
show every night and rants like a phsycopath about anyone he disagrees
with.  The worst person in the world bit is getting a little old.
Plus he has nothing but left wing spin on his show.  At least with
O'Reilly, when he thinks the right is wrong he will say so.
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.

He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Rave On!
2008-06-16 14:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by P***@aol.com
You can rave about O'Reilly. �You can rant against Olbermann. �You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. �But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!
We are complete and utter lunatics, yet Keith Olbermann goes on his
show every night and rants like a phsycopath about anyone he disagrees
with.  The worst person in the world bit is getting a little old.
Plus he has nothing but left wing spin on his show.  At least with
O'Reilly, when he thinks the right is wrong he will say so.
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.
He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Since when does the truth matter? Isn't it the Murdoch way to feed
the people as much shit as possible and if the people will swallow it,
then they'll eventually accept that it is true? It's worked for
Murdoch and for this administration, and it works for Limbaugh,
O'Reilly, Olbermann, Coulter, Hannity, Franken, Carville, Maher and
Scarborough. Just pitch the same line of bullshit hard enough and
long enough and eventually, the lemmings will fall for it hook, line
and sinker!

Rave On!
Scott
--Disgusted, NJ--
P***@aol.com
2008-06-17 01:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.
He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Yeah, but that is OPINION... not FACT. Just because that is what you
and Olbermann think doesn't make it so.
tobetbaa
2008-06-17 13:40:16 UTC
Permalink
The only problem with Russert's show is some of the guests who tried
to hog his broadcasts: for political reasons.

http://surftofind.com/mccain
s***@comcast.net
2008-06-17 13:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.
He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Yeah, but that is OPINION... not FACT.  Just because that is what you
and Olbermann think doesn't make it so.
Fact - Bush lied when he said his searches were pursuant to warrants.
They weren't and he knew it.

Fact - Fascism is a system where government rules in conjunction with
and for the benefit of oligarchical corporations, like Halliburton,
Enron, KBR, Exxon. Like now.

Fact - The Administration position is consistently in favor of a
Unitary Executive with unlimited Executive Privilege, not having to
answer to Congress (by subpoena) or the Courts (by habeus corpus).

Fact - Bush avoided Vietnam by shirking his duty to the TXANG, which
let him in and out in contravention of their own rules. Cheney
exercised five draft deferments. CHICKENHAWKS.

Not opinions. FACTS.
Rave On!
2008-06-17 14:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by s***@comcast.net
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.
He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Yeah, but that is OPINION... not FACT.  Just because that is what you
and Olbermann think doesn't make it so.
Fact - Bush lied when he said his searches were pursuant to warrants.
They weren't and he knew it.
Fact - Fascism is a system where government rules in conjunction with
and for the benefit of oligarchical corporations, like Halliburton,
Enron, KBR, Exxon.  Like now.
Fact - The Administration position is consistently in favor of a
Unitary Executive with unlimited Executive Privilege, not having to
answer to Congress (by subpoena) or the Courts (by habeus corpus).
Fact - Bush avoided Vietnam by shirking his duty to the TXANG, which
let him in and out in contravention of their own rules.  Cheney
exercised five draft deferments.  CHICKENHAWKS.
Not opinions.  FACTS.
Patrick will expect you to document any statement that you allude to
as a fact with at least five references from non-liberal sources. In
the event that you do provide such data, Patrick will then claim that
such is actually still only an opinion and has not been proven in a
court of law.

In the meantime, great Americans like Bob Grant get a pass for racists
remarks and attempting to incite an assault based upon racial bias.
O'Reilly gets a pass on Malmedy since it has no bearing on the fact
that O'Reilly was wrong and when questioned about it and presented
with the historical documentation that he was wrong still insisted
that he was correct.

This is how Patrick operates. Patrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER lets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. Anyone that disagrees with
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.

Rave On!
Scott
--LMFAO, NJ--
P***@aol.com
2008-06-17 18:59:34 UTC
Permalink
This is how Patrick operates. �Patrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER lets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. �Anyone that disagrees with
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.
I have news for you, nobody in RMAS or in life in general ever thinks
they are wrong. You would have to seriously lack confidence to go
through life thinking you are wrong.

The liberal philosophy is flawed by definition. The world is as
screwed up as it is because of liberals. I could list examples... but
why bother.
Rave On!
2008-06-17 19:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
This is how Patrick operates. �Patrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER lets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. �Anyone that disagrees with
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.
I have news for you, nobody in RMAS or in life in general ever thinks
they are wrong.  You would have to seriously lack confidence to go
through life thinking you are wrong.
  The liberal philosophy is flawed by definition.  The world is as
screwed up as it is because of liberals.  I could list examples... but
why bother.
News Flash!!!

There's a big difference between BEING WRONG and THINKING YOU'RE
WRONG. Anyone who thinks they are wrong may not be very strong in
their conviction but it usually has little to do with self
confidence. It's alright for the short term and normal for most of us
to experience such a feeling, but one should resolve the matter so
that they no longer THINK THEY'RE WRONG. Examples: "I think I was
wrong to buy this new SUV," or "I think I was wrong to put my money in
the stock market," or "I think I was wrong to have supported the
invasion of Afghanistan."

BEING WRONG is entirely different. It's black and white. Cut and
dried. It's phuquing FACTUAL! You ARE either right or wrong.
Examples: "I was wrong for thinking I could have a conversation with
Patrick," or "I was wrong for thinking the Giants has no chance to win
the Super Bowl last season."

As far as you listing examples to your "liberals" postulate, you're
finally RIGHT, why bother.

Rave On!
Scott
--Denial, it Ain't Just a River in Egypt, NJ--
ruthless
2008-06-17 21:51:28 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by P***@aol.com
This is how Patrick operates. =EF=BF=BDPatrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER l=
ets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. =EF=BF=BDAnyone that disagrees wi=
th
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.
I have news for you, nobody in RMAS or in life in general ever thinks
they are wrong. You would have to seriously lack confidence to go
through life thinking you are wrong.
The liberal philosophy is flawed by definition. The world is as
screwed up as it is because of liberals. I could list examples... but
why bother.
hmmm. so I probably will regret asking but Patrick....what is the "
liberal philosophy" to you? Can you explain what you mean exactly?
Denise
2008-06-18 00:57:33 UTC
Permalink
see this? LOL...


Kevin Schneider
2008-06-18 03:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denise
see this? LOL...
http://youtu.be/FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Oh, man, that is AWE....SOME.
--
--Saint Clarence
********************
"You can only be young once but you can be immature forever."
--Dave Barry
http://kschneid.livejournal.com
David
2008-06-18 01:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by THULL ‰
In article
Post by P***@aol.com
This is how Patrick operates. =EF=BF=BDPatrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER l=
ets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. =EF=BF=BDAnyone that disagrees wi=
th
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.
I have news for you, nobody in RMAS or in life in general ever thinks
they are wrong. You would have to seriously lack confidence to go
through life thinking you are wrong.
The liberal philosophy is flawed by definition. The world is as
screwed up as it is because of liberals. I could list examples... but
why bother.
hmmm. so I probably will regret asking but Patrick....what is the "
liberal philosophy" to you? Can you explain what you mean exactly?
... And why it's "flawed by definition."
--
Reply to david at habermehl dot com
ruthless
2008-06-18 13:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by THULL ‰
In article
Post by P***@aol.com
This is how Patrick operates. =EF=BF=BDPatrick is ALWAYS right and NEVER l=
ets
the truth stand in the way of that FACT. =EF=BF=BDAnyone that disagrees wi=
th
him or proves him to be incorrect is just some liberal who hates
America.
I have news for you, nobody in RMAS or in life in general ever thinks
they are wrong. You would have to seriously lack confidence to go
through life thinking you are wrong.
The liberal philosophy is flawed by definition. The world is as
screwed up as it is because of liberals. I could list examples... but
why bother.
hmmm. so I probably will regret asking but Patrick....what is the "
liberal philosophy" to you? Can you explain what you mean exactly?
... And why it's "flawed by definition."
yeah. It seems to me that one should define ones terms so at least one
knows what one is arguing about..

Patrick? Can I see the definition of liberal that you are using ? I am not
baiting you, I am asking....
Rave On!
2008-06-18 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Denise/Ruth:

This is the point that Patrick typically abandons the thread or claims
there's no point in answering. It's been his style from the get-go.

Rave On!
Scott
--Waiting on a Miracle, NJ--
Denise
2008-06-18 15:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
This is the point that Patrick typically abandons the thread or claims
there's no point in answering. �It's been his style from the get-go.
oh hell. I never pay any attention to him.
Rave On!
2008-06-23 14:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."

Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?

Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Michael Schey
2008-06-23 14:18:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."
Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?
Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Let's see is he

Livin In the Future.
Living In The Past
or perhaps his motto is.....

"Hope you don't mind if I sit this one out...."
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Robert Wiersema
2008-06-23 14:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."
Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?
Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Let's see is he
Livin In the Future.
Living In The Past
or perhaps his motto is.....
"Hope you don't mind if I sit this one out...."
Dammit, Schey, now that's 43 minutes of Tull I have to listen to!
Michael Schey
2008-06-23 14:35:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:25:46 GMT, "Robert Wiersema"
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."
Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?
Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Let's see is he
Livin In the Future.
Living In The Past
or perhaps his motto is.....
"Hope you don't mind if I sit this one out...."
Dammit, Schey, now that's 43 minutes of Tull I have to listen to!
Yeah.....but it is one of the best 43 minutes of Tull ever created.
I am now sorry I did that myself. I don't have the CD in my car and
wish I did now for my ride home this evening (which usually lasts
about 40-45 minutes).
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Robert Wiersema
2008-06-23 14:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:25:46 GMT, "Robert Wiersema"
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."
Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?
Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Let's see is he
Livin In the Future.
Living In The Past
or perhaps his motto is.....
"Hope you don't mind if I sit this one out...."
Dammit, Schey, now that's 43 minutes of Tull I have to listen to!
Yeah.....but it is one of the best 43 minutes of Tull ever created.
I am now sorry I did that myself. I don't have the CD in my car and
wish I did now for my ride home this evening (which usually lasts
about 40-45 minutes).
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
The trouble is, if I listen to TaaB, then I'm going to want to listen to
Songs from the Wood, and... And before you know it, the day is gone...
Michael Schey
2008-06-23 14:50:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:44:01 GMT, "Robert Wiersema"
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:25:46 GMT, "Robert Wiersema"
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Please define . . . "The liberal philosophy" that you claim "is flawed
by definition."
Several called you out and you disappeared. Then when reminded, you
pull the, "Oh, I'm not here 24/7" bullshit. You're right, you're not
here 24/7 and you conveniently disappear when you're confronted with
something you know you're in over your head on. I'm probably more
right than wrong on that one, aren't I?
Rave On!
Scott
--Livin' in the Real World, NJ--
Let's see is he
Livin In the Future.
Living In The Past
or perhaps his motto is.....
"Hope you don't mind if I sit this one out...."
Dammit, Schey, now that's 43 minutes of Tull I have to listen to!
Yeah.....but it is one of the best 43 minutes of Tull ever created.
I am now sorry I did that myself. I don't have the CD in my car and
wish I did now for my ride home this evening (which usually lasts
about 40-45 minutes).
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
The trouble is, if I listen to TaaB, then I'm going to want to listen to
Songs from the Wood, and... And before you know it, the day is gone...
Ah....I'll make it easy for you. Just put on Burstin' Out. It has
all you need to hear.
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
ruthless
2008-06-23 18:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
Ah....I'll make it easy for you. Just put on Burstin' Out. It has
all you need to hear.
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Does it have.. Damn, I am struggling with the title.. I think the song is
called "reasons for waiting" on it?
Michael Schey
2008-06-23 18:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruthless
Post by Michael Schey
Ah....I'll make it easy for you. Just put on Burstin' Out. It has
all you need to hear.
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Does it have.. Damn, I am struggling with the title.. I think the song is
called "reasons for waiting" on it?
don;t think so. check the Amazon listing
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
guzboyz
2008-06-24 21:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by P***@aol.com
You can rave about O'Reilly. �You can rant against Olbermann. �You can
swear up and down that Bob Grant is a great American. �But you can't
change the fact that you and the three mentioned broadcasters are
complete and utter lunatics!
We are complete and utter lunatics, yet Keith Olbermann goes on his
show every night and rants like a phsycopath about anyone he disagrees
with.  The worst person in the world bit is getting a little old.
Plus he has nothing but left wing spin on his show.  At least with
O'Reilly, when he thinks the right is wrong he will say so.
Name one UNTRUE thing Olbermann has said on his show.
He rants that the Bush Administration is filled with lying, fascist
dictatorial draft-dodging chickenhawks, and it's true.
Olbermann's problem is his act is boring. You can be many things on
TV, but boring isn't one of them.That's why his ratings are awful, not
the content (or lack thereof).
Rave On!
2008-06-24 21:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .

Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
P***@aol.com
2008-06-25 00:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
Rave On!
2008-06-25 14:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
(your statements are in quotations):

1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."


Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!


2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "


Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?


3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."


If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.


4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."


Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.


5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"


Rave On!
Scott
Michael Schey
2008-06-25 15:01:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Robert Wiersema
2008-06-25 16:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
No, it's not (all respect to JT) -- Patrick's going to dodge the
question, people are going to keep asking, and I'm going to go slowly
insane.

"Same as it ever was..."
Rave On!
2008-06-25 17:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? � I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... �You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. �You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. �I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. �"Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? �Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? �While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. �A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. �"Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. �Roe versus Wade? �Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. �And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. �"Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. �While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. �"Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? �The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? �This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. �Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. �Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. �Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. �What is your DEFINITION of �the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
No, it's not (all respect to JT) -- Patrick's going to dodge the
question, people are going to keep asking, and I'm going to go slowly
insane.
"Same as it ever was..."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Insanity is only a state of mind...

Rave On!
Scott
--Sanity, NJ--
Michael Schey
2008-06-25 17:37:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:20:50 -0700,
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
No, it's not (all respect to JT) -- Patrick's going to dodge the
question, people are going to keep asking, and I'm going to go slowly
insane.
"Same as it ever was..."
Yup, and paraphrasing another song....:"we ain't gonna get some
satisfaction".
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
FerretBill
2008-06-25 17:38:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:20:50 -0700,
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
No, it's not (all respect to JT) -- Patrick's going to dodge the
question, people are going to keep asking, and I'm going to go slowly
insane.
Slowly?
Robert Wiersema
2008-06-25 18:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:20:50 -0700,
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Michael Schey
"This is gonna be good" , so says John Tsalikes from his grave...
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
No, it's not (all respect to JT) -- Patrick's going to dodge the
question, people are going to keep asking, and I'm going to go slowly
insane.
Slowly?
Valid point.
guzboyz
2008-06-25 17:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
Answer to #5

ANYTHING that makes the poor, minorities, stupid or other feel less
than equal
P***@aol.com
2008-06-25 18:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
Michael Schey
2008-06-25 18:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
This country starting going downhill when Dodgeball was removed from
the public school gym curicculums!!!!!!
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
THULL ‰
2008-06-25 20:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
This country starting going downhill when Dodgeball was removed from
the public school gym curicculums!!!!!!
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
And lawn darts were outlawed.
--
"How can The Replacements be the best band of the 80s when I've never
even heard of them?" - Jon Bon Jovi, Musician Magazine (10/89)
Michael Schey
2008-06-25 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by THULL ‰
Post by Michael Schey
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
This country starting going downhill when Dodgeball was removed from
the public school gym curicculums!!!!!!
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
And lawn darts were outlawed.
Yeah....but lawn darts REALLY can kill people. THe worst thing to
happen to you in Dodgeball (especially as a kid) was to be taken out
by a strong girl.
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Rave On!
2008-06-25 21:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schey
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? � I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... �You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. �You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. �I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. �"Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? �Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? �While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. �A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. �"Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. �Roe versus Wade? �Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. �And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. �"Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. �While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. �"Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? �The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? �This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. �Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. �Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. �Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. �What is your DEFINITION of �the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining �or citing examples, it's a
general reference. �The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. �You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. �I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
This country starting going downhill when Dodgeball was removed from
the public school gym curicculums!!!!!!
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Michael:

Were you a zig-zagger or a ducker?

Rave On!
Scott
--Red Ball, NJ--
Michael Schey
2008-06-26 13:11:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:55:16 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
Post by Michael Schey
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... ?You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. ?You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. ?I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. ?"Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? ?Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? ?While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. ?A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. ?"Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. ?Roe versus Wade? ?Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. ?And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. ?"Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. ?While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. ?"Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? ?The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? ?This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. ?Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. ?Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. ?Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. ?What is your DEFINITION of ?the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining ?or citing examples, it's a
general reference. ?The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. ?You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. ?I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
This country starting going downhill when Dodgeball was removed from
the public school gym curicculums!!!!!!
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Were you a zig-zagger or a ducker?
Rave On!
Scott
--Red Ball, NJ--
As a kid I was real skinny, so I hid behind people.
Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Robert Wiersema
2008-06-25 18:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ? I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read... You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out. You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions. I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5. What is your DEFINITION of the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
You're hilarious, Patrick.

And I'm using 'hilarious' in the 'utterly predictable, no-backboned,
talks about things he doesn't understand' sense of the word.
Steve
2008-06-25 19:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining  or citing examples, it's a
general reference.  The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU.  You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean.  I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you>>>>>>>>>>>
You left out knowledge or is that also general reference?

Steve S.
K***@gmail.com
2008-06-25 20:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness,
That's right! I, for one, miss the days when Patrick could call
people niggers and chinks!
Post by P***@aol.com
 I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you
Yet, he somehow has the time for 50,000 posts in a newsgroup.
Rave On!
2008-06-25 21:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
Tick, tock, tick, tock . . .
Rave On!
Scott
--Patience, NJ--
Waiting for what ?   I answered your question the other day, if you
have another question.. ask it again.
I guess you can't read...  You didn't ANSWER a thing, and I'm not the
only one that pointed it out.  You were asked to DEFINE your statement
as to the definition of "liberal philosophy" and you just spouted out
a bunch of nondescript talking points and generalized opinions.  I'll
refresh you with the follow up to your attempt to evade the topic
1.  "Look at the country, look how political correctness has
destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean?  Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?  While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society.  A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2.  "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples.  Roe versus Wade?  Last time
I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in
favor
of the ruling.  And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
3.  "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence.  While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4.  "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what?  The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions?  This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant.  Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis.  Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak
(hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed.  Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror.
Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
5.  What is your DEFINITION of  the "liberal philosophy?"
Rave On!
Scott
I'm not going to waste my time difining  or citing examples, it's a
general reference.  The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU.  You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean.  I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Patrick, you're right! Political correctness sucks. You're a
phuquing asshole and I don't care how many other assholes are offended
by that statement!

You're the moron that made the statement and unfortunately, you're too
ignorant to realize what you said and too stupid to be able to
comprehend the fact that you should be responsible enough to back up
your generalizations. Alas, we're all too familiar with you and this
was just another exercise in proving how much of a total dolt you
really are.

In the words of Mark Knopfler, "When you point your finger, you got
three more fingers pointing back at you..."

I'm man enough to admit that I'm pompous, obnoxious and opinionated.
But I'm also intelligent enough to put thought into what I write and
confident enough to be able to think and speak for myself rather than
repeat or paraphrase some contrived talking point that I heard on
FoxNews.

I won't claim to speak for anyone else or claim that others agree with
me, but I bet if put to a vote, you'd see an awful lot of "dittos"
follow this post!

Rave On!
Scott
--Got That Off My Chest, NJ--
P***@aol.com
2008-06-26 00:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
I won't claim to speak for anyone else or claim that others agree with
me, but I bet if put to a vote, you'd see an awful lot of "dittos"
follow this post!
I don't care what anyone in RMAS thinks of me. My point in a
nutshell, is that if you look up liberal in the dictionary, here is
what it says :

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or
provided in a generous and openhanded way

This philosphy has created a country of deadbeats, homeless.. welfare
moochers, people know they can get away with anything... because
liberals will always be there to defend them and back them up.



I was actually kind of suprised to find this in the dictionary :

limousine liberal
Function: noun
: a wealthy political liberal
Q2
2008-06-26 02:05:49 UTC
Permalink
I was actually kind of suprised to find this in the dictionary...
I was surprised you found a dictionary and used it without assistance
(well, that's a bad assumption on both points).
And on second thought, your spelling of 'suprised' and 'philosphy'
proves not only that you don't know how to use a dictionary, but that
you're an uneducated, thoroughly stupid, brainless moron.
This philosphy has created a country of..... homeless.. welfare
moochers, people know they can get away with anything...

Yes! The conservative right wing rich republican party and it's
agenda! Exactly! Look!! You looked up Halliburton, not liberal!!

And we've done our own research, unlike you, and the conclusion is
indisputable: You're a liar, a loser, an idiot, a fool and useless,
worthless scum.
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples...
... I don't have the time or energy to do it for you."

Add 'difining' to Baldino Pedophile Boy's 2nd grade speller list.
Guess all his energy is expended trying to handle the little 'dic' in
dictionary. And add another lie to Pinocchio Pat's 4000 foot nose.
Bulbous Baldino has nothing BUT time to waste. He has no friends and
no life outside of his chosen profession of official RMAS troll.
I don't care what anyone in RMAS thinks of me.
I will repeat here what George Carlin said about the Patrick Baldino's
of the world:

"People who say they don't care what people think are usually
desperate to have people think they don't care what people think."

"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten."
colonialacres
2008-06-26 16:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q2
I was actually kind of suprised to find this in the dictionary...
I was surprised you found a dictionary and used it without assistance
(well, that's a bad assumption on both points).
And on second thought, your spelling of 'suprised' and 'philosphy'
proves not only that you don't know how to use a dictionary, but that
you're an uneducated, thoroughly stupid, brainless moron.
This philosphy has created a country of..... homeless.. welfare
moochers, people know they can get away with anything...
Yes! The conservative right wing rich republican party and it's
agenda! Exactly! Look!! You looked up Halliburton, not liberal!!
And we've done our own research, unlike you, and the conclusion is
indisputable: You're a liar, a loser, an idiot, a fool and useless,
worthless scum.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .....
Post by Q2
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples...
... I don't have the time or energy to do it for you."
Add 'difining' to Baldino Pedophile Boy's 2nd grade speller list.
Guess all his energy is expended trying to handle the little 'dic' in
dictionary. And add another lie to Pinocchio Pat's 4000 foot nose.
Bulbous Baldino has nothing BUT time to waste. He has no friends and
no life outside of his chosen profession of official RMAS troll.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .....
Post by Q2
I don't care what anyone in RMAS thinks of me.
I will repeat here what George Carlin said about the Patrick Baldino's
"People who say they don't care what people think are usually
desperate to have people think they don't care what people think."
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten."
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
K***@gmail.com
2008-06-26 14:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or
provided in a generous and openhanded way
This philosphy has created a country of deadbeats, homeless.. welfare
moochers,  people know they can get away with anything... because
liberals will always be there to defend them and back them up.
Can you imagine a country full of scum like Patrick who believe that
it's WRONG to help the downtrodden among us?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
-The New Colossus, Emma Lazurus 1883
susan
2008-06-26 14:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@gmail.com
Post by P***@aol.com
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or
provided in a generous and openhanded way
This philosphy has created a country of deadbeats, homeless.. welfare
moochers,  people know they can get away with anything... because
liberals will always be there to defend them and back them up.
Can you imagine a country full of scum like Patrick who believe that
it's WRONG to help the downtrodden among us?
Lou Reed could:

"Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
That's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard"

(from Dirty Blvd)
Post by K***@gmail.com
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
   -The New Colossus, Emma Lazurus 1883
guzboyz
2008-06-26 19:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@gmail.com
Post by P***@aol.com
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or
provided in a generous and openhanded way
This philosphy has created a country of deadbeats, homeless.. welfare
moochers,  people know they can get away with anything... because
liberals will always be there to defend them and back them up.
Can you imagine a country full of scum like Patrick who believe that
it's WRONG to help the downtrodden among us?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
   -The New Colossus, Emma Lazurus 1883
Lazurus probably didn't envision those people lying around eating
donuts and plotting against us.

D.F. Manno
2008-06-26 00:23:58 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by P***@aol.com
I'm not going to waste my time difining or citing examples, it's a
general reference. The country is in worse shape today than it was 30
years ago because of political correctness, liberal judges and the
ACLU. You don't have to agree with me, and you can do your own
research if you wish to see what I mean. I don't have the time or
energy to do it for you.
Translation: "I've got nothing."
--
D.F. Manno | ***@mail.com
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
P***@aol.com
2008-06-15 23:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.
Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.
Depends on your definition of credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Yeah, that's credible.  Written by Bill for Bill's Network and filled
with Bill's opinions and conjectures and ill-fitted application of
erroneous facts and assumptions.
There isn't one point he made about the ACLU that isn't true, look it
up.
s***@comcast.net
2008-06-16 13:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
O'Reilly is a batshit-crazy liar who makes shit up to further his
grudges.
Name one credible story exposed by O'Lielly.
Depends on your definition of credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Yup, more typical O'Lielly stupidity.

The ACLU ALSO protected the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie,
and protected Rush Limbough's privacy concerning his drug records.
Joe
2008-06-15 22:20:56 UTC
Permalink
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.  Bill O'Reilly
uncovers the truth.  Dan Rather got fired for NOT telling the truth.
Rather got too tied up in Rather. He refused to admit he was duped.
Amazing how naive and stubborn he was....

An investigator he was not ....
Charles Board
2008-06-16 01:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.
Right. When he was having whole shows devoted to the Plame case without
telling us that he was a central figure and knew firsthand who the leakers were
he was being "honest".
Kevin Schneider
2008-06-16 01:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Board
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.
Right. When he was having whole shows devoted to the Plame case without
telling us that he was a central figure and knew firsthand who the leakers were
he was being "honest".
Yes. Yes he was.
--
--Saint Clarence
********************
"You can only be young once but you can be immature forever."
--Dave Barry
http://kschneid.livejournal.com
D.F. Manno
2008-06-16 23:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Schneider
Post by Charles Board
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.
Right. When he was having whole shows devoted to the Plame case without
telling us that he was a central figure and knew firsthand who the leakers
were he was being "honest".
Yes. Yes he was.
And then there's the Russert rule, from his testimony at the Libby trial:

"My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government
officials unless specified."

That's not what I was taught in journalism school. That's backasswards.
It gives the source complete control over information. Russert wasn't
working as a reporter, he was functioning as a stenographer.

The fawning over him is getting ridiculous. I expect canonization
proceedings to begin any minute now.
--
D.F. Manno | ***@mail.com
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man¹s oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
The Left Rev. New Guy
2008-06-17 17:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.F. Manno
Post by Kevin Schneider
Post by Charles Board
Post by P***@aol.com
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist.
Right. When he was having whole shows devoted to the Plame case without
telling us that he was a central figure and knew firsthand who the leakers
were he was being "honest".
Yes. Yes he was.
"My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government
officials unless specified."
That's not what I was taught in journalism school. That's backasswards.
It gives the source complete control over information. Russert wasn't
working as a reporter, he was functioning as a stenographer.
The fawning over him is getting ridiculous. I expect canonization
proceedings to begin any minute now.
He looked like a child molester to me. Also, he never asked
the right questions.
Chip Reeves
2008-06-15 14:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by tobetbaa
Like Dan Rather before him, anybody who uncovers the truth has become
a liability in the media.
What do you expect...?
http://surftofind.com/russert
I believe Russert was an honest news journalist. Bill O'Reilly
uncovers the truth. Dan Rather got fired for NOT telling the truth.
Too bad Faux News doesn't require such things. If it did there'd be no on
left.
Rave On!
2008-06-16 13:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Too bad Faux News doesn't require such things. If it did there'd be no on left.
There's no one left at Fox News . . . They're all right...

Rave On!
Scott
--Observationalist, NJ--
P***@aol.com
2008-06-23 18:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Oh ok... I was wondering what happened to this thread. Liberal
philosphy and why it's flawed, is that what you want to know ? Look
at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed our
society. Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for. Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree....
you will understand what I mean.
Rave On!
2008-06-23 20:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@aol.com
Oh ok... I was wondering what happened to this thread. Liberal
philosphy and why it's flawed, is that what you want to know ? �Look
at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed our
society. Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. �Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for. �Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree....
you will understand what I mean.
Hey Patty, that's not a definition . . .

Let's try this again. Please DEFINE . . . "The liberal philosophy"
that you claim "is flawed by definition." All you've done is cite
some personal opinions (albeit they're really generalizations as you
fail to cite any specific evidence) with regard to things that you
don't agree match with your conservative ideals. That has little to
do with the "liberal philosophy" that is "flawed by definition." Try
again...this is going to be really fun.

Rave On!
Scott
--Hopelessly Hoping, NJ--
ruthless
2008-06-23 20:14:27 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by P***@aol.com
Oh ok... I was wondering what happened to this thread. Liberal
philosphy and why it's flawed, is that what you want to know ? Look
at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed our
society.
How is that exactly? What do you mean by "political correctness"? Can you
be more specific on what you mean by what you mean by that and how it has
" destroyed society" ?

Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
Post by P***@aol.com
country.
Such as? Which judges and what rulings? Can you be more specific?


Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
Post by P***@aol.com
fighting for.
Examples, please? What is the ACLU fighting for that you have a problem with?

Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree....
Post by P***@aol.com
you will understand what I mean.
I see..... nothing........because you haven't told me what you are talking
about. You cannot just deal in catch phrases and "talking points" if you
want to debate or make a point. None of what I see above makes much sense
to me.


You still haven't answered the question I asked. What is the definition
of Liberal you are using and why is it inherently flawed? When I looked
it up in the dictionary I got this:

ADJECTIVE:
1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring
proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the
ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or
characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or
characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with
principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great
Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2a. Tending to give freely;
generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal
serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a
liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts
and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.



Is this what you are talking about?
A to Z
2008-06-23 20:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruthless
1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring
proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the
ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or
characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or
characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with
principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great
Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2a. Tending to give freely;
generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal
serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a
liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts
and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
personally, I am very much in favor of "liberal serving of potatoes"

For me, I think that traditional definitions have gone by the wayside. I am
not liberal by the standards of many of the litmus test issues (generally
moderate, I'd say). But I am, when you look at what I always considered one
of the standard definitions: a belief that government should step in when a
solution is necessary and not already available or effective, or to protect
those who can't protect themselves...
Rave On!
2008-06-23 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Patrick suggests:

1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed
our society."

Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!

2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "

Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?

3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."

If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.

4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."

Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak (hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror. Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.

You've opened up a can of worms and many of us look forward to how you
plan to wiggle out of this one. My guess is that you'll demonstrate
the childish act of taking you toys and going home... I figure we'll
get one more incoherent post from you and then you will abandon the
thread. Personally, that would be your best move because it's not in
your being to admit that you are wrong or jumped to conclusions or
better yet, were talking out of you ass again.

Rave On!
Scott
--Moderate (thanks Adam), NJ--
A to Z
2008-06-23 21:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rave On!
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
actually, no, it's not. It is elected by the people, to do what the
representative believes is right. Too often, they sacrifice that to the
power of the poll. If our elected representatives only did what the majority
of the voting populace wanted, women and minorities would have gotten the
vote even later than they did. And the vote on Iraq would have been 75% to
25%:

"The poll shows that three-quarters of all Americans approve of the decision
to go to war, including 60% who approve strongly. Only one in five Americans
disapprove -- 15% who feel strongly and 5% not strongly.
While just 20% disapprove of the decision, a slightly larger number, 27%,
believe the United States should have waited longer to see if the United
Nations inspections were effective. Still, a large majority, 70%, agrees
with the timing of the attacks. [a to z note: these numbers are similar to
the poll just before the war began as well]

Both of these measures are roughly in line with the attitudes of the
American public on January 16, 1991 as the first Persian Gulf War got
underway. At that point, 79% said they approved of the decision to go to war
to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and 79% also said that it was proper to have
begun military action without waiting longer to see if sanctions would have
been effective." Gallup Poll News Service, March 21, 2003 Friday

so much for doing what the people say....

"A representative of the people owes them not only his industry, but also
his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion" -
Edmund Burke
Post by Rave On!
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak (hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror. Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
You've opened up a can of worms and many of us look forward to how you
plan to wiggle out of this one. My guess is that you'll demonstrate
the childish act of taking you toys and going home... I figure we'll
get one more incoherent post from you and then you will abandon the
thread. Personally, that would be your best move because it's not in
your being to admit that you are wrong or jumped to conclusions or
better yet, were talking out of you ass again.
Rave On!
Scott
--Moderate (thanks Adam), NJ--
A to Z
2008-06-23 21:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
Post by Rave On!
1. "Look at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. "Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. Roe versus Wade? Last time I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in favor
of the ruling. And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
actually, no, it's not. It is elected by the people, to do what the
representative believes is right. Too often, they sacrifice that to the
power of the poll. If our elected representatives only did what the
majority of the voting populace wanted, women and minorities would have
gotten the vote even later than they did. And the vote on Iraq would have
"The poll shows that three-quarters of all Americans approve of the
decision to go to war, including 60% who approve strongly. Only one in
five Americans disapprove -- 15% who feel strongly and 5% not strongly.
While just 20% disapprove of the decision, a slightly larger number, 27%,
believe the United States should have waited longer to see if the United
Nations inspections were effective. Still, a large majority, 70%, agrees
with the timing of the attacks. [a to z note: these numbers are similar to
the poll just before the war began as well]
Both of these measures are roughly in line with the attitudes of the
American public on January 16, 1991 as the first Persian Gulf War got
underway. At that point, 79% said they approved of the decision to go to
war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and 79% also said that it was proper to
have begun military action without waiting longer to see if sanctions
would have been effective." Gallup Poll News Service, March 21, 2003
Friday
so much for doing what the people say....
"A representative of the people owes them not only his industry, but also
his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion" -
Edmund Burke
should have added that I was just picking that one point, not debating the
rest of the post
Post by A to Z
Post by Rave On!
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. "Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak (hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror. Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
You've opened up a can of worms and many of us look forward to how you
plan to wiggle out of this one. My guess is that you'll demonstrate
the childish act of taking you toys and going home... I figure we'll
get one more incoherent post from you and then you will abandon the
thread. Personally, that would be your best move because it's not in
your being to admit that you are wrong or jumped to conclusions or
better yet, were talking out of you ass again.
Rave On!
Scott
--Moderate (thanks Adam), NJ--
Rave On!
2008-06-23 22:05:25 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 23, 5:39�pm, "A to Z"
Post by A to Z
1. �"Look at the country, look how political correctness has destroyed
our society."
Define exactly what you mean? �Are you saying that it is appropriate
to define, stereotype, and catagorize people by their race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity? �While I think some go too far
with political correctness, I do believe that there is a level of
tollerence that is necessary in our society. �A simple word for it is
RESPECT!
2. �"Look at what the rulings of liberal judges have done to our
country. "
Again, please define and cite examples. �Roe versus Wade? �Last time I
checked, all polls reflected that a majority of Americans are in favor
of the ruling. �And isn't refelcting the feelings of the majority of
our country what our government is repsonsible to do?
actually, no, it's not. It is elected by the people, to do what the
representative believes is right. Too often, they sacrifice that to the
power of the poll. If our elected representatives only did what the majority
of the voting populace wanted, women and minorities would have gotten the
vote even later than they did. And the vote on Iraq would have been 75% to
"The poll shows that three-quarters of all Americans approve of the decision
to go to war, including 60% who approve strongly. Only one in five Americans
disapprove -- 15% who feel strongly and 5% not strongly.
While just 20% disapprove of the decision, a slightly larger number, 27%,
believe the United States should have waited longer to see if the United
Nations inspections were effective. Still, a large majority, 70%, agrees
with the timing of the attacks. [a to z note: these numbers are similar to
the poll just before the war began as well]
Both of these measures are roughly in line with the attitudes of the
American public on January 16, 1991 as the first Persian Gulf War got
underway. At that point, 79% said they approved of the decision to go to war
to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and 79% also said that it was proper to have
begun military action without waiting longer to see if sanctions would have
been effective." Gallup Poll News Service, March 21, 2003 Friday
so much for doing what the people say....
�"A representative of the people owes them not only his industry, but also
his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion" -
Edmund Burke
3. �"Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. �While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
Again, you are spewing talking points without generating factual
evidence.
4. �"Explore all of these things, and agree or disagree.... you will
understand what I mean."
Explore what? �The convoluted thought process that you go through to
arrive at your ill convceived conclusions? �This from someone who
ignores the facts while defending people like Bill O'Reilly and Bob
Grant. �Grant, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Limbaugh and others spew
their rhetoric and contempt on a regular basis. �Singling out the
liberals as the evil doers when Grant incites racial hate speak (hence
his firing from ABC Radio) and O'Reilly insults WWII veterans is
simply off base and demonstrates that your a ill informed. �Sure,
Olbermann and Maher have attacked and questioned the administration
and the way it has handled Iraq and the War on Terror. �Interestingly,
the polls suggest that the MAJORITY of Americans have the same
feelings and questions.
You've opened up a can of worms and many of us look forward to how you
plan to wiggle out of this one. �My guess is that you'll demonstrate
the childish act of taking you toys and going home... �I figure we'll
get one more incoherent post from you and then you will abandon the
thread. �Personally, that would be your best move because it's not in
your being to admit that you are wrong or jumped to conclusions or
better yet, were talking out of you ass again.
Rave On!
Scott
--Moderate (thanks Adam), NJ--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Adam:

I concur and am guilty of generalizing the responsibility of our
elected officials.

However, the situation with the War is that is was sold as an War on
Terrorism and the initial purpose was to seek out those responsible
for 9-11. I was in agreement with going into Afghanistan given that
the intention and focus was to track, capture, and prosecute the
Taliban. And I'd continue to support it, as would most Americans, if
that had been the case. However, somewhere between sending the troops
to Afghanistan and putting them on the ground, the mission became an
aberration and the tone, focus, and energies were redirected at Iraq
and specifically Saddam and there is no doubt in my mind that this was
the plan from the get-go. In that respect, we were duped and I abhor
this administration for that. And that is not a liberal or
conservative observation, but one of a realist that believes that this
administration has put us more in harm's way than they have in
protected us. The world view of our country went from one of support
and compassion in the aftermath of 9-11 to one of contempt and
distaste in the years subsequent to INVADING Iraq.

Rave On!
Scott
--Disillusion in the USA, NJ--
ruthless
2008-06-23 22:27:26 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rave On!
3. "Look at what the joke of an organization called the ACLU is
fighting for."
If you look at the ACLU as a whole, they are on both sides of the
fence. While they take up some extremely polarizing cases, they also
defend the rights of many non-liberal and neo-conservative entities.
This is absolutely true. And Patrick needs to learn that the ACLU defends
his right to speak as much as it defends mine.

and yours. And yeah, you over there....and that guy with the weird
shirt.... and that lady with the flowered hat.....

and *everyone*.
Rave On!
2008-06-24 12:49:15 UTC
Permalink
What's the matter? Can't find anything to cut and paste? And don't
change the title again so that you can try to claim that you can't
find it.

Rave On!
Scott
--Pitbull, NJ--
Michael Schey
2008-06-24 13:08:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:49:15 -0700 (PDT), "Rave On!"
Post by Rave On!
What's the matter? Can't find anything to cut and paste? And don't
change the title again so that you can try to claim that you can't
find it.
Rave On!
Scott
--Pitbull, NJ--
Waitin, watchin the clock, its four oclock, its got to stop.....

Michael
(http://michaelschey.blogspot.com/)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...