Just to remind you of the other scary bits besides war....
Correspondent:: Priestess Pisces Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:03:02 GMT
--------
"Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol Hill next year, almost in a
position to give President Bush whatever he wants on taxes, limits on legal
damages, drilling in the Arctic and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:41:14 -0700
--------
Priestess Pisces wrote:
>
> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol
> Hill next year, almost in a position to give
> President Bush whatever he wants on taxes,
> limits on legal damages, drilling in the Arctic
> and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11314758p-12229611c.html
So this means:
1) Lower taxes. Okay, that's good, even if it is
for eevil corporations. Lower taxes are greeeeatt!
2) Limits on litigation. Cool. Maybe doctors will
want to be ob/gyns again. Seriously, it's a bad thing
when doctors go on strike. And that crap like suing
tobacco companies just to loot them, just because you
can, is bullshit. And maybe someday, cities can have
the stuff like they used to, like public pools and
swings and slides in public parks and stuff. Litigation
lawyers are overbred and need to be culled like by 98%.
3) ANWR. Outstanding idea. 1/175,000th of Alaska has
an oil rig on it is not what I would call an environmental
catastrophe. Obviously, most people who are really upset
about it have never BEEN to Alaska. It makes as much
sense as saying that Texas would be utterly destroyed by
having one hundredth the number of oil rigs on it that
it currently has. Some perspective, please. Plus, the
Alaskans themselves are all for it. It's as silly as
congress arguing over whether you should be permitted to
grow a small plant in your apartment. None of their
business.
4) Supreme Court justices have a tendency, though not
always, of doing their own thing, no matter who appoints
them. Probably half the appointees will be "free spirits",
just as likely to vote liberal as conservative.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: nikolai kingsley Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:16:01 +1100
--------
> 2) Limits on litigation. Cool. Maybe doktors will
> want to be ob/gyns again. Seriously, it's a bad thing
> when doktors go on strike.
it's a bad thing when opportunistic pinks put them in the position of
having to strike. okay, there's a percentage of doktors who chose that
career because of the money, or the drugs, or the power, most likely
just the oxygen/nitrous mix they have in ambulances, but anyway, many of
them become doktors out of a genuine need to help people.
the Jim Bakker way, for example.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:28:27 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:41:14 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Priestess Pisces wrote:
>>
>> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol
>> Hill next year, almost in a position to give
>> President Bush whatever he wants on taxes,
>> limits on legal damages, drilling in the Arctic
>> and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>>
>> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11314758p-12229611c.html
>
>So this means:
>
>1) Lower taxes. Okay, that's good, even if it is
>for eevil corporations. Lower taxes are greeeeatt!
>
>2) Limits on litigation. Cool. Maybe doctors will
>want to be ob/gyns again. Seriously, it's a bad thing
>when doctors go on strike. And that crap like suing
>tobacco companies just to loot them, just because you
>can, is bullshit. And maybe someday, cities can have
>the stuff like they used to, like public pools and
>swings and slides in public parks and stuff. Litigation
>lawyers are overbred and need to be culled like by 98%.
>
>3) ANWR. Outstanding idea. 1/175,000th of Alaska has
>an oil rig on it is not what I would call an environmental
>catastrophe. Obviously, most people who are really upset
>about it have never BEEN to Alaska. It makes as much
>sense as saying that Texas would be utterly destroyed by
>having one hundredth the number of oil rigs on it that
>it currently has. Some perspective, please. Plus, the
>Alaskans themselves are all for it. It's as silly as
>congress arguing over whether you should be permitted to
>grow a small plant in your apartment. None of their
>business.
>
>4) Supreme Court justices have a tendency, though not
>always, of doing their own thing, no matter who appoints
>them. Probably half the appointees will be "free spirits",
>just as likely to vote liberal as conservative.
Nu-monet, why don't you take your bullshit neo-conservative apologia
and shove it up your ass where it will do somebody some good.
Fuckheads like you got that chimp reelected.
You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
prove it, you can be very effective. It worked for the Catholic
church for 1500 years. And a voting populace, who doesn't have the
time or desire to delve deeply into every issue facing the nation and
the world (and nobody really does) tries to find the END of the
argument. "OK, who WON?" So as long as you have one vocal person
supporting a counterpoint, and saying "I WON", you can make it look to
the casual viewer as if that counterpoint is valid. That counterpoint
can be (and in practice usually is) completely irrelevant and can
completely fail to refute the basic point in any substantial way. All
that matters is that you be persistent.
That was how highly-paid think tanks managed to convince the world,
despite years of warning, that global warming was a myth ... until it
was too late to do anything about it. The reasons that were presented
for supposing that global warming was a myth never really made sense
and never really held up to close examination. They amounted to
things like "well we don't really KNOW that the fact that warming
trends have increased as predicted by global warming PROVES global
warming", which amounts to saying "unless you can attribute every
micro-Joule of thermal energy directly to greenhouse effect then I
refuse to believe it", which is a really stupid argument. And that is
how the neo-conservative religious whack job right wing manages to
continue to convince the world that it isn't as stupid or basically
ideologically bankrupt as it appears.
That is why a large percentage of the population still believes that
there were WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was somehow linked to 9/11.
As long as the right wing could keep telling people "BUT NO, here's
one more counterargument" then they nod and say "they win". Even if
those counter-arguments are themselves largely irrelevant and stupid,
like finally dredging up ONE GUY who said something about Uranium, a
guy who was completely un-credible and despite the fact that this one
guy's story about Uranium is not really substantially relevant to the
overall issue.
Focus intently on the trees, and people will forget all about the
forest.
The sad thing is I know when people like you do this they really
believe it themselves. They get themselves focussed intently on the
tree and forget the forest.
It seems incredible to me that anybody could make an argument as
fatuous as "1/175,000th of Alaska has an oil rig on it is not what I
would call an environmental catastrophe" and not know they were making
a completely fucking idiotic argument. Citing the ratio of land mass
covered by oil wells to land mass not covered by oil wells is a
completely fucking idiotic way to evaluate environmental impact. Or
arguing "well gosh, supreme court justices can be 'free spirits'".
Why the FUCK do you think they fight so hard to get their own
appointees in? Mebbe they are just too dumb to know what nu-monet
knows. Or MAYBE some vague hand waving about "free spirits", while
strictly true (of course any justice can vote any way he wants) is
nonsense in practice (justicice's stands on the political issues the
office-holders are interested in pushing are well known and
predictable).
It's a whole line of bullshit arguments. You have some general
personal slant that the right wing is over-maligned and liberals
over-respected and so you come up with SOMETHING that seems to prove
it. Even if those arguments are basically fatuous.
Stupid-ass voters got that fucking chimp back in office, and I hate
every last fucking one of them. But it wouldn't have worked without
people like you, spinning half-truth and lies of ommission.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights
of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I - it's -
I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."
-- George W Bush, July 4 2001.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:13:51 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
made any fucking sense whatsoever.
Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
left anywhere in the US that matters.
I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
months talking SHIT about the military, about the
President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
DEAL WITH IT.
AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
Lusers.
--
I don't know what you're talking about.
I've never met you before in my life.
That story sounds like utter bullshit.
I wasn't there and it wasn't me.
I am *not* in denial. Shut up.
--nu-monet
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:11:19 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:13:51 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>
>Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
>be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
>ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
>made any fucking sense whatsoever.
>
Except pointing out that two of your arguments were completely fatuous
(and therefore, in context, misleading).
But don't let a little reality stand in your way.
>Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
>to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
>useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
>left anywhere in the US that matters.
>
>I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
>months talking SHIT about the military, about the
>President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
>can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
>
>DEAL WITH IT.
>
>AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
>
>You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
>WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
>fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
>THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
>
>Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
>to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
>MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
>do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
>
>Lusers.
The reason "liberals" have lost power is because they actually think
about things.
There is such a thing as "liberals" but most people who are labelled
liberals are not "liberals" the way a conservative is a conservative.
They are people who have looked at a variety of issues and come to
conclusions that the knee-jerk "conservative" group labels "liberal"
as a way of belittling them.
Most of the issues that identify "conservatives" are characterized by
being really fuckind stupid. Bible thumping. Being opposed to the
sexual habits or drug use of strangers, which will never affect them.
Being in favor of ripping the environment to shreds. They are,
inevitably, irrational emotional stances that make no sense on any
kind of close examination.
But they have been very effective in labelling anybody who looks at
these issues and says "that's really fucking stupid" as "cry-baby
liberals" or any other 3-syllable label that sounds cutting, and
thereby avoiding having to actually think about their ideas and
beliefs at all.
No, it's not about whether it's stupid to rip the environment to
shreds! It's about those god damn hippy liberals! Focus on that and
you don't have to think about whether it makes sense! And hell, we
spent a few million and hired a bunch of bent scientists who say it
does too make sense!
Most "liberals" came to the conclusions that cause them to be labelled
"liberals" because they actually devoted some thought to the issue.
And so "liberals" as a group tend to be people who are inclined to
look at both sides of an issue.
So the face that "liberals" present to the world isn't as dramatic or
simple as what "conservatives" do. The latter are only interested in
winning, in the most effective way possible. Reality be damned.
The former though tend to try to present a balanced, intelligent view
without extremism.
But it makes them less dramatic and less convincing.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
We counted 27 head wounds.
Do you still want to call it self-defence?
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:43:56 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:13:51 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
> >Zapanaz wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
> >be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
> >ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
> >made any fucking sense whatsoever.
> >
>
> Except pointing out that two of your arguments were completely fatuous
> (and therefore, in context, misleading).
>
> But don't let a little reality stand in your way.
>
> >Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
> >to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
> >useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
> >left anywhere in the US that matters.
> >
> >I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> >months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> >President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> >can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
> >
> >DEAL WITH IT.
> >
> >AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
> >
> >You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
> >WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
> >fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
> >THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
> >
> >Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
> >to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
> >MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
> >do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
> >
> >Lusers.
>
> The reason "liberals" have lost power is because they actually think
> about things.
>
> There is such a thing as "liberals" but most people who are labelled
> liberals are not "liberals" the way a conservative is a conservative.
> They are people who have looked at a variety of issues and come to
> conclusions that the knee-jerk "conservative" group labels "liberal"
> as a way of belittling them.
>
But there _are_ knee-jerk liberals! Mosts "L"iberals are!
Most everyone runs on buzzwords and cliches. Right on, baaaaybeee!
It's organic!
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:37:07 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:43:56 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
> But there _are_ knee-jerk liberals! Mosts "L"iberals are!
I didn't say there weren't.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
No human progress is possible as long as stupid people
refuse to accept that smart people know more than they do.
- Revi Shankar
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:11:51 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:43:56 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
> > But there _are_ knee-jerk liberals! Mosts "L"iberals are!
>
> I didn't say there weren't.
>
> --
Well, that' s likely how "Liberal" got to be an epithet,
instead of a laudatory appellation. But I would reckon
that most groups like liberals and conservatives are
about 80% sheep and 20% goats.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:56:16 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:11:51 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
>
>
>Zapanaz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:43:56 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>> wrote:
>>
>> > But there _are_ knee-jerk liberals! Mosts "L"iberals are!
>>
>> I didn't say there weren't.
>>
>> --
>
> Well, that' s likely how "Liberal" got to be an epithet,
>instead of a laudatory appellation. But I would reckon
>that most groups like liberals and conservatives are
>about 80% sheep and 20% goats.
There are definitely card-carrying Liberals, they annoy the shit out
of me.
Michael Moore is a good example. Or whatever the fuck his name is,
the guy who directed Farenheit 9/11 . He would probably qualify as a
subgenius by a lot of standards but I think he should be bent over and
sheepfucked with a glowing branding iron.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"You're dead, Sir"
"That's probably why you feel so cold all the time"
- Catch 22
Correspondent:: bobdiddley@aol.com (3D Bob Not Diddley)
Date: 06 Nov 2004 00:44:15 GMT
--------
Zapanaz:
>Michael Moore is a good example. Or whatever the fuck his name is,
>the guy who directed Farenheit 9/11 . He would probably qualify as a
>subgenius by a lot of standards but I think he should be bent over and
>sheepfucked with a glowing branding iron.
Why do you think he should be so cruelly abused - because he had the balls and
tenacity to get several movies (well) made, poking fun at over-serious captains
of industry and state? What do YOu do that's any better than that? Aside from
being 'the final voice of reason' on alt.slack, that is?
=========================================================
"Four more wars! Four more wars!." - secret slogan
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:13 -0800
--------
On 06 Nov 2004 00:44:15 GMT, bobdiddley@aol.com (3D Bob Not Diddley)
wrote:
>Zapanaz:
>>Michael Moore is a good example. Or whatever the fuck his name is,
>>the guy who directed Farenheit 9/11 . He would probably qualify as a
>>subgenius by a lot of standards but I think he should be bent over and
>>sheepfucked with a glowing branding iron.
>
>Why do you think he should be so cruelly abused - because he had the balls and
>tenacity to get several movies (well) made, poking fun at over-serious captains
>of industry and state? What do YOu do that's any better than that? Aside from
>being 'the final voice of reason' on alt.slack, that is?
I'm all in favor of what he did do, but he leaves himself open to some
valid counterattacks, and by that I think does more harm than good.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
> what's the capital of Maine?
>
Steven King.
- chaos israel
Correspondent:: purple Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:08:46 -0500
--------
On 11/4/04 1:11 PM, in article 8grko017o4kfl1hll0ve67idt7gl5e5lu6@4ax.com,
"Zapanaz" wrote:
> But it makes them less dramatic and less convincing.
>
As usual, you have no fuckin' clue as to WHY their reasonableness looks less
dramatic and less convincing.
The Great Bob Dobbs
Correspondent:: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Date: 5 Nov 2004 20:26:45 -0800
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:11:37 GMT
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>
> Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
> be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
> ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
> made any fucking sense whatsoever.
>
> Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
> to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
> useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
> left anywhere in the US that matters.
>
> I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
>
> DEAL WITH IT.
>
> AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
>
> You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
> WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
> fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
> THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
>
> Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
> to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
> MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
> do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
>
> Lusers.
But... but... Bush is a uniter, not a divider!
HE SAID SO!
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:28:31 -0500
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:11:37 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> But... but... Bush is a uniter, not a divider!
>
> HE SAID SO!
There you go again, making it seem that your whole platform
is nothing more than sarcasm. Do you honestly think that that
is the way to get people to come over to your side? Is that
your idea of being a uniter?
With Bush our troops are being fed by Haliburton.
With Kerry our troops would be living on Heintz pickles.
This should be a viable alternative, I'm asking you?
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:52:31 GMT
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:11:37 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
>> But... but... Bush is a uniter, not a divider!
>>
>> HE SAID SO!
>
> There you go again, making it seem that your whole platform
> is nothing more than sarcasm. Do you honestly think that that
> is the way to get people to come over to your side? Is that
> your idea of being a uniter?
Okay, so you chide me for being sarcastic...
> With Bush our troops are being fed by Haliburton.
> With Kerry our troops would be living on Heintz pickles.
...and then you toss off shit like that, somehow still expecting to be
engaged in some sort of serious discourse?
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:45:00 -0500
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:52:31 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:11:37 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>>
>>> But... but... Bush is a uniter, not a divider!
>>>
>>> HE SAID SO!
>>
>> There you go again, making it seem that your whole platform
>> is nothing more than sarcasm. Do you honestly think that that
>> is the way to get people to come over to your side? Is that
>> your idea of being a uniter?
>
> Okay, so you chide me for being sarcastic...
>
>> With Bush our troops are being fed by Haliburton.
>> With Kerry our troops would be living on Heintz pickles.
>
> ...and then you toss off shit like that, somehow still expecting to be
> engaged in some sort of serious discourse?
What.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:38:02 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> > Zapanaz wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
> > be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
> > ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
> > made any fucking sense whatsoever.
> >
> > Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
> > to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
> > useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
> > left anywhere in the US that matters.
> >
> > I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> > months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> > President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> > can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
> >
> > DEAL WITH IT.
> >
> > AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
> >
> > You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
> > WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
> > fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
> > THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
> >
> > Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
> > to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
> > MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
> > do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
> >
> > Lusers.
>
> But... but... Bush is a uniter, not a divider!
>
> HE SAID SO!
He could say he's a ficus and everybody'd applaud.
Correspondent:: "ouroboros rex" Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:26:07 -0600
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:418A634F.20CE@succeeds.com...
> Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>
> Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
> be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
> ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
> made any fucking sense whatsoever.
>
> Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
> to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
> useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
> left anywhere in the US that matters.
>
> I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
>
> DEAL WITH IT.
>
> AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
>
> You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
> WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
> fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
> THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
>
> Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
> to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
> MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
> do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
>
> Lusers.
rofl
Poor sad little liar, there will be no shutting up this time, sorry. You
are in for 4 more years of "the election was stolen" - because your party
wanted it that way.
Correspondent:: Sternodox Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:57:00 -0600
--------
In article <418A634F.20CE@succeeds.com>, nu-monet v7.0
wrote:
> I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
FUCK the military.
FUCK the president.
FUCK the churches.
FUCK Lee Trevino.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:19:19 GMT
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>
> Now look, dickhead. You can spout crap all day and
> be an absolute red eye, but you're still sucking
> ass pus with a straw if you think you just fucking
> made any fucking sense whatsoever.
>
> Just the sort of asshole thing for a leftist scumbag
> to do, though. Having NO original thought or anything
> useful to contribute, which is WHY they have no power
> left anywhere in the US that matters.
>
> I've had to listen to you fucknoids for the last eight
> months talking SHIT about the military, about the
> President, about everything and anything you limpdicks
> can't deal with, so it's about time I said this:
>
> DEAL WITH IT.
>
> AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
>
> You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
> WRONG. YOU LOSE. LUSERS. It isn't the countries'
> fault that you're WRONG. IT IS YOURS. EVERY FUCKING
> THING YOU BELIEVE IN IS FUCKED UP AND WRONG.
>
> Until you come up with something, ANYTHING smart enough
> to beat someone who is OBVIOUSLY superior to you in
> MANY ways, ESPECIALLY INTELLECTUALLY, I suggest that you
> do a serious reevaluation of your reality.
>
> Lusers.
You can blow your military bravado out your ass, nu-monet, because it's
empty and we know it. Giving and following orders doesn't take courage
or balls or whatever ill-defined machismo it is that you want us to
think you have in spades.
Oh, and I don't think anyone is planning on "shutting the fuck up" any
time soon: if anyone wants us silent, they'll have to silence us. And
yes, they will, in fact, have to pry my pen or my keyboard from my cold,
dead hands, though I very much doubt it'll ever come to that.
All this hand-wringing is starting to get a little overdone, people.
Kerry was edged out by a couple points in an election where more
eligible voters stayed home than voted for either major candidate. The
country will survive, and even if it doesn't, the catastrophic decline
will make for good TV.
Correspondent:: bobdiddley@aol.com (3D Bob Not Diddley)
Date: 06 Nov 2004 00:37:40 GMT
--------
>You've lost. You've lost big. BECAUSE your ideas are
>WRONG. YOU LOSE.
51% - 49% of the vote isn't a BIG loss. It's a little-bitty loss. Almost even.
Times will change. You can look forward to 8 years of Hilary's big cellulite
butt in the not-that-distant future.
=========================================================
"Four more wars! Four more wars!." - secret slogan
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:04:13 -0500
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:28:27 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
> You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
> that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
> prove it, you can be very effective.
I disagree. Many people started out with the presumption that Bush was
evil and that the war in Iraq was started for evil purposes, then they
started looking for arguments to prove it, and obviously that was not
effective.
Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his. You
can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition. That is
especially true if he is an incumbent. If you don't provide a
replacement that is centrist enough to appeal to those in the vacuum
you've created, then all you've done is to create a vacuum, if anything
at all.
You: Your man is evil and dumb and corrupt!
Them: Hmm, you make a good point. What do you have to replace him?
You: Er, well, um...
Them: Aren't ALL politicians evil and dumb and corrupt?
You: Er-um, well, yeah...
Them: Thanks for your time. I'll stick with the dummy I know.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:16:03 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:04:13 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:
>Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
>complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his. You
>can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition. That is
>especially true if he is an incumbent. If you don't provide a
>replacement that is centrist enough to appeal to those in the vacuum
>you've created, then all you've done is to create a vacuum, if anything
>at all.
>
>You: Your man is evil and dumb and corrupt!
>Them: Hmm, you make a good point. What do you have to replace him?
>You: Er, well, um...
>Them: Aren't ALL politicians evil and dumb and corrupt?
>You: Er-um, well, yeah...
>Them: Thanks for your time. I'll stick with the dummy I know.
I agree with that. I think it's a dumb stance for a voter to take,
but I think you're right.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"yoga is preventing the mind-stuff from
assuming one of its forms" -patanjali
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:19:03 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:16:03 -0800, Zapanaz
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:04:13 -0500, Artemia Salina
> wrote:
>
>>Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
>>complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his. You
>>can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition. That is
>>especially true if he is an incumbent. If you don't provide a
>>replacement that is centrist enough to appeal to those in the vacuum
>>you've created, then all you've done is to create a vacuum, if anything
>>at all.
>>
>>You: Your man is evil and dumb and corrupt!
>>Them: Hmm, you make a good point. What do you have to replace him?
>>You: Er, well, um...
>>Them: Aren't ALL politicians evil and dumb and corrupt?
>>You: Er-um, well, yeah...
>>Them: Thanks for your time. I'll stick with the dummy I know.
>
>I agree with that. I think it's a dumb stance for a voter to take,
>but I think you're right.
I watched an old Star Trek last night. Mr. Spock was in command of a
landing party, and they were attacked by these huge gorilla-creatures.
Spock refused to kill any of them, instead he set up a demonstration
of the effectiveness of their phasers, to scare them off.
The plan didn't work, the gorilla-creatures attacked anyway. Spock
was stymied. "That was a completely illogical response!"
That's me.
Right down to being surrounded by dangerous violent gorilla-creatures.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"God, grant me SERENITY to deal with problems I can't change,
COURAGE to face the challenges of all other problems and
WISDOM to hide the bodies of those who fuck with me."
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:51:29 -0500
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:19:03 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
> The plan didn't work, the gorilla-creatures attacked anyway. Spock
> was stymied. "That was a completely illogical response!"
>
> That's me.
Look where you are. You're in a newsgroup devoted to a religion based
on the idea that PEOPLE (in the main) ARE STUPID. People don't want to
think. They don't want to intellectualize. They want results and they
want others to achieve them. They want brain candy and beer and pretty
colors. There is nothing on earth that will change that. The other main
tenet of this religion is that one must TAKE ADVANTAGE of the stupidity
of others. As nu-monet said, "DEAL WITH IT, AND SHUT THE FUCK UP", but
I would say it the other way around, "SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND DEAL WITH IT".
SHUT THE FUCK UP: Stop whining about how stupid people are, and how
unwilling they are to wrack their brains in order to follow your
political theories and reasoning.
DEAL WITH IT: Give them a CLEAR, simple, and viable-sounding alternative
to what they have. If it's attractive enough they'll choose it.
The rallying cry of the left should have been "PROBLEM:SOLUTION",
not just "PROBLEM:".
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:39:40 -0800
--------
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:51:29 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:
>Look where you are. You're in a newsgroup devoted to a religion based
>on the idea that PEOPLE (in the main) ARE STUPID.
>
>SHUT THE FUCK UP: Stop whining about how stupid people are
do we see a gap here?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
> Losing your edge?
>
--------
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Artemia Salina
sat down and wrote
>Look where you are. You're in a newsgroup devoted to a religion based
>on the idea that PEOPLE (in the main) ARE STUPID. People don't want to
>think. They don't want to intellectualize. They want results and they
>want others to achieve them. They want brain candy and beer and pretty
>colors. There is nothing on earth that will change that. The other main
>tenet of this religion is that one must TAKE ADVANTAGE of the stupidity
>of others.
That may be what "Bob" does, but that doesn't make it a tenet. The way
of the SubGenius is to be killing "Bob" at any opportunity - otherwise
we'd be just be another goddamned religion.
People are stupid because there are people like "Bob" in the world.
--
Rev. Simian
Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang" Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:11:33 -0500
--------
In article , Artemia
Salina wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:19:03 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
>
> > The plan didn't work, the gorilla-creatures attacked anyway. Spock
> > was stymied. "That was a completely illogical response!"
> >
> > That's me.
>
> Look where you are. You're in a newsgroup devoted to a religion based
> on the idea that PEOPLE (in the main) ARE STUPID. People don't want to
> think. They don't want to intellectualize. They want results and they
> want others to achieve them. They want brain candy and beer and pretty
> colors. There is nothing on earth that will change that. The other main
> tenet of this religion is that one must TAKE ADVANTAGE of the stupidity
> of others. As nu-monet said, "DEAL WITH IT, AND SHUT THE FUCK UP", but
> I would say it the other way around, "SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND DEAL WITH IT".
>
> SHUT THE FUCK UP: Stop whining about how stupid people are, and how
> unwilling they are to wrack their brains in order to follow your
> political theories and reasoning.
>
> DEAL WITH IT: Give them a CLEAR, simple, and viable-sounding alternative
> to what they have. If it's attractive enough they'll choose it.
>
> The rallying cry of the left should have been "PROBLEM:SOLUTION",
> not just "PROBLEM:".
>
--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar" Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:15:16 -0500
--------
"Zapanaz" wrote ...
> I watched an old Star Trek last night. Mr. Spock was in command of a
> landing party, and they were attacked by these huge gorilla-creatures.
>
> Spock refused to kill any of them, instead he set up a demonstration
> of the effectiveness of their phasers, to scare them off.
>
> The plan didn't work, the gorilla-creatures attacked anyway. Spock
> was stymied. "That was a completely illogical response!"
>
> That's me.
>
> Right down to being surrounded by dangerous violent gorilla-creatures.
"You can't serve papers on a rat, baby sister. You've got to kill him or
let him be." - [John Wayne, in True Grit].
Correspondent:: Baldin Pramer Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:21:46 -0700
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:28:27 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
>
>
>
>>You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
>>that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
>>prove it, you can be very effective.
>
>
> I disagree. Many people started out with the presumption that Bush was
> evil and that the war in Iraq was started for evil purposes, then they
> started looking for arguments to prove it, and obviously that was not
> effective.
>
> Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
> complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his.
Plan? PLAN???? No one *really* has a plan: they just react to events.
What did you expect the dems to do, write a long list of exactly what
they were going to do, step by step?
That would have worked *great*. Tell the opposition exactly what you
want to do in detail so they can criticise in detail.
> You
> can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition.
Yes, you can. That was how this last election was won.
--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:27:48 -0500
--------
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:21:46 -0700, Baldin Pramer wrote:
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:28:27 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
>>>that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
>>>prove it, you can be very effective.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. Many people started out with the presumption that Bush was
>> evil and that the war in Iraq was started for evil purposes, then they
>> started looking for arguments to prove it, and obviously that was not
>> effective.
>>
>> Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
>> complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his.
>
> Plan? PLAN???? No one *really* has a plan: they just react to events.
>
> What did you expect the dems to do, write a long list of exactly what
> they were going to do, step by step?
>
> That would have worked *great*. Tell the opposition exactly what you
> want to do in detail so they can criticise in detail.
If it was a good plan then there would have been little to criticize
about it. Oh, and you can replace "plan" with "vision" if you like.
The dem's mantra of "Bush is evil" and not much more was only able to
create somewhat of a vacuum, and a temporary one at that.
>> You
>> can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition.
>
> Yes, you can. That was how this last election was won.
The repubs were able to suck longer and harder than the dems,
that's all. But imagine what would've happened if the dems had
had several hundred gallons of rotten milk (i.e. a plan, or vision)
that they could've injected into the vacuum line while the repubs
were sucking with all of their might... Now THAT would've been
something to SEE!!
I remember seeing a commercial one time where a bunch of protesters
were waving these generic protest signs around with slogans like
"NO!!" and "STOP!!" and "DOWN WITH IT!!" and nothing else. They
reminded me of the dems in this last campaign.
Of course, this is all moot, or will be when Vertigo changes the
election process for us all so that the dems can win ANYWAY.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:39:20 -0600
--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:21:46 -0700, Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
>> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:28:27 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
>>>>that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
>>>>prove it, you can be very effective.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Many people started out with the presumption that Bush was
>>> evil and that the war in Iraq was started for evil purposes, then they
>>> started looking for arguments to prove it, and obviously that was not
>>> effective.
>>>
>>> Nu-monet was right in his follow-up to you; the Left complained and
>>> complained about BushCo but offered no real plan to replace his.
>>
>> Plan? PLAN???? No one *really* has a plan: they just react to events.
>>
>> What did you expect the dems to do, write a long list of exactly what
>> they were going to do, step by step?
>>
>> That would have worked *great*. Tell the opposition exactly what you
>> want to do in detail so they can criticise in detail.
>
> If it was a good plan then there would have been little to criticize
> about it. Oh, and you can replace "plan" with "vision" if you like.
>
> The dem's mantra of "Bush is evil" and not much more was only able to
> create somewhat of a vacuum, and a temporary one at that.
>
>>> You
>>> can't win an election simply by tearing down the opposition.
>>
>> Yes, you can. That was how this last election was won.
>
> The repubs were able to suck longer and harder than the dems,
> that's all. But imagine what would've happened if the dems had
> had several hundred gallons of rotten milk (i.e. a plan, or vision)
> that they could've injected into the vacuum line while the repubs
> were sucking with all of their might... Now THAT would've been
> something to SEE!!
>
> I remember seeing a commercial one time where a bunch of protesters
> were waving these generic protest signs around with slogans like
> "NO!!" and "STOP!!" and "DOWN WITH IT!!" and nothing else. They
> reminded me of the dems in this last campaign.
>
> Of course, this is all moot, or will be when Vertigo changes the
> election process for us all so that the dems can win ANYWAY.
If the Dems keep to their strategy as articulated by the DLC (essentially,
ignore working people and try to be Republicans), they'll never win anything
of significance.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:09:15 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:41:14 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
>>Priestess Pisces wrote:
>>>
>>> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol
>>> Hill next year, almost in a position to give
>>> President Bush whatever he wants on taxes,
>>> limits on legal damages, drilling in the Arctic
>>> and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>>>
>>> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11314758p-12229611c.html
>>
>>So this means:
>>
>>1) Lower taxes. Okay, that's good, even if it is
>>for eevil corporations. Lower taxes are greeeeatt!
>>
>>2) Limits on litigation. Cool. Maybe doctors will
>>want to be ob/gyns again. Seriously, it's a bad thing
>>when doctors go on strike. And that crap like suing
>>tobacco companies just to loot them, just because you
>>can, is bullshit. And maybe someday, cities can have
>>the stuff like they used to, like public pools and
>>swings and slides in public parks and stuff. Litigation
>>lawyers are overbred and need to be culled like by 98%.
>>
>>3) ANWR. Outstanding idea. 1/175,000th of Alaska has
>>an oil rig on it is not what I would call an environmental
>>catastrophe. Obviously, most people who are really upset
>>about it have never BEEN to Alaska. It makes as much
>>sense as saying that Texas would be utterly destroyed by
>>having one hundredth the number of oil rigs on it that
>>it currently has. Some perspective, please. Plus, the
>>Alaskans themselves are all for it. It's as silly as
>>congress arguing over whether you should be permitted to
>>grow a small plant in your apartment. None of their
>>business.
>>
>>4) Supreme Court justices have a tendency, though not
>>always, of doing their own thing, no matter who appoints
>>them. Probably half the appointees will be "free spirits",
>>just as likely to vote liberal as conservative.
>
> Nu-monet, why don't you take your bullshit neo-conservative apologia
> and shove it up your ass where it will do somebody some good.
>
> Fuckheads like you got that chimp reelected.
>
> You can counterargue any point. If you set out with the presumption
> that a specific point is true and then start looking for arguments to
> prove it, you can be very effective. It worked for the Catholic
> church for 1500 years. And a voting populace, who doesn't have the
> time or desire to delve deeply into every issue facing the nation and
> the world (and nobody really does) tries to find the END of the
> argument. "OK, who WON?" So as long as you have one vocal person
> supporting a counterpoint, and saying "I WON", you can make it look to
> the casual viewer as if that counterpoint is valid. That counterpoint
> can be (and in practice usually is) completely irrelevant and can
> completely fail to refute the basic point in any substantial way. All
> that matters is that you be persistent.
>
> That was how highly-paid think tanks managed to convince the world,
> despite years of warning, that global warming was a myth ... until it
> was too late to do anything about it. The reasons that were presented
> for supposing that global warming was a myth never really made sense
> and never really held up to close examination. They amounted to
> things like "well we don't really KNOW that the fact that warming
> trends have increased as predicted by global warming PROVES global
> warming", which amounts to saying "unless you can attribute every
> micro-Joule of thermal energy directly to greenhouse effect then I
> refuse to believe it", which is a really stupid argument. And that is
> how the neo-conservative religious whack job right wing manages to
> continue to convince the world that it isn't as stupid or basically
> ideologically bankrupt as it appears.
>
> That is why a large percentage of the population still believes that
> there were WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was somehow linked to 9/11.
> As long as the right wing could keep telling people "BUT NO, here's
> one more counterargument" then they nod and say "they win". Even if
> those counter-arguments are themselves largely irrelevant and stupid,
> like finally dredging up ONE GUY who said something about Uranium, a
> guy who was completely un-credible and despite the fact that this one
> guy's story about Uranium is not really substantially relevant to the
> overall issue.
>
> Focus intently on the trees, and people will forget all about the
> forest.
>
> The sad thing is I know when people like you do this they really
> believe it themselves. They get themselves focussed intently on the
> tree and forget the forest.
>
> It seems incredible to me that anybody could make an argument as
> fatuous as "1/175,000th of Alaska has an oil rig on it is not what I
> would call an environmental catastrophe" and not know they were making
> a completely fucking idiotic argument. Citing the ratio of land mass
> covered by oil wells to land mass not covered by oil wells is a
> completely fucking idiotic way to evaluate environmental impact. Or
> arguing "well gosh, supreme court justices can be 'free spirits'".
> Why the FUCK do you think they fight so hard to get their own
> appointees in? Mebbe they are just too dumb to know what nu-monet
> knows. Or MAYBE some vague hand waving about "free spirits", while
> strictly true (of course any justice can vote any way he wants) is
> nonsense in practice (justicice's stands on the political issues the
> office-holders are interested in pushing are well known and
> predictable).
>
> It's a whole line of bullshit arguments. You have some general
> personal slant that the right wing is over-maligned and liberals
> over-respected and so you come up with SOMETHING that seems to prove
> it. Even if those arguments are basically fatuous.
>
> Stupid-ass voters got that fucking chimp back in office, and I hate
> every last fucking one of them. But it wouldn't have worked without
> people like you, spinning half-truth and lies of ommission.
I agree with this post.
Correspondent:: bobdiddley@aol.com (3D Bob Not Diddley)
Date: 06 Nov 2004 00:28:21 GMT
--------
nu-monet replied:
>3) ANWR. Outstanding idea. 1/175,000th of Alaska has
>an oil rig on it is not what I would call an environmental
>catastrophe. Obviously, most people who are really upset
>about it have never BEEN to Alaska. It makes as much
>sense as saying that Texas would be utterly destroyed by
>having one hundredth the number of oil rigs on it that
>it currently has. Some perspective, please. Plus, the
>Alaskans themselves are all for it.
"The Alaskans themselves" are not the ones who will be harmed by such drilling
- it's liable to harm the migration runs of caribou, and those are essential to
the lives of Innu who live there, and just across that invisible line in the
snow, in Canada. The farther north you go, the more territory it takes to make
a living - so the Innuit need 100's of times as much land as do southerners,
just to eke out a subsistence.
It will also be very expensive oil, Cheney's assertions notwithstanding. Easier
to pay a fair price to Arabs, where clean oil fairly seeps out of the sand.
=========================================================
"Four more wars! Four more wars!." - secret slogan
Correspondent:: "presentiment" Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:19:12 -0500
--------
"Priestess Pisces" wrote in
message news:Xns95975C11F3781priestesspiscesremov@207.69.189.191...
>
> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol Hill next year, almost in a
> position to give President Bush whatever he wants on taxes, limits on
legal
> damages, drilling in the Arctic and nominations to the U.S. Supreme
Court."
Let's all hope the above is offset by a fresh round
of ongoing *group-beheadings* by Al Zarquri in
Iraq and elsewhere.
Hopefully also all the new candidates for an "Islamic Haircut"
will be the many a'merkin xian missionary church types
now flooding the Middle East, with follow-up skullphucking
show by the overweight guys in black in the background
holding the AK's with big horsecocks as the post-game show.
Short of that we'll settle for a nice sacrificial
Vietnam-style bloodbath in Falluja or Sadir
City with lots of nice gory pics to wank to
on ogrish.com or some good Iraqi donkey-phucking pron.
"Cry HAVOC, and release the Dogs of War!!"
- General Chang of the Klingon Empire
> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol Hill next year, almost in a
> position to give President Bush whatever he wants on taxes, limits on legal
> damages, drilling in the Arctic and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11314758p-12229611c.html
There's still enough Democrats to fillabuster. All they need is a
Minority Leader who won't be taken out by his or her home state for
using it (a la Daschle). I'm sure there are plenty of volunteers.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:48:32 GMT
--------
Rabbi Jacklyn Hyde wrote:
> Priestess Pisces wrote:
>
>> "Republicans will be much stronger on Capitol Hill next year, almost in a
>> position to give President Bush whatever he wants on taxes, limits on legal
>> damages, drilling in the Arctic and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>>
>> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11314758p-12229611c.html
>
> There's still enough Democrats to fillabuster. All they need is a
> Minority Leader who won't be taken out by his or her home state for
> using it (a la Daschle). I'm sure there are plenty of volunteers.
Harry Reid from Nevada wants the job, and word 'round the campfire is
he'll get it.
Correspondent:: Leonard the Committed Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:45:20 -0500
--------
The scariest thing I've seen thus far is how we have 3 factions. 2/3 of
all elegible voters voted, and 1/3 stayed home and didnt care to
participate.
The first third managed to garner JUST ENOUGH support to
become the largest third. This third sees a dangerous world and a has
percieved need to feel they are being protected with little regard on how
that will be provided.
The second third has the median amount of support via a concious group
of progressive thinkers. This second third worries on how the first third
will provide for the first thirds protection, and the sacrifices the
second third will make as the first third sees it's plan to fruition.
The third third feels disenfranchised from the entire process, it's being
a chaotic construct. All's the third third knows that they can buy gas for
thier vehicles and have access to affordable chesseburgers on demand. This
final third lives with little other concerns other than those already
mentioned as the third thirds nature.
The members of both the first and second thirds have the more in common
with the third third than either the first or second third have in common
without the third third.
Which thirds third is most likely to serve as concensus reality?