Left devolves to endless whining, obstructionism, complaining. Or have they always been that way??

[p***@yahoo.com]

Has the American Left (ever) had anything positive to say?

The political movement which has hijacked the Democratic party, seems
to have devolved into a philosophy of being perpetually unhappy.

Anti-this. Anti-that.

Anti-Bush.

Anti-Cheney.

Anti-Rice. Anti-Bolton. Anti-Rumsfeld. Anti-Delay. Anti-Frist.
Anti-military. Anti-recruiters. Anti-Walmart. Anti-Halliburton.
Anti-business. Anti-Boy Scouts. Anti-Catholic. Anti-American.
Anti-Dollar. Anti-Rush Limbaugh. Anti-talk radio. Anti-gun.
Anti-SUV. Anti-10 Commandments. Anti-Ann Colter.

Liberals really don't seem to be for ... anything. Racebaiting
perhaps. Legislative quotas. Identity politics. Abortions. Fault
finding, being meddlesome busybodies - but not really for anything
honorable, nor pure. Certainly never patriotic. Never never
optimistic.

It's all now just about tearing down, and opposition. Anger. Hate.
Intolerance. Rejection of any and all ideas, not specifically part of
the agenda. Smearing. Mudslinging. Complaints.

They don't advocate freedom (the very essense of true liberalism), nor
rugged independence. They don't support free speech - unless they
approve of what is said. The American Left has completely lost sight
of any spirit of individual liberties they may have once dreamed of,
and instead now monolithically have become focused upon creating a vast
angry culture of neediness - a deliberately unhappy agenda of
opposition, groupthink, racial politics, finger pointing. Protesting
this or that.

Liberals are really now just compulsive complainers. There's nothing
whatsoever liberal, about liberals anymore.

Perhaps they've always been that way, it's just more obvious now.

[Ron O'Neal]

Total and complete Hog Wash.

Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.

RO

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Has the American Left (ever) had anything positive to say?
The political movement which has hijacked the Democratic party, seems
to have devolved into a philosophy of being perpetually unhappy.
Anti-this. Anti-that.
Anti-Bush.
Anti-Cheney.
Anti-Rice. Anti-Bolton. Anti-Rumsfeld. Anti-Delay. Anti-Frist.
Anti-military. Anti-recruiters. Anti-Walmart. Anti-Halliburton.
Anti-business. Anti-Boy Scouts. Anti-Catholic. Anti-American.
Anti-Dollar. Anti-Rush Limbaugh. Anti-talk radio. Anti-gun.
Anti-SUV. Anti-10 Commandments. Anti-Ann Colter.
Liberals really don't seem to be for ... anything. Racebaiting
perhaps. Legislative quotas. Identity politics. Abortions. Fault
finding, being meddlesome busybodies - but not really for anything
honorable, nor pure. Certainly never patriotic. Never never
optimistic.
It's all now just about tearing down, and opposition. Anger. Hate.
Intolerance. Rejection of any and all ideas, not specifically part of
the agenda. Smearing. Mudslinging. Complaints.
They don't advocate freedom (the very essense of true liberalism), nor
rugged independence. They don't support free speech - unless they
approve of what is said. The American Left has completely lost sight
of any spirit of individual liberties they may have once dreamed of,
and instead now monolithically have become focused upon creating a vast
angry culture of neediness - a deliberately unhappy agenda of
opposition, groupthink, racial politics, finger pointing. Protesting
this or that.
Liberals are really now just compulsive complainers. There's nothing
whatsoever liberal, about liberals anymore.
Perhaps they've always been that way, it's just more obvious now.

[Clay]

*sigh*

The essay was a good exposure of the brain-dead left in America today.

DOPE

<LOL>

-C-

Top poster Ron O'Neal whined:
.

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Has the American Left (ever) had anything positive to say?
The political movement which has hijacked the Democratic party, seems
to have devolved into a philosophy of being perpetually unhappy.
Anti-this. Anti-that.
Anti-Bush.
Anti-Cheney.
Anti-Rice. Anti-Bolton. Anti-Rumsfeld. Anti-Delay. Anti-Frist.
Anti-military. Anti-recruiters. Anti-Walmart. Anti-Halliburton.
Anti-business. Anti-Boy Scouts. Anti-Catholic. Anti-American.
Anti-Dollar. Anti-Rush Limbaugh. Anti-talk radio. Anti-gun.
Anti-SUV. Anti-10 Commandments. Anti-Ann Colter.
Liberals really don't seem to be for ... anything. Racebaiting
perhaps. Legislative quotas. Identity politics. Abortions. Fault
finding, being meddlesome busybodies - but not really for anything
honorable, nor pure. Certainly never patriotic. Never never
optimistic.
It's all now just about tearing down, and opposition. Anger. Hate.
Intolerance. Rejection of any and all ideas, not specifically part of
the agenda. Smearing. Mudslinging. Complaints.
They don't advocate freedom (the very essense of true liberalism), nor
rugged independence. They don't support free speech - unless they
approve of what is said. The American Left has completely lost sight
of any spirit of individual liberties they may have once dreamed of,
and instead now monolithically have become focused upon creating a vast
angry culture of neediness - a deliberately unhappy agenda of
opposition, groupthink, racial politics, finger pointing. Protesting
this or that.
Liberals are really now just compulsive complainers. There's nothing
whatsoever liberal, about liberals anymore.
Perhaps they've always been that way, it's just more obvious now.

[Ron O'Neal]

*SIGH*

*Eyes rolling upward*

You state the obvious. The post was titled "Left devolves to endless
whining, obstructionism, complaining. Or have they always been that way??"

It was an attack on the Left that was so full of generalized falsehoods that
it was absurd.

Grimm Brothers fairy tales.

RO

Post by Clay
*sigh*
The essay was a good exposure of the brain-dead left in America today.
DOPE
<LOL>
-C-
.

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Has the American Left (ever) had anything positive to say?
The political movement which has hijacked the Democratic party, seems
to have devolved into a philosophy of being perpetually unhappy.
Anti-this. Anti-that.
Anti-Bush.
Anti-Cheney.
Anti-Rice. Anti-Bolton. Anti-Rumsfeld. Anti-Delay. Anti-Frist.
Anti-military. Anti-recruiters. Anti-Walmart. Anti-Halliburton.
Anti-business. Anti-Boy Scouts. Anti-Catholic. Anti-American.
Anti-Dollar. Anti-Rush Limbaugh. Anti-talk radio. Anti-gun.
Anti-SUV. Anti-10 Commandments. Anti-Ann Colter.
Liberals really don't seem to be for ... anything. Racebaiting
perhaps. Legislative quotas. Identity politics. Abortions. Fault
finding, being meddlesome busybodies - but not really for anything
honorable, nor pure. Certainly never patriotic. Never never
optimistic.
It's all now just about tearing down, and opposition. Anger. Hate.
Intolerance. Rejection of any and all ideas, not specifically part of
the agenda. Smearing. Mudslinging. Complaints.
They don't advocate freedom (the very essense of true liberalism), nor
rugged independence. They don't support free speech - unless they
approve of what is said. The American Left has completely lost sight
of any spirit of individual liberties they may have once dreamed of,
and instead now monolithically have become focused upon creating a vast
angry culture of neediness - a deliberately unhappy agenda of
opposition, groupthink, racial politics, finger pointing. Protesting
this or that.
Liberals are really now just compulsive complainers. There's nothing
whatsoever liberal, about liberals anymore.
Perhaps they've always been that way, it's just more obvious now.

[Egbert Sousè]

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

[chris.holt]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè
Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

Of course, that characterization is suitable only for
teenagers; but it describes many conservatives' views
of most liberals.

Post by Alric Knebel
Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else.

Depends on the conservative. Many of them are willing
to say things are a mess, but they've always been a
mess, and we've muddled through so far. So don't panic,
we'll muddle through again even if we don't know what's
going on. That looks like optimism to me.

Post by Alric Knebel
They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime.

That's not the way they see it, though (at least many of
them). They view it as tough love; you need sticks as
well as carrots. And of course, evidence from the rest
of the world doesn't apply in the US.

Post by Alric Knebel
Then after all of that, their own lives don't change.

So they blame the liberals for continually sabotaging
their programs.

Post by Alric Knebel
So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth.

More true in the past couple of decades, when right
wing support of "fair and unbiased" media became
official party policy.

Post by Alric Knebel
You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly.

Except for taxes. Which have gone down for rich people,
but somehow doesn't seem to have solved the problem. So
the obvious answer is to exascerbate class divisions and
reduce social mobility.

Post by Alric Knebel
So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

I still can't remember how to spell schaudenfraude.

[Dana]

In article <d7fq4d$t8c$***@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk>, ***@ncl.ac.uk
says...

Post by chris.holt

Post by Egbert Sousè
Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.
Since when have leftists stopped saying it is a persons environment that
makes the person act the way thy do.

[Malibu Skipper]

Post by Dana
says...

Post by chris.holt

Post by Egbert Sousè
Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.
Since when have leftists stopped saying it is a persons environment that
makes the person act the way thy do.

The original poster seemed to claim that there were no optimistic
liberals; now you're saying we're ALL optimists.

If'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop, and if I drop, I'm gonna be in
motion. What's it gonna be, young feller?

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Egbert Sousè
Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.

So you agree that there are lots of optimistic liberals;
take it up with Egbert. Though I don't count liberals
as leftists, I recognize that you don't see a distinction.

Post by Dana
Since when have leftists stopped saying it is a persons environment that
makes the person act the way thy do.

Um, for a hundred and fifty years or so. You left out the
important qualifiers. Once you get past being a teenager,
you recognize that people are a mixture of environment and
heredity. Or would you like to defend the position that
rightists say it is entirely a person's genetic structure
that makes them act the way they do?

[Dana]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Egbert Sousè
Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.

So you agree that there are lots of optimistic liberals;

Liberals/leftists are relative, not optimists. Leftists/liberals believe
everything is relative, and that no one should be held accountable for their
actions, as their actions are always a result of the persons environment
while being raised.

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
Since when have leftists stopped saying it is a persons environment that
makes the person act the way thy do.

Um, for a hundred and fifty years or so.

Wrong.

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt
Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.

So you agree that there are lots of optimistic liberals;

Liberals/leftists are relative, not optimists. Leftists/liberals believe
everything is relative, and that no one should be held accountable for their
actions, as their actions are always a result of the persons environment
while being raised.

So why is it that all the liberals and also all the leftists
I know disagree with you? I grant you they're all over 25
so they've gotten past the knee-jerk stage; but you don't
seem to have done that yourself.

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
Since when have leftists stopped saying it is a persons environment that
makes the person act the way thy do.

Um, for a hundred and fifty years or so.

Wrong.

Bentham and Mill didn't say that a person's actions were
entirely the result of their environment; not that I
remember, anyway. They said it was a mixture; as I
imagine you would, if you were pressed.

Nature vs. nurture is a very old argument, and hardly
anyone goes entirely on one side or the other.

[Dana]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt
Many times I've heard conservatives complain that while
they're hard-headed realists, liberals are airy-fairy
people who expect that others are inherently good if
only placed in the right environment. If that's not
pollyannish optimism, what would you call it?

And how would you say leftists are not how you just described.

So you agree that there are lots of optimistic liberals;

Liberals/leftists are relative, not optimists. Leftists/liberals believe
everything is relative, and that no one should be held accountable for their
actions, as their actions are always a result of the persons environment
while being raised.

So why is it that all the liberals and also all the leftists
I know disagree with you

You are not keeping up again. Better go listen to hillary as she wants to
grant clemency to all criminals who are not allowed to vote.

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
Liberals/leftists are relative, not optimists. Leftists/liberals believe
everything is relative, and that no one should be held accountable for

their

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
actions, as their actions are always a result of the persons environment
while being raised.

So why is it that all the liberals and also all the leftists
I know disagree with you

You are not keeping up again. Better go listen to hillary as she wants to
grant clemency to all criminals who are not allowed to vote.

That's not the same thing as saying that a person's actions are
always a result of the person's environment while being raised.
That's closer to saying that when you've paid your debt to
society you get to start afresh. I didn't realize that was
a particularly liberal viewpoint, since many conservatives
have said the same kind of thing.

[Jim E]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
Liberals/leftists are relative, not optimists. Leftists/liberals believe
everything is relative, and that no one should be held accountable for

their

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
actions, as their actions are always a result of the persons environment
while being raised.

So why is it that all the liberals and also all the leftists
I know disagree with you

You are not keeping up again. Better go listen to hillary as she wants to
grant clemency to all criminals who are not allowed to vote.

That's not the same thing as saying that a person's actions are
always a result of the person's environment while being raised.
That's closer to saying that when you've paid your debt to
society you get to start afresh.

No it's called pandering to those with a vested interest in squashing this
responsibility thing.
The ones who get put away if found responsible.
Felons, a ready made demoslime voting block, no wonder the Hildabeast wants
to mine it .


Jim E

[Malibu Skipper]

Post by Jim E
No it's called pandering to those with a vested interest in squashing this
responsibility thing.
The ones who get put away if found responsible.
Felons, a ready made demoslime voting block, no wonder the Hildabeast wants
to mine it .

No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship. You may agree with this or not;
but your argument isn't helped by making up motives for your opponents
and calling them silly names. I know it's what Rush does, but it really
just makes you look like you're not serious.

[Dana]

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
No it's called pandering to those with a vested interest in squashing this
responsibility thing.
The ones who get put away if found responsible.
Felons, a ready made demoslime voting block, no wonder the Hildabeast wants
to mine it .

No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship.

What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid in
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt to
the victim.
It is basic, an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc.
This includes drunk drivers who kill and harm people.

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by Malibu Skipper
No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship.

What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid in
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt to
the victim.

Many times people can *never* pay their debts. If I were to
steal millions and go bankrupt, what should happen? If I
were to kill someone, I can't bring them back to life.

Post by Dana
It is basic, an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc.

Someone once said that justice should be tempered by mercy.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all
that.

Post by Dana
This includes drunk drivers who kill and harm people.

Within limits. I'm not suggesting that murder should be
legal; but an eye for an eye doesn't always work very
well. Think Hatfields and McCoys.

[Dana]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by Malibu Skipper
No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship.

What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid in
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt to
the victim.

Many times people can *never* pay their debts. If I were to
steal millions and go bankrupt, what should happen?

You would have to pay back to the person your robbed, if you were unable to
do so, you would have to provide manual labor to the person you robbed.

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid

in

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt

to

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
the victim.

Many times people can *never* pay their debts. If I were to
steal millions and go bankrupt, what should happen?

You would have to pay back to the person your robbed, if you were unable to
do so, you would have to provide manual labor to the person you robbed.

So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

[Martin McPhillips]

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit
suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

[Native American]

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

[Martin McPhillips]

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit
suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

[Native American]

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his fingers are too weak to
depress the Shift key on his computer....either that, or he is just too dumb
to know he is supposed to capitalize his own name...........

[Martin McPhillips]

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit
suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his fingers
are too weak to depress the Shift key on his
computer....either that, or he is just too dumb to know he
is supposed to capitalize his own name...........

Chris is a member of the "denial Left." He denies
that he is a Leftist, but runs a Lefitst line
pretty much all the time, with a few equivocal
"buts" thrown in here and there. The lower
case thing is an old affectation that has
cycled through a generation or two. Chris doesn't
want to make himself the center of his own life;
that helps him maintain that chinless and
watery thought process.

[Native American]

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his fingers are too weak
to depress the Shift key on his computer....either that, or he is just
too dumb to know he is supposed to capitalize his own name...........

Chris is a member of the "denial Left." He denies
that he is a Leftist, but runs a Lefitst line
pretty much all the time, with a few equivocal
"buts" thrown in here and there. The lower
case thing is an old affectation that has
cycled through a generation or two. Chris doesn't
want to make himself the center of his own life;
that helps him maintain that chinless and
watery thought process.

"chinless and watery thought process"

I *LIKE* that one! It seems so, how shall I put it....*apt* in his case.

[Martin McPhillips]

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I
commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his
fingers are too weak to depress the Shift key on his
computer....either that, or he is just too dumb to know
he is supposed to capitalize his own name...........

Chris is a member of the "denial Left." He denies
that he is a Leftist, but runs a Lefitst line
pretty much all the time, with a few equivocal
"buts" thrown in here and there. The lower
case thing is an old affectation that has
cycled through a generation or two. Chris doesn't
want to make himself the center of his own life;
that helps him maintain that chinless and
watery thought process.

"chinless and watery thought process"
I *LIKE* that one! It seems so, how shall I put
it....*apt* in his case.

That aptness is the result of Chris's moral
confusion.

Moral confusion is where he's the deepest.

It's his liquid center.

[Native American]

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his fingers are too weak
to depress the Shift key on his computer....either that, or he is just
too dumb to know he is supposed to capitalize his own name...........

Chris is a member of the "denial Left." He denies
that he is a Leftist, but runs a Lefitst line
pretty much all the time, with a few equivocal
"buts" thrown in here and there. The lower
case thing is an old affectation that has
cycled through a generation or two. Chris doesn't
want to make himself the center of his own life;
that helps him maintain that chinless and
watery thought process.

"chinless and watery thought process"
I *LIKE* that one! It seems so, how shall I put it....*apt* in his case.

That aptness is the result of Chris's moral
confusion.
Moral confusion is where he's the deepest.
It's his liquid center.

You know what the phrase "his liquid center" brings to mind?

Ted Kennedy's stomach, after he's been perched on a barstool for a few
hours. Especially just prior to him offering Mary Jo a ride home in his
car.....

[Martin McPhillips]

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by chris.holt
So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I
commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Everyone. But I still discourage it, for the sake
of your immortal soul.

LOL!! And nicely put, Martin!

I try not to hold Chris's chinless ways against
him, at least not to that extent. I even
capitalize his name for him because he refuses
to do it -- he's a lower case sort of guy. I've
taken him into my self-esteem workshop, on
scholarship.

I've been wondering about that - I had assumed his
fingers are too weak to depress the Shift key on his
computer....either that, or he is just too dumb to
know he is supposed to capitalize his own
name...........

Chris is a member of the "denial Left." He denies
that he is a Leftist, but runs a Lefitst line
pretty much all the time, with a few equivocal
"buts" thrown in here and there. The lower
case thing is an old affectation that has
cycled through a generation or two. Chris doesn't
want to make himself the center of his own life;
that helps him maintain that chinless and
watery thought process.

"chinless and watery thought process"
I *LIKE* that one! It seems so, how shall I put
it....*apt* in his case.

That aptness is the result of Chris's moral
confusion.
Moral confusion is where he's the deepest.
It's his liquid center.

You know what the phrase "his liquid center" brings to
mind?
Ted Kennedy's stomach, after he's been perched on a
barstool for a few hours. Especially just prior to him
offering Mary Jo a ride home in his car.....

Exactly. In different ways, the term applies
across the Left spectrum, and also make
occasional appearances on the right.

But "the liquid center" is very much
the core of any Leftist. And when they
work themselves up into their daily
Five Minute Hate, the liquid center
boils. For some of them, the Five Minute
Hate switch got broke, so they're boiling
all the time. Those guys get sent to Usenet.

[Native American]

Post by Martin McPhillips

Post by Native American
You know what the phrase "his liquid center" brings to mind?
Ted Kennedy's stomach, after he's been perched on a barstool for a few
hours. Especially just prior to him offering Mary Jo a ride home in his
car.....

Exactly. In different ways, the term applies
across the Left spectrum, and also make
occasional appearances on the right.
But "the liquid center" is very much
the core of any Leftist. And when they
work themselves up into their daily
Five Minute Hate, the liquid center
boils. For some of them, the Five Minute
Hate switch got broke, so they're boiling
all the time. Those guys get sent to Usenet.

Well, they sure got sent to the right place, because THAT is where they get
their Leftist/Marxist asses kicked!!!

[Dana]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid

in

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt

to

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
the victim.

Many times people can *never* pay their debts. If I were to
steal millions and go bankrupt, what should happen?

You would have to pay back to the person your robbed, if you were unable to
do so, you would have to provide manual labor to the person you robbed.

So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Society, as you would no longer be able to steal from someone else.

Post by chris.holt
--

[chris.holt]

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
You would have to pay back to the person your robbed, if you were unable

to

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
do so, you would have to provide manual labor to the person you robbed.

So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Society, as you would no longer be able to steal from someone else.

So I'm not paying anything back to the person I robbed, and
they don't benefit. I'm not doing anything to contribute
to society as a whole. All I'm doing is going zero in
your cost/benefit analysis.

This isn't the kind of thing you seemed to be imagining
when you were talking about retribution, an eye for an
eye and all that. This starts looking more like "how
can I get some value out of this guy who did me wrong"?

I hope you notice the difference.

I also hope that you notice you've just managed to
justify applying the death penalty to every criminal no
matter how small their crime was.

[Dana]

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
You would have to pay back to the person your robbed, if you were unable

to

Post by chris.holt

Post by Dana
do so, you would have to provide manual labor to the person you robbed.

So faced with a life sentence of hard labour, I commit suicide.
Who benefits?

Society, as you would no longer be able to steal from someone else.

So I'm not paying anything back to the person I robbed, and
they don't benefit. I'm not doing anything to contribute
to society as a whole. All I'm doing is going zero in
your cost/benefit analysis.

But you would never be able to harm anyone else in society.

Post by chris.holt
This isn't the kind of thing you seemed to be imagining
when you were talking about retribution, an eye for an
eye and all that. This starts looking more like "how
can I get some value out of this guy who did me wrong"?

In reality it is returning property to the victim.

Post by chris.holt
I also hope that you notice you've just managed to
justify applying the death penalty to every criminal no
matter how small their crime was.

No the death penalty should only be used on violent criminals like drunk
drivers who kill people, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, and people who
use weapons in a crime even if no one dies. The goal of the death penalty
should be to remove violent criminals from society.

Post by chris.holt
--

[Malibu Skipper]

Post by Dana

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
No it's called pandering to those with a vested interest in squashing

this

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
responsibility thing.
The ones who get put away if found responsible.
Felons, a ready made demoslime voting block, no wonder the Hildabeast

wants

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
to mine it .

No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship.

What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid in
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt to
the victim.
It is basic, an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc.
This includes drunk drivers who kill and harm people.

Different debate. Some other time, we can talk about what appropriate
sentences are for various crimes. Right now, what I'm saying is that
when a felon has served whatever sentence society deems appropriate, he
should be restored to full citizenship. Otherwise, you end up with an
underclass of ex-convicts, running around loose but not considered full
citizens of the country; and thus much more likely to return to crime.

[Dana]

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Dana

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
No it's called pandering to those with a vested interest in squashing

this

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
responsibility thing.
The ones who get put away if found responsible.
Felons, a ready made demoslime voting block, no wonder the Hildabeast

wants

Post by Malibu Skipper

Post by Jim E
to mine it .

No. The idea is that, if people who have served their prison sentences
and paid their debt are then restored to full citizenship, they're more
likely to be keep on the straight and narrow than if they're kept in a
perpetual state of half-citizenship.

What you are mising, is that until the victime of the criminal is paid in
full for the crime against him, the criminal has never paid their debt to
the victim.
It is basic, an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc.
This includes drunk drivers who kill and harm people.

Different debate.

No, it is the same debate. It is ust that the left does not want to hold
criminals accountable for their actions.

Some other time, we can talk about what appropriate

Post by Malibu Skipper
sentences are for various crimes. Right now, what I'm saying is that
when a felon has served whatever sentence society deems appropriate, he
should be restored to full citizenship.

Not until he has fully recompensated the victim.

Otherwise, you end up with an

Post by Malibu Skipper
underclass of ex-convicts, running around loose but not considered full
citizens of the country; and thus much more likely to return to crime.

No, they will be watched more carefully, and any minor infraction should
send them right back to jail.

[Egbert Sousè]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

There are too many optimistic Conservatives to name. As a matter of
fact the only pessimistic Conservative I can think of is Pat Buchanan.
Optimistic people are not the types that go in for drugs and welfare.
The believe that all murderers should live is a really pessimistic
outlook.
Notice that most of the blind anger on this news group comes from
extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. They are so much
alike.
I'm sorry to hear that life is getting worse for you but maybe if you
changed your outlook things would improve.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

There are too many optimistic Conservatives to name. As a matter of
fact the only pessimistic Conservative I can think of is Pat Buchanan.
Optimistic people are not the types that go in for drugs and welfare.
The believe that all murderers should live is a really pessimistic
outlook.
Notice that most of the blind anger on this news group comes from
extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. They are so much
alike.
I'm sorry to hear that life is getting worse for you but maybe if you
changed your outlook things would improve.

My outlook is fine. In fact, I'm an optimist, and I believe the good
guys will win. That means the bitchers wanting to jail and punish
everybody for private problems are going to lose. That's the people
like YOU. Conservatives are exactly as I nailed them. They're chronic
bitchers, and they're pundits have created a cottage industry out of
bitching to feed the need. That's the modern political landscape. You
guys have a preoccupation with punishment of one kind or another, even
when it isn't warranted. You're pessimists, and your fanatics about it.

[Egbert Sousè]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

There are too many optimistic Conservatives to name. As a matter of
fact the only pessimistic Conservative I can think of is Pat Buchanan.
Optimistic people are not the types that go in for drugs and welfare.
The believe that all murderers should live is a really pessimistic
outlook.
Notice that most of the blind anger on this news group comes from
extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. They are so much
alike.
I'm sorry to hear that life is getting worse for you but maybe if you
changed your outlook things would improve.

My outlook is fine. In fact, I'm an optimist, and I believe the good
guys will win. That means the bitchers wanting to jail and punish
everybody for private problems are going to lose. That's the people
like YOU. Conservatives are exactly as I nailed them. They're chronic
bitchers, and they're pundits have created a cottage industry out of
bitching to feed the need. That's the modern political landscape. You
guys have a preoccupation with punishment of one kind or another, even
when it isn't warranted. You're pessimists, and your fanatics about it.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of negative postings on this
newsgroup and others come from Liberals/left wingers?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

There are too many optimistic Conservatives to name. As a matter of
fact the only pessimistic Conservative I can think of is Pat Buchanan.
Optimistic people are not the types that go in for drugs and welfare.
The believe that all murderers should live is a really pessimistic
outlook.
Notice that most of the blind anger on this news group comes from
extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. They are so much
alike.
I'm sorry to hear that life is getting worse for you but maybe if you
changed your outlook things would improve.

My outlook is fine. In fact, I'm an optimist, and I believe the good
guys will win. That means the bitchers wanting to jail and punish
everybody for private problems are going to lose. That's the people
like YOU. Conservatives are exactly as I nailed them. They're chronic
bitchers, and they're pundits have created a cottage industry out of
bitching to feed the need. That's the modern political landscape. You
guys have a preoccupation with punishment of one kind or another, even
when it isn't warranted. You're pessimists, and your fanatics about it.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of negative postings on this
newsgroup and others come from Liberals/left wingers?

That's because you have selective vision. I see nothing but bitching
coming from the right, mostly in the form of outrageous accusations
about liberals. Don't be that big of a dope. You're wearing your ass
on your shoulders.

[Clay]

Alric Knebel is way past "unhinged" nowadays <LOL>:
.

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else. They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime. Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls. THAT'S the truth. You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

There are too many optimistic Conservatives to name. As a matter of
fact the only pessimistic Conservative I can think of is Pat Buchanan.
Optimistic people are not the types that go in for drugs and welfare.
The believe that all murderers should live is a really pessimistic
outlook.
Notice that most of the blind anger on this news group comes from
extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. They are so much
alike.
I'm sorry to hear that life is getting worse for you but maybe if you
changed your outlook things would improve.

My outlook is fine. In fact, I'm an optimist, and I believe the good
guys will win. That means the bitchers wanting to jail and punish
everybody for private problems are going to lose. That's the people
like YOU. Conservatives are exactly as I nailed them. They're chronic
bitchers, and they're pundits have created a cottage industry out of
bitching to feed the need. That's the modern political landscape. You
guys have a preoccupation with punishment of one kind or another, even
when it isn't warranted. You're pessimists, and your fanatics about it.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of negative postings on this
newsgroup and others come from Liberals/left wingers?

I've never liked apes dressed up in human clothing. I never have. I
was always repulsed when I saw someone bringing a chimp out by the hand,
and the chimp would be in coveralls or a suit. I hated it.

Now your posts make sense... your admission obviously cause major brain
damage during your childhood. Was your mother ever able to find the
neighborhood coward (better known as that lazy sperm donor you always
wanted to call "daddy")??

You've must've spent a fortune under psychiatric treatment. More work
is necessary.

Alric Knebel
http://www.imissmydaddy.com/leftist_loon.html

<ROTFLMFAO>

-C-

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Alric Knebel
That's because you have selective vision. I see nothing but bitching
coming from the right, mostly in the form of outrageous accusations
about liberals. Don't be that big of a dope. You're wearing your ass
on your shoulders.

<Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Furry Ass Off>

I'm glad I can make your day. <LOL>

[Clay]

Alric Knebel is the USENET dope (shhhh, everyone already knows that)
<LOL>:
.

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative?

Each one who won last November. Jim DeMint comes to mind. John Thune
is another.

<LOL>

Post by Alric Knebel
They bitch about everything,
and run to the polls usually to have their party do something to someone
else.

You forgot one thing, moron -- they usually win.

Post by Alric Knebel
They love their bad emotions: get those people off welfare,
incarcerate those drug users and dealers, make sure the death penalty is
affirmed, get tough on crime.

Spoken like a true felon. You posting from jail, convict???

<LOL>

Post by Alric Knebel
Then after all of that, their own lives
don't change. So they continue to listen to the right-wing pie holes
who feed the anger, who crank up the rhetoric to keep pace with the
mounting frustration of their listeners, who only get a temporary fix at
the polls.

Jeez... they sure pissed you off. For that, they deserve a medal.

<LOL>

Post by Alric Knebel
THAT'S the truth.

Mumbling to yourself again, we see.

<LOL>

Post by Alric Knebel
You guys are chronic bitchers about
things that have nothing to do with your life directly. So each
election, things stay the same for your, and to your satisfaction, they
get worse for someone else.

Did they get worse for you, shit-for-brains?

GOOD!!!

<LOL>

Post by Alric Knebel
Alric Knebel
http://www.imissmydaddy.com/leftist_loon.html

<ROTFLMFAO>

-C-

[Alric Knebel]

<LOL>

For a minute, I actually thought you were going to do something besides
grin and throw feces. But you didn't. <LOL>

[Dana]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,

You are confused again.

[()()Tee(tee)Inn(inn)Tee(tee)()()]

Typical left-wing buttboys in heat. LOL

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,

You are confused again.

[A***@LoonyRighwing.com]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:44:47 GMT,

Post by ()()Tee(tee)Inn(inn)Tee(tee)()()
Typical left-wing buttboys in heat. LOL

Are you saying that we shouldn't feel passion when buttfucking you
dumb cocksuckers?

After all, 60+ years of us making and implementing policy must really
stick in your collective craws.



The Reagan Years: How Soon We Forget Real Corruption

Gleeful charges by Republicans that Whitewater is comparable to
Watergate and that the Clinton Administration is more corrupt than any
recent administration are ludicrous when compared to the actual record
of corruption in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted
that the charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas
long before he became President.

With Reagan, scandals occured while he was President.

Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes Johnson's book,
"Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years" (1991,
Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s fall from dominant world power to
struggling debtor nation during the Reagan years.

Johnson says "two types of problems typified the ethical misconduct
cases of the Reagan years, and both had heavy consequences to citizens
everywhere.

One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run amok; the
other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."

"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In
terms of number of officials involved, the record of his
administration was the worst ever." (P. 184).

"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides was
to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the media that
reported them."

"Three great scandals stained the Reagan record, and they all involved
the age-old form of corruption formed by the connection between money
and politics.

What distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to be made.

The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any previous measure.
Nothing better illustrated the problem than a case that connected some
of Reagan's closest associates, a score of top government officials in
several departments and agencies, and the kind of political corruption
that extended byack to the Washington of Grant and Harding:

influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks,
fraud and conspiracy.

Before it was ended, it had dragged Atty Gen. Meese, advisor Lyn
Nofziger, and many others into the net; led to indictments, trials,
and convictions; and besmirched the reputation of the Reagan
administration.

It became known, popularly, as the Wedtech case."

* Lyn Nofziger--convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White
House in Wedtech scandal.

* Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one
hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a
congressional subcomittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying
activities after leaving the White House.

* E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Atty General Edwin
Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in
connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.

Then there was:

-- the Pentagon procurement scandal, which resulted from the
Republicans' enormous infusion of money too quickly into the Defense
Department after the lean Carter years.

-- Massive fraud and mismanagement in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development throughout Reagan's eight years. These were finally
documented in congressional hearings in spring 1989, after Reagan left
office. Cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in losses. What made
this scandal most shameful was that Reagans' friends and fixers
profited at the expense of the poor, the very people HUD and the
federal government were pledged to assist through low-income housing.

-- the Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security
Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek
third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras. Secretary of State Schultz
warned that it would be an "impeachable offense" if the U.S.

[Dana]

Post by A***@LoonyRighwing.com
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:44:47 GMT,

Post by ()()Tee(tee)Inn(inn)Tee(tee)()()
Typical left-wing buttboys in heat. LOL

Are you saying that we shouldn't feel passion when buttfucking

Poor little gary, still the homo.

[()()Tee(tee)Inn(inn)Tee(tee)()()]

Unless you're anally retentive, which you probably are, it's the Repubs who
bent you left-wing sissified buttboys over and hammered it home...You
buttslamming girly boys seem to have a passion for asswhuppins. Which we are
pleased to oblige. LOL

Post by A***@LoonyRighwing.com
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:44:47 GMT,

Post by ()()Tee(tee)Inn(inn)Tee(tee)()()
Typical left-wing buttboys in heat. LOL

Are you saying that we shouldn't feel passion when buttfucking you
dumb cocksuckers?
After all, 60+ years of us making and implementing policy must really
stick in your collective craws.
The Reagan Years: How Soon We Forget Real Corruption
Gleeful charges by Republicans that Whitewater is comparable to
Watergate and that the Clinton Administration is more corrupt than any
recent administration are ludicrous when compared to the actual record
of corruption in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted
that the charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas
long before he became President.
With Reagan, scandals occured while he was President.
Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes Johnson's book,
"Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years" (1991,
Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s fall from dominant world power to
struggling debtor nation during the Reagan years.
Johnson says "two types of problems typified the ethical misconduct
cases of the Reagan years, and both had heavy consequences to citizens
everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run amok; the
other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In
terms of number of officials involved, the record of his
administration was the worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides was
to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the media that
reported them."
"Three great scandals stained the Reagan record, and they all involved
the age-old form of corruption formed by the connection between money
and politics.
What distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to be made.
The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any previous measure.
Nothing better illustrated the problem than a case that connected some
of Reagan's closest associates, a score of top government officials in
several departments and agencies, and the kind of political corruption
influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks,
fraud and conspiracy.
Before it was ended, it had dragged Atty Gen. Meese, advisor Lyn
Nofziger, and many others into the net; led to indictments, trials,
and convictions; and besmirched the reputation of the Reagan
administration.
It became known, popularly, as the Wedtech case."
* Lyn Nofziger--convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White
House in Wedtech scandal.
* Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one
hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a
congressional subcomittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying
activities after leaving the White House.
* E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Atty General Edwin
Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in
connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
-- the Pentagon procurement scandal, which resulted from the
Republicans' enormous infusion of money too quickly into the Defense
Department after the lean Carter years.
-- Massive fraud and mismanagement in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development throughout Reagan's eight years. These were finally
documented in congressional hearings in spring 1989, after Reagan left
office. Cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in losses. What made
this scandal most shameful was that Reagans' friends and fixers
profited at the expense of the poor, the very people HUD and the
federal government were pledged to assist through low-income housing.
-- the Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security
Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek
third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras. Secretary of State Schultz
warned that it would be an "impeachable offense" if the U.S.

[A***@LoonyRighwing.com]

Post by Dana
You are confused again.

Were you confused when you wrote this, BUTTMASTER?

Post by Dana
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Dana

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Egbert Sousè

Post by Ron O'Neal
Total and complete Hog Wash.
Anyone who believes this tripe would believe the Grimm Brothers stories.
RO

Just for kicks; can you name an optimistic Liberal?

Can you name an optimistic conservative? They bitch about everything,

You are confused again.

No, I'm not, my little corn-fed birdbrain.