Discussion:
Dixie Chicks Call Bush A Dumb Fuck. Right Again!
(too old to reply)
l***@yahoo.com.au
2006-09-13 12:45:08 UTC
Permalink
She then looks into the camera, as if addressing
Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''
Oooooooh. She said bad words into the camera. And why do Liberals find
that entertaining? Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. Natalie Mains isn't worthy to suck George W.
Bush's cock.

Besides, it's not like the Dixie Chicks are highly regarded
practitioners of country music anyway. If they were real country girls,
they'd shut the fuck up and clean something.
a***@gmail.com
2006-09-13 13:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
The Dixie Clits
2006-09-13 14:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
der Clits sure are "swell"
l***@yahoo.com.au
2006-09-13 15:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
No. An ad hominem attack would be me saying "***@gmail.com is a
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.

Nice try though.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 16:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You
have never seen anything to support your claim that
"Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ tests than the
public at large.

In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals
- I'm not one, so don't take this as any kind of
defence of contemporary American liberalism - generally
seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives or
the population overall. The problem is that being
intelligent doesn't necessarily mean one has the right
values of what's good and bad, what the role of people
in relation to society and government should be, and so on.

I'm libertarian, although culturally and politically I
feel more comfortable with certain conservative values.
However, I find liberals generally far more
intellectually stimulating and pleasant to be around
socially than I do most conservatives; most
self-described conservatives seem to me to be knuckleheads.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 16:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up
with?" when someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind? Perhaps you're
not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 18:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they
Who is "they", dummy? You're certainly not talking
about the several Ph.D. holders in economics and
political science whom I know and who consider
themselves "liberal" on most social issues (and, in the
case of the poli-sci guy, on everything.)
Post by Mike Flannigan
stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up
with?" when someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was
an empty, sophomoric ad hominem.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Perhaps you're
not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
There's another.

The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ
positively correlates well with education, and
education positively correlates well with a tendency to
hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent
people are well educated, and not all well educated
people are liberals - me, for example - but the
tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 20:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they
Who is "they", dummy?
Please refer to your above post. The subject is "liberals", dummy.

See what I mean about this guy not being the sharpest knife in the drawer,
folks?

Plus, I do believe his calling me a "dummy" was an empty, sophomoric ad
hominem.
Post by Leif Erikson
You're certainly not talking about the several Ph.D. holders in economics
and political science whom I know and who consider themselves "liberal" on
most social issues (and, in the case of the poli-sci guy, on everything.)
I am if they espouse left-wing economics and political science. Or, are
liberal on social issues.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up with?" when
someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was an empty, sophomoric
ad hominem.
I didn't say liberals have a low I.Q.. I said, "Which one of you low I.Q.
liberals cross posted in us.military.army? Can a liberal have a low I.Q.,
dummy?
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Perhaps you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
There's another.
The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ positively correlates
well with education, and education positively correlates well with a
tendency to hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent people
are well educated, and not all well educated people are liberals - me, for
example - but the tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 20:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they
Who is "they", dummy?
Please refer to your above post. The subject is "liberals", dummy.
WHO, dummy? Don't give me your stupid caricature of
people at the opposite extreme from your extreme view,
dummy. Name names, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
See what I mean about this guy not being the sharpest knife in the drawer,
folks?
See what I mean about you being an incompetent ad
hominem-slinging extremist, dummy?
Post by Mike Flannigan
Plus, I do believe his calling me a "dummy" was an empty, sophomoric ad
hominem.
No, dummy. An ad hominem is when I am trying to refute
your argument, but instead of going at the argument
itself, I attempt to do so by attacking you. But I'm
not doing that, dummy. In the first place, you don't
have an argument for me to attack. In the second
place, dummy, I'm only calling you "dummy" because I
think you're a dumb extremist shitbag. I hope that
clarifies it for you, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
You're certainly not talking about the several Ph.D. holders in economics
and political science whom I know and who consider themselves "liberal" on
most social issues (and, in the case of the poli-sci guy, on everything.)
I am if they espouse left-wing economics and political science. Or, are
liberal on social issues.
No, you're not. They never said anything about ad
hominem, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up with?" when
someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was an empty, sophomoric
ad hominem.
I didn't say liberals have a low I.Q..
Some other dummy wrote, "Because Liberals score much
lower on IQ tests than the population at large." You
defended his comment; you agree with it.
Post by Mike Flannigan
I said, "Which one of you low I.Q.
liberals cross posted in us.military.army? Can a liberal have a low I.Q.,
dummy?
Sure one can, dummy. However, I believe based on
accurate empirical observation that smart and
intelligent people have an unfortunate tendency to
embrace contemporary liberal values. A lot of this has
to do with being somewhat arrogant about their
intelligence, and their belief that being more
intelligent means they're also smarter about
everything, including things far outside their fields.
As I say, I consider it unfortunate, but I don't
think it can reasonably be denied.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Perhaps you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
There's another.
The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ positively correlates
well with education, and education positively correlates well with a
tendency to hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent people
are well educated, and not all well educated people are liberals - me, for
example - but the tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on
many issues. I don't think they're any more
disconnected from reality than fundamentalist Christian
hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues,
most notoriously "multi-culturalism", they are.
However, business, economics, the hard sciences, and
the professional schools other than law don't seem to
be dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most
people who have university degrees don't take a lot of
that multi-culti crap seriously anyway.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one,
so don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either
conservatives or the population overall.
Is that why they
Who is "they", dummy?
Please refer to your above post. The subject is "liberals", dummy.
WHO, dummy? Don't give me your stupid caricature of people at the opposite
extreme from your extreme view, dummy. Name names, dummy.
When you said "liberals", who were YOU talking about? Are you deranged or
something? You use the broad term liberals and then flip out when someone
else does the same thing. That's a sure sign of someone not being the
sharpest knife in the drawer. Just like I said, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
See what I mean about this guy not being the sharpest knife in the
drawer, folks?
See what I mean about you being an incompetent ad hominem-slinging
extremist, dummy?
There he goes again. Accusing me of slinging ad hominem by slinging ad
hominem. Yep, he's a deranged dummy all right.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Plus, I do believe his calling me a "dummy" was an empty, sophomoric ad
hominem.
No, dummy. An ad hominem is when I am trying to refute your argument, but
instead of going at the argument itself, I attempt to do so by attacking
you. But I'm not doing that, dummy. In the first place, you don't have
an argument for me to attack. In the second place, dummy, I'm only
calling you "dummy" because I think you're a dumb extremist shitbag. I
hope that clarifies it for you, dummy.
The argument is that you are a dummy because you use the word "liberal"
without naming names but then fly into an ad hominem rant becuse I didn't
name names. Then you want me to name every liberal I ever heard saying
something stupid. Well, that's stupid. I base my assertion on having been
exposed to thousands of self-avowed liberals during my life, here in this
NG, in the mass media, and personally.

Your above is an ad hominem rant, as well as the one above. I've
demonstrated clearly that you are a dolt and then you pretend that it never
happened, and so resort to ad hominem rants. Not only are you a dummy, but
apparently deranged as well. Are you sure you're not a liberal? Because you
act just like one.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
You're certainly not talking about the several Ph.D. holders in economics
and political science whom I know and who consider themselves "liberal"
on most social issues (and, in the case of the poli-sci guy, on
everything.)
I am if they espouse left-wing economics and political science. Or, are
liberal on social issues.
No, you're not. They never said anything about ad hominem, dummy.
"They", being the kind of person that would stupidly chastise someone for
responding to an ad hominem attack in kind. Completely missing the fact that
the Dixie Chicks comments were pure unadulterated ad hominem in the first
place. Someone like a liberal. Someone like you, dummy.

So you see, that's why you think liberals are smart. It's because things
like that soar right over your head. You stupidly sided with the liberal you
thought was being smart when in fact he was being a typical liberal dumb
ass, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up with?" when
someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was an empty,
sophomoric ad hominem.
I didn't say liberals have a low I.Q..
Some other dummy wrote, "Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests
than the population at large." You defended his comment; you agree with
it.
I agree with the idea that liberals tend to be dolts. But I didn't say
anything about how they score on I. Q. tests.

You got confused and didn't realize we were two different people. Now you
can apologize for saying that "Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having
low IQ was an empty, sophomoric ad hominem.", because I didn't say it.

See what I mean folks? Only a dummy that can't keep up with who said what
would think liberals are smart.
Post by Mike Flannigan
I said, "Which one of you low I.Q. liberals cross posted in
us.military.army? Can a liberal have a low I.Q., dummy?
Sure one can, dummy. However, I believe based on accurate empirical
observation that smart and intelligent people have an unfortunate tendency
to embrace contemporary liberal values. A lot of this has to do with
being somewhat arrogant about their intelligence, and their belief that
being more intelligent means they're also smarter about everything,
including things far outside their fields. As I say, I consider it
unfortunate, but I don't think it can reasonably be denied.
So what you are saying is that liberals usually don't know what the hell
they are talking about. No, I don't deny that. This may be a breakthrough
for you.

I have a better explanation though. I think there is mythology afloat out
there that holds that being a liberal means you are smart. So naturally,
people who aren't, and can't think for themselves glom on so they'll seem to
be smart. Therefore, the ranks of people who call themselves liberals tend
be populated with dolts. I've seen it demonstrated over and over. Dumb asses
who claim that they are smart because they call themselves liberal.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Perhaps you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
There's another.
The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ positively correlates
well with education, and education positively correlates well with a
tendency to hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent people
are well educated, and not all well educated people are liberals - me,
for example - but the tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on many issues. I
don't think they're any more disconnected from reality than fundamentalist
Christian hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues, most notoriously
"multi-culturalism", they are. However, business, economics, the hard
sciences, and the professional schools other than law don't seem to be
dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most people who have
university degrees don't take a lot of that multi-culti crap seriously
anyway.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-14 21:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one,
so don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either
conservatives or the population overall.
Is that why they
Who is "they", dummy?
Please refer to your above post. The subject is "liberals", dummy.
WHO, dummy? Don't give me your stupid caricature of people at the opposite
extreme from your extreme view, dummy. Name names, dummy.
When you said "liberals", who were YOU talking about?
I didn't use the word originally, dummy. I don't
generally think in terms of groups first and the people
in the groups only secondarily; why do you?
Post by Mike Flannigan
Are you deranged or
something? You use the broad term liberals
I didn't. You and your fellow hatemonger did.
Post by Mike Flannigan
and then flip out when someone
else does the same thing.
I never did it.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That's a sure sign of someone not being the
[snip stale trite usenet insult]
Post by Mike Flannigan
See what I mean about this guy not being the sharpest knife in the
drawer, folks?
See what I mean about you being an incompetent ad hominem-slinging
extremist, dummy?
There he goes again.
Yep. Get used to it, dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Plus, I do believe his calling me a "dummy" was an empty, sophomoric ad
hominem.
No, dummy. An ad hominem is when I am trying to refute your argument, but
instead of going at the argument itself, I attempt to do so by attacking
you. But I'm not doing that, dummy. In the first place, you don't have
an argument for me to attack. In the second place, dummy, I'm only
calling you "dummy" because I think you're a dumb extremist shitbag. I
hope that clarifies it for you, dummy.
The argument is that
You didn't have an argument, dummy. You started out
with a lame insult. That's all.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
You're certainly not talking about the several Ph.D. holders in economics
and political science whom I know and who consider themselves "liberal"
on most social issues (and, in the case of the poli-sci guy, on
everything.)
I am if they espouse left-wing economics and political science. Or, are
liberal on social issues.
No, you're not. They never said anything about ad hominem, dummy.
"They", being
"They", when I used it, being my friends who consider
themselves liberal. Dummy. My friends didn't whine
about any ad hominem, dummy, so you weren't talking
about them when you used the word "they". Dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
So you see,
You don't see. You never will. You're an extremist
dummy, and extremist dummies never see.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up with?" when
someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was an empty,
sophomoric ad hominem.
I didn't say liberals have a low I.Q..
Some other dummy wrote, "Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests
than the population at large." You defended his comment; you agree with
it.
I agree with the idea that liberals tend to be dolts. But I didn't say
anything about how they score on I. Q. tests.
You defended the guy's point. That means you agree
with it. You're wrong, of course.
Post by Mike Flannigan
You got confused and didn't realize we were two different people.
Nope.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
I said, "Which one of you low I.Q. liberals cross posted in
us.military.army? Can a liberal have a low I.Q., dummy?
Sure one can, dummy. However, I believe based on accurate empirical
observation that smart and intelligent people have an unfortunate tendency
to embrace contemporary liberal values. A lot of this has to do with
being somewhat arrogant about their intelligence, and their belief that
being more intelligent means they're also smarter about everything,
including things far outside their fields. As I say, I consider it
unfortunate, but I don't think it can reasonably be denied.
So what you are saying is that liberals usually don't know what the hell
they are talking about.
People who get too far away from their areas of
expertise often don't know what they're talking about
outside those areas. This applies to conservatives as
well, who usually don't have any areas of expertise
comparable to what well educated people who tend
towards liberalism have.
Post by Mike Flannigan
I have a better explanation though. I think there is mythology afloat out
there that holds that being a liberal means you are smart.
People on either side who are obsessed, as you are,
with this "liberal"/"conservative" bullshit, tend to
think that being in their camp is due to being smart.
Obviously, both sides can't be right.
Post by Mike Flannigan
So naturally,
people who aren't, and can't think for themselves glom on so they'll seem to
be smart.
Conservatives are no more able to think for themselves.

The greater the tendency to see things in
black-and-white terms, as both extreme conservatives
(such as you) and extreme liberals do, the less ability
to think for one's self. You certainly haven't
exhibited any independence of thought here. You spout
party dogma, chapter and verse. You're a dummy.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Therefore, the ranks of people who call themselves liberals tend
be populated with dolts.
No more so than people who call themselves
conservatives. However, we're left with the undeniable
fact that people who are well eduated tend, for
whatever reasons, to be liberal, and education
correlates highly with intelligence. The more
intelligent you are, the more likely you are to pursue
education; and the more educated you are, the more
likely you are to embrace some form of liberalism.
That's just how it is.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Perhaps you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
There's another.
The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ positively correlates
well with education, and education positively correlates well with a
tendency to hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent people
are well educated, and not all well educated people are liberals - me,
for example - but the tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on many issues. I
don't think they're any more disconnected from reality than fundamentalist
Christian hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues, most notoriously
"multi-culturalism", they are. However, business, economics, the hard
sciences, and the professional schools other than law don't seem to be
dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most people who have
university degrees don't take a lot of that multi-culti crap seriously
anyway.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 21:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Damn it. I wasn't through. Accidentally hit the "send" button.

Anyway...
Post by Mike Flannigan
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on many issues. I
don't think they're any more disconnected from reality than fundamentalist
Christian hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
Hicks have to work for a living, and in the real world. Liberals tend to be
insulated form reality. College professors who live in ivory towers who
wouldn't have the sense to work at Wal-Mart. Hollywood types who live like
royalty. People who work for the government doing half the work they would
have to do to make the same money in the private sector and retiring early
with nice pensions. Conservative hicks out there laying bricks and sowing
corn know a hell of a lot more about reality and how the real world works
than these people.

Haven't you ever noticed that the more insulated from reality, the more
likely one is to be a liberal? You've heard the old saying. If you're not a
liberal when you are 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative
when you're 30 you have no brain. That saying rings true because the older
you get, the more you understand the real world. Liberals tend to never grow
up. Ever wonder why the wealthiest parts of the country tend to be liberal?
That's because the wealthiest parts of the country are the ones closest to
ports. Think about it. NY, Boston, San Francisco, the whole of California.
People who live in affluent areas (affluent because of their location) tend
to be a bunch of liberals. And when you start talking to these people you
quickly learn that they have no clue on earth what is going on in this
world.

Reminds me a lot of when Bill O'Reilly appeared in David Letterman.
Letterman was rude and obnoxious and told him that he thinks about 60% of
what O'Reilly says is BS. Bill asked for an example and Letterman said he
didn't have one because he does not watch the show. Huh? Typical. Letterman
lives a very posh life inside a tiny little world where everyone thinks the
same way. So any other opinion on the world must be BS. He doesn't have to
know what that opinion is. Liberals tell him O'Reilly is full of shit so he
doesn't have to listen. He's been told what to think already. THAT, is your
typical liberal. A closed minded, arrogant dolt who doesn't base what he
thinks on reality, but simpley what other liberals have told him.

Rosie O'Donnell said yesterday that fundamentalist Christians are as big a
threat to America as fundamentalist Muslims. WTF?... Where the hell has she
been? Very liberal = very stupid.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues, most notoriously
"multi-culturalism", they are. However, business, economics, the hard
sciences, and the professional schools other than law don't seem to be
dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most people who have
university degrees don't take a lot of that multi-culti crap seriously
anyway.
If you don't think that economics is dominated by leftwing thinking, I've
got a bridge to sell you. They come out thinking that the economy is a zero
sum game. They think that wealth is a static pie. That a "have" renders a
"have not". They don't understand that wealth is produced. This sort of
stupidity applies in their minds to the US and the third world as well.

And as for "hard Sciences"... Yeah, they'll learn that the world is round,
but when it comes the environment, or any other assertion that advances more
government control, you can bet that they are being told that the sky is
falling.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-14 21:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Damn it. I wasn't through. Accidentally hit the "send" button.
Anyway...
Post by Mike Flannigan
A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on many issues. I
don't think they're any more disconnected from reality than fundamentalist
Christian hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
Hicks have to work for a living, and in the real world. Liberals tend to be
insulated form reality.
There you go with these unsupported, black/white
generalizations based on *your* overidentification with
an extreme wing of the political spectrum.

The fact is, you don't have any data at all about the
relative percentages of liberals and conservatives who
"have" to work for a living. You're simply taking your
prejudices and making up pseudo-factual statements
based on them.
Post by Mike Flannigan
College professors who live in ivory towers who
wouldn't have the sense to work at Wal-Mart. Hollywood types who live like
royalty.
We see the ugly resentment of the guy with the bitter
sense of being put upon at work in these comments.
Post by Mike Flannigan
[snip carelessly dispensed foam from a really rabid rant, except for:]
Rosie O'Donnell said yesterday that fundamentalist Christians are as big a
threat to America as fundamentalist Muslims. WTF?...
They are: they vote here, and they vote for really bad
people to hold office. They're stupid, they're
massively hypocritical, they focus on all the wrong
parts of Jesus' message, and they vote for stupid,
parochial, uncurious liars and drunks like George W. Bush.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues, most notoriously
"multi-culturalism", they are. However, business, economics, the hard
sciences, and the professional schools other than law don't seem to be
dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most people who have
university degrees don't take a lot of that multi-culti crap seriously
anyway.
If you don't think that economics is dominated by leftwing thinking, I've
got a bridge to sell you.
You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
Economics and economists are relentlessly libertarian,
with a slight tendency to lean conservative on social
issues.
Post by Mike Flannigan
They come out thinking that the economy is a zero
sum game.
This ABSOLUTELY proves that you don't know a fucking
thing about economics. Economics is THE branch of
social science that does NOT think the economy or any
other aspect of life characterized by uncertainty is a
zero sum game. The primary lesson of economics is that
there are gains from exchange for all participants in
markets and international trade.
Post by Mike Flannigan
They think that wealth is a static pie.
No, that is not the position of *any* professional
economist.
Post by Mike Flannigan
That a "have" renders a
"have not". They don't understand that wealth is produced. This sort of
stupidity applies in their minds to the US and the third world as well.
You are so fucking stupid, and so completely wrong in
your ignorant mischaracterization of economics, it's
difficult to go on. Why don't you venture out of your
trailer park some time and go talk with an actual
economist, and ask him whether or not economics is
largely built around the view that human interaction is
a zero sum game, or the view that wealth is static.
You just could not be more wrong. But stubbornness
goes hand-in-glove with stupidity, so you're going to
claim you're right.
Post by Mike Flannigan
And as for "hard Sciences"... Yeah, they'll learn that the world is round,
but when it comes the environment, or any other assertion that advances more
government control, you can bet that they are being told that the sky is
falling.
Who's paying you, shill?
dapra
2006-09-13 18:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up
with?" when someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind? Perhaps you're
not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
If you check out the exit polls from 2004, you will find that a majority
with education (MS, Ph.D., Professional degrees) higher than some or 4
years of college, voted Democrat. But so did people with HS education
or less.

What one can conclude? Half educated people are more susceptible to
manipulations, more dangerous than the ones got only minimal education.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 20:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by dapra
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up
with?" when someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind? Perhaps
you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
If you check out the exit polls from 2004, you will find that a majority
with education (MS, Ph.D., Professional degrees) higher than some or 4
years of college, voted Democrat. But so did people with HS education or
less.
What one can conclude? Half educated people are more susceptible to
manipulations, more dangerous than the ones got only minimal education.
Plus, you have to factor in the fact that most democrats in such a poll
would lie, and say they went to Harvard or something.

Hahahahahahahah!
C J Nelson
2006-09-13 20:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by dapra
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
I have a bachelors degree and I always vote GOP.

You see I know propaganda when I see it.

And I have 2 independent brains cells that work.
Post by dapra
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
is called correlating.
The problem is the statement is not supported. You have never seen
anything to support your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
tests than the public at large.
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one, so
don't take this as any kind of defence of contemporary American
liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives
or the population overall.
Is that why they stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up
with?" when someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind? Perhaps you're
not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
If you check out the exit polls from 2004, you will find that a majority
with education (MS, Ph.D., Professional degrees) higher than some or 4
years of college, voted Democrat. But so did people with HS education
or less.
What one can conclude? Half educated people are more susceptible to
manipulations, more dangerous than the ones got only minimal education.
l***@yahoo.com.au
2006-09-13 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals
- I'm not one, so don't take this as any kind of
defence of contemporary American liberalism - generally
seem *more* intelligent than either conservatives or
the population overall.
Liberals are definitely better at justifying their emotions. They tend
not to stop and think when spoken to, and have an immediate and
passionate answer for everything. So from that standpoint, I can see
how they *seem* more intelligent.
Post by Leif Erikson
The problem is that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean one has
the right values of what's good and bad, what the role of people
in relation to society and government should be, and so on.
We agree on that.
Post by Leif Erikson
I'm libertarian, although culturally and politically I
feel more comfortable with certain conservative values.
However, I find liberals generally far more
intellectually stimulating and pleasant to be around
socially than I do most conservatives; most
self-described conservatives seem to me to be knuckleheads.
Oh, there's no shortage of conservative knuckleheads. And I also agree
that Liberals are more entertaining to be around, if only because I
find nonstop outrage over everything to be kind of entertaining.
a***@gmail.com
2006-09-13 16:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.

You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.

Liberals, as the person (or persons) targeted cannot be of lower IQ
than the population at large. A political ideology has no impact on
inherent intelligence in a retroactive manner. So...

Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?

BTW, I am not a liberal.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 16:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
Liberals, as the person (or persons) targeted cannot be of lower IQ
than the population at large. A political ideology has no impact on
inherent intelligence in a retroactive manner. So...
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To
extremists, if you're not with them, they can only see
you as belonging to the other extreme. That's true on
both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me
a raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to
promote national security and on some social issues,
and leftists call me a "rightard" and other insults
because I believe in the market, and don't accept all
leftist social positions.
dapra
2006-09-13 19:04:25 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other extreme.
That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me a
raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to promote national
security and on some social issues, and leftists call me a "rightard"
and other insults because I believe in the market, and don't accept all
leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy. But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or
'libertarian' are too open to interpretation to have much meaning
without further qualification.

You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?

Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 19:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other
extreme. That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but
conservatives call me a raving leftist because I disagree with them on
how to promote national security and on some social issues, and
leftists call me a "rightard" and other insults because I believe in
the market, and don't accept all leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I
sometimes use in usenet, but in terms of what I do,
rather than how I write, I think I'm pretty decent. I
try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I regularly
go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove
debris blocking their downspout; just gave and planted
a parkway tree that I had grown from seed for the next
door neighbor on the other side), considerate - just
basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving
and involved dad.
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or
'libertarian' are too open to interpretation to have much meaning
without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all
should be legal. There should be no "sin" taxes on them.

Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent
control, farm price supports and subsidies.

Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any
other such benefits (we eliminated the deductibility of
credit card interest a long time ago, and consumer
purchasing did not collapse; neither will the housing
market.)

Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to
the same vehicle emission standards as passenger sedans.

Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding
the polluting activity.

The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short
supply among extremists. I think the Dixie Chicks are
extremists. I think the people who spout astonishingly
hateful invective back at the Dixie Chicks are also
extremists.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 20:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other extreme.
That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me a
raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to promote national
security and on some social issues, and leftists call me a "rightard"
and other insults because I believe in the market, and don't accept all
leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I regularly
go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove debris blocking
their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]

Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open to
interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled (no
government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when your
neighbor moves. I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra
space for parking.
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such benefits
(we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a long time ago,
and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will the housing
market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among extremists.
I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the people who spout
astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie Chicks are also
extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.

Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of what
you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs and
prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word, it is.
Extremist.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 21:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other extreme.
That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me a
raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to promote national
security and on some social issues, and leftists call me a "rightard"
and other insults because I believe in the market, and don't accept all
leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I regularly
go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove debris blocking
their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]
Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open to
interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled (no
government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when your
neighbor moves.
Nope. The zoning laws wouldn't permit it.
Post by Mike Flannigan
I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra
space for parking.
Suit yourself. It would be your house, and you can do
what you like with it. I planted the tree for the
neighbor more to be neighborly than for neighborhood
beautification.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such benefits
(we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a long time ago,
and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will the housing
market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among extremists.
I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the people who spout
astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie Chicks are also
extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.
Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of what
you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs and
prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word, it is.
Extremist.
The difference is, unlike you, I don't feel the need to
call people who don't accept it some kind of extreme
statists. Given your personality and character, you would.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 21:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other extreme.
That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me
a raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to promote
national security and on some social issues, and leftists call me a
"rightard" and other insults because I believe in the market, and don't
accept all leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I regularly
go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove debris blocking
their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]
Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open to
interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when
your neighbor moves.
Nope. The zoning laws wouldn't permit it.
So where would the prostitution zone be? Oh, that's right. In someone else's
back yard, I forgot.

Well, since you won't let me start a prostitution ring next door, I'll just
have to turn it into a crack house. Wouldn't have a problem with that now
would you? Tell little Johnny to come over anytime too. Wouldn't want to be
un-neighborly. Oh, and I'll still have to cut down that tree. You know, the
parking and all...
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra space for
parking.
Suit yourself. It would be your house, and you can do what you like with
it. I planted the tree for the neighbor more to be neighborly than for
neighborhood beautification.
You need to get yourself a homeowners association and some convents then. My
neighbor across the street cut down some trees without permission so I
sicked the association on them. Raised a big stink about it too. Emailed all
the members. Called up the head honcho. They ended up making them plant some
back.

They had told me of their plans to cut them down several times, and each and
every time I told them no, that you can't do that. Then they did it anyway.
Boy, did I show them. I stood at the window yelling like Tarzan and pounding
my chest like a gorilla while they got out there and planted some back.
Aaahh.. Being right.. It's my favorite pastime.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such
benefits (we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a long
time ago, and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will the
housing market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among
extremists. I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the people
who spout astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie Chicks are
also extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.
Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of
what you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs
and prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word,
it is. Extremist.
The difference is, unlike you, I don't feel the need to call people who
don't accept it some kind of extreme statists. Given your personality and
character, you would.
That's because they wouldn't be, you however, by the very definition of the
word, are.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-13 22:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if you're
not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other extreme.
That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but conservatives call me
a raving leftist because I disagree with them on how to promote
national security and on some social issues, and leftists call me a
"rightard" and other insults because I believe in the market, and don't
accept all leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I regularly
go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove debris blocking
their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]
Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open to
interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when
your neighbor moves.
Nope. The zoning laws wouldn't permit it.
So where would the prostitution zone be? Oh, that's right. In someone else's
back yard, I forgot.
Maybe right next to your family's trailer park. That
would be convenient - your wife and mother don't drive.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Well, since you won't let me start a prostitution ring next door, I'll just
have to turn it into a crack house. Wouldn't have a problem with that now
would you? Tell little Johnny to come over anytime too. Wouldn't want to be
un-neighborly. Oh, and I'll still have to cut down that tree. You know, the
parking and all...
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra space for
parking.
Suit yourself. It would be your house, and you can do what you like with
it. I planted the tree for the neighbor more to be neighborly than for
neighborhood beautification.
You need to get yourself a homeowners association and some convents then.
Covenants. Not convents; covenants.
Post by Mike Flannigan
My neighbor across the street cut down some trees without permission so I
sicked the association on them. Raised a big stink about it too. Emailed all
the members. Called up the head honcho. They ended up making them plant some
back.
They had told me of their plans to cut them down several times, and each and
every time I told them no, that you can't do that. Then they did it anyway.
Boy, did I show them. I stood at the window yelling like Tarzan and pounding
my chest like a gorilla while they got out there and planted some back.
Aaahh.. Being right.. It's my favorite pastime.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such
benefits (we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a long
time ago, and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will the
housing market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among
extremists. I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the people
who spout astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie Chicks are
also extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.
Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of
what you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs
and prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word,
it is. Extremist.
The difference is, unlike you, I don't feel the need to call people who
don't accept it some kind of extreme statists. Given your personality and
character, you would.
That's because they wouldn't be, you however, by the very definition of the
word, are.
No. You don't understand the definition.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 21:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if
you're not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other
extreme. That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but
conservatives call me a raving leftist because I disagree with them
on how to promote national security and on some social issues, and
leftists call me a "rightard" and other insults because I believe in
the market, and don't accept all leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I
regularly go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove
debris blocking their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree
that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]
Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open
to interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when
your neighbor moves.
Nope. The zoning laws wouldn't permit it.
So where would the prostitution zone be? Oh, that's right. In someone
else's back yard, I forgot.
Maybe right next to your family's trailer park. That would be
convenient - your wife and mother don't drive.
Okay, so the prostitution zone will be out by the trailer park. That's where
I'm going start my prostitution ring. Then we are all going to load up and
I'm going send my girls to go hookin' on your street, right in front of your
house. That would be all right wouldn't it? I mean, you wouldn't mind now
would you?
Post by Mike Flannigan
Well, since you won't let me start a prostitution ring next door, I'll
just have to turn it into a crack house. Wouldn't have a problem with
that now would you? Tell little Johnny to come over anytime too. Wouldn't
want to be un-neighborly. Oh, and I'll still have to cut down that tree.
You know, the parking and all...
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra space for
parking.
Suit yourself. It would be your house, and you can do what you like with
it. I planted the tree for the neighbor more to be neighborly than for
neighborhood beautification.
You need to get yourself a homeowners association and some convents then.
Covenants. Not convents; covenants.
Aaahh, reduced to pouncing on typo's I see. Last refuge of a scoundrel.
Post by Mike Flannigan
My neighbor across the street cut down some trees without permission so I
sicked the association on them. Raised a big stink about it too. Emailed
all the members. Called up the head honcho. They ended up making them
plant some back.
They had told me of their plans to cut them down several times, and each
and every time I told them no, that you can't do that. Then they did it
anyway. Boy, did I show them. I stood at the window yelling like Tarzan
and pounding my chest like a gorilla while they got out there and planted
some back. Aaahh.. Being right.. It's my favorite pastime.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such
benefits (we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a
long time ago, and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will
the housing market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among
extremists. I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the
people who spout astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie
Chicks are also extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.
Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of
what you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs
and prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word,
it is. Extremist.
The difference is, unlike you, I don't feel the need to call people who
don't accept it some kind of extreme statists. Given your personality
and character, you would.
That's because they wouldn't be, you however, by the very definition of
the word, are.
No. You don't understand the definition.
A person who advocates legalizing all drugs, and prostitution is an
extremist. I know, because I looked it up in the dictionary and there was
your picture. Damn ugly mug too.
Leif Erikson
2006-09-14 21:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by dapra
[...]
Post by a***@gmail.com
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Neither am I, but it does no good to say so. To extremists, if
you're not with them, they can only see you as belonging to the other
extreme. That's true on both sides. I'm libertarian, but
conservatives call me a raving leftist because I disagree with them
on how to promote national security and on some social issues, and
leftists call me a "rightard" and other insults because I believe in
the market, and don't accept all leftist social positions.
You seem to be a decent guy.
[Begin Violins Here]
Well, thanks. Some people don't like the language I sometimes use in
usenet, but in terms of what I do, rather than how I write, I think I'm
pretty decent. I try to be helpful to strangers, neighborly (I
regularly go up on my elderly next door neighbors' roof to remove
debris blocking their downspout; just gave and planted a parkway tree
that I had grown
from seed for the next door neighbor on the other side), considerate -
just basic good citizenship. Mostly, I try to be a loving and involved
dad.
[End Violins Here]
Are you finished? Oh brother....
Post by dapra
But labels of 'liberal', 'conservative' or 'libertarian' are too open
to interpretation to have much meaning without further qualification.
You "believe in the market", so you say. But how much an uncontrolled
(no government interference) market, do you believe in?
A lot. Prostitution, drugs, alochol, tobacco - all should be legal.
There should be no "sin" taxes on them.
Oh good, I can open up a prostitution ring in the house next door when
your neighbor moves.
Nope. The zoning laws wouldn't permit it.
So where would the prostitution zone be? Oh, that's right. In someone
else's back yard, I forgot.
Maybe right next to your family's trailer park. That would be
convenient - your wife and mother don't drive.
Okay, so the prostitution zone will be out by the trailer park. That's where
I'm going start my prostitution ring. Then we are all going to load up and
I'm going send my girls to go hookin' on your street, right in front of your
house. That would be all right wouldn't it? I mean, you wouldn't mind now
would you?
No more than I mind the ice cream vendor coming down
the street. Commerce is commerce.

What do you have against commerce? Don't you believe
in consumer sovereignty? What difference does it make
to you if somebody buys an hour from a whore? You
presumably don't wish to tell some guy he can't buy an
hour of instruction from a golf pro.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
Well, since you won't let me start a prostitution ring next door, I'll
just have to turn it into a crack house. Wouldn't have a problem with
that now would you? Tell little Johnny to come over anytime too. Wouldn't
want to be un-neighborly. Oh, and I'll still have to cut down that tree.
You know, the parking and all...
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
I think I'll cut down that tree too. We'll need the extra space for
parking.
Suit yourself. It would be your house, and you can do what you like with
it. I planted the tree for the neighbor more to be neighborly than for
neighborhood beautification.
You need to get yourself a homeowners association and some convents then.
Covenants. Not convents; covenants.
Aaahh, reduced to pouncing on typo's I see. Last refuge of a scoundrel.
It wasn't a typo. You used fundamentally the wrong word.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Mike Flannigan
My neighbor across the street cut down some trees without permission so I
sicked the association on them. Raised a big stink about it too. Emailed
all the members. Called up the head honcho. They ended up making them
plant some back.
They had told me of their plans to cut them down several times, and each
and every time I told them no, that you can't do that. Then they did it
anyway. Boy, did I show them. I stood at the window yelling like Tarzan
and pounding my chest like a gorilla while they got out there and planted
some back. Aaahh.. Being right.. It's my favorite pastime.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Mike Flannigan
Get rid of any price fixing: minimum wage, rent control, farm price
supports and subsidies.
Get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction and any other such
benefits (we eliminated the deductibility of credit card interest a
long time ago, and consumer purchasing did not collapse; neither will
the housing market.)
Ensure that pick-em-up trucks and SUVs are subject to the same vehicle
emission standards as passenger sedans.
Control pollution by effluent taxes, not by forbidding the polluting
activity.
The list goes on and on.
Post by dapra
Shades make all the difference! Decent conservatives, liberals,
libertarians are not that far away. The emphasis is on decency.
Right. However, decency seems in extremely short supply among
extremists. I think the Dixie Chicks are extremists. I think the
people who spout astonishingly hateful invective back at the Dixie
Chicks are also extremists.
I think people who get bent out of shape over the original post in this
thread have their asses wound too tight.
Oh, and do you know how many people would characterize most, or all of
what you just said, as extremist? I'd call your position that all drugs
and prostitution be legal, extremist. And by the definition of the word,
it is. Extremist.
The difference is, unlike you, I don't feel the need to call people who
don't accept it some kind of extreme statists. Given your personality
and character, you would.
That's because they wouldn't be, you however, by the very definition of
the word, are.
No. You don't understand the definition.
A person who advocates legalizing all drugs, and prostitution is an
extremist.
No.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 16:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.

"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and reiterates,
''You're a dumb f---.''"
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Liberals, as the person (or persons) targeted cannot be of lower IQ
than the population at large. A political ideology has no impact on
inherent intelligence in a retroactive manner. So...
No, but a persons intelligence has a bearing on what political philosophy
they chose to adopt. You've got it backwards.
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
That's about the only way to address an ad hominem attack, dolt.
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Could have fooled me, you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
John R. Carroll
2006-09-13 16:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said that he
was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the others.
The facts are Bush's enemy.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 17:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said that he
was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the others.
The facts are Bush's enemy.
What do you want to bet she also thinks he stole two elections, and
masterminded a conspiracy to take us to war? That's why she hates him and
called him a dumb fuck. Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck, as she can
only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that she doesn't even
believe.
miguel
2006-09-13 17:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than the
population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
No. An ad hominem attack would be me saying
Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity is called correlating.
Nice try though. An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on
the person rather than their argument; appealing to the
emotions and not to reason. You made no attempt to discuss the
liberal arguments, simply resorted to the use of base and
groundless canulars formulated to elicit an emotional response
of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said
that he was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the
others. The facts are Bush's enemy.
What do you want to bet she also thinks he stole two elections, and
masterminded a conspiracy to take us to war? That's why she hates him
and called him a dumb fuck. Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck,
as she can only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that
she doesn't even believe.
Bush isn't smart enough to do any of that. But Karl Rove is.
John R. Carroll
2006-09-13 19:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
is a piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal
stupidity is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather
than their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply
resorted to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to
elicit an emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said that he
was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the others.
The facts are Bush's enemy.
What do you want to bet she also thinks he stole two elections, and
masterminded a conspiracy to take us to war?
I really don't care what she believes, and I don't think I've ever heard the
Dixie Chicks. I might have without knowing it.
Saw a poster or picture once. Think you can get me a date?
Anyway, she just told a simple truth and you just think it's mud slinging,
or as you put it, an "ad hominem".
Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why she hates him and called him a dumb fuck.
I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. Got a cite or are you making
this up as you go?
There are a lot of people who were uncomfortable with the way the 2000
election was finally decided and not necessarily believers in the "stolen
election" theory. I'm one of those. It bugged me that the Supremes made any
call whatever, it wasn't ripe. They did and that is that for you see, unlike
George Bush, I believe in and respect the constitution - even when it leads
to results that don't suit me.
I don't think Bush actually set out to steal anything but I also believe
that he would do so and without blinking an eye. That isn't a comment on the
election but it reflects my asesment of Bush's character and integrity. I
don't think he has much of either.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck,
as she can only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that
she doesn't even believe.
Well Mike, I hope she does believe it. If that isn't the case she's paid a
big price for nothing. That in itself makes your proposition unlikely.
Not impossible mind you, just unlikely.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 21:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
is a piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal
stupidity is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather
than their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply
resorted to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to
elicit an emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said that he
was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the others.
The facts are Bush's enemy.
What do you want to bet she also thinks he stole two elections, and
masterminded a conspiracy to take us to war?
I really don't care what she believes, and I don't think I've ever heard the
Dixie Chicks. I might have without knowing it.
Saw a poster or picture once. Think you can get me a date?
With you? I know you're impressed with my amazing powers of persuasion, but
now you've gone too far.
Post by John R. Carroll
Anyway, she just told a simple truth and you just think it's mud slinging,
or as you put it, an "ad hominem".
Nope, sorry, wrong. Attacking someone personally rather than their argument
is ad hominem, plain and simple.

http://tinyurl.com/gjbl4
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why she hates him and called him a dumb fuck.
I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. Got a cite or are you making
this up as you go?
I have to find a cite for you to know she hates Bush? Huh?

[Begin Twilight Zone theme music here]
Post by John R. Carroll
There are a lot of people who were uncomfortable with the way the 2000
election was finally decided and not necessarily believers in the "stolen
election" theory. I'm one of those. It bugged me that the Supremes made any
call whatever, it wasn't ripe. They did and that is that for you see, unlike
George Bush, I believe in and respect the constitution - even when it leads
to results that don't suit me.
A Federal election for president cannot take place when the legal deadline
for recounts has passed and the state SC simply refuses to uphold the law.
The USSC had no choice but to intercede. To allow such a precedent would
have destroyed the election process in the US. Is that the result you would
have respected, even though you disagree?
Post by John R. Carroll
I don't think Bush actually set out to steal anything but I also believe
that he would do so and without blinking an eye. That isn't a comment on the
election but it reflects my asesment of Bush's character and integrity. I
don't think he has much of either.
It's Gore that wouldn't blink an eye at stealing an election. That's why he
parachuted in Richard "vote often and vote early" Daley's boy Bill to
spearhead his effort. Must have been a real disappointment to the old man
though.

8 years as Clinton's VP utterly corrupted Gore. Someone should have told
Gore that he ain't no Clinton.
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck,
as she can only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that
she doesn't even believe.
Well Mike, I hope she does believe it. If that isn't the case she's paid a
big price for nothing. That in itself makes your proposition unlikely.
Not impossible mind you, just unlikely.
Again, my assertion is that she hates Bush and expressed that hatred by
calling him a dumb ass. Not only is that likely, it's reality.
John R. Carroll
2006-09-13 23:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
I really don't care what she believes, and I don't think I've ever heard the
Dixie Chicks. I might have without knowing it.
Saw a poster or picture once. Think you can get me a date?
With you? I know you're impressed with my amazing powers of
persuasion, but now you've gone too far.
I'm impressed with you all right, and exactly in the way you must suspect.
LOL
Too bad though, she's not bad lookin' and with all of that fire she's
probably really something.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Anyway, she just told a simple truth and you just think it's mud
slinging, or as you put it, an "ad hominem".
Nope, sorry, wrong. Attacking someone personally rather than their
argument is ad hominem, plain and simple.
http://tinyurl.com/gjbl4
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why she hates him and called him a dumb fuck.
I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. Got a cite or are you making
this up as you go?
I have to find a cite for you to know she hates Bush? Huh?
[Begin Twilight Zone theme music here]
Post by John R. Carroll
There are a lot of people who were uncomfortable with the way the
2000 election was finally decided and not necessarily believers in
the "stolen election" theory. I'm one of those. It bugged me that
the Supremes made any
call whatever, it wasn't ripe. They did and that is that for you see, unlike
George Bush, I believe in and respect the constitution - even when it leads
to results that don't suit me.
A Federal election for president cannot take place when the legal
deadline for recounts has passed and the state SC simply refuses to
uphold the law. The USSC had no choice but to intercede. To allow
such a precedent would have destroyed the election process in the US.
Is that the result you would have respected, even though you disagree?
I'm not sure I agree with your underlying premise Mike.
In any event, I'd have respected any decision that had transparently worked
its way through the system.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
I don't think Bush actually set out to steal anything but I also
believe that he would do so and without blinking an eye. That isn't
a comment on the
election but it reflects my asesment of Bush's character and
integrity. I don't think he has much of either.
It's Gore that wouldn't blink an eye at stealing an election. That's
why he parachuted in Richard "vote often and vote early" Daley's boy
Bill to spearhead his effort. Must have been a real disappointment to
the old man though.
The Dems could have brought God to the table and it wouldn't have mattered.
Jeb and Harris weren't going to let things get out of hand.
Post by Mike Flannigan
8 years as Clinton's VP utterly corrupted Gore. Someone should have
told Gore that he ain't no Clinton.
Gore was born, litterally, in D.C. He was raised in and grew up around big
league politics.
By that standard he'd been corrupted by the time he started pre-school.
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck,
as she can only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that
she doesn't even believe.
Well Mike, I hope she does believe it. If that isn't the case she's
paid a big price for nothing. That in itself makes your proposition
unlikely. Not impossible mind you, just unlikely.
Again, my assertion is that she hates Bush and expressed that hatred
by calling him a dumb ass. Not only is that likely, it's reality.
OK but that doesn't make HER a dumb ass or even dishonest. A little checking
revealed that she no doubt believed what she was saying.
I don't think I'd let her out hunting with George, or even Dick!
Not that she'd shoot either one but she might use her shotgun to beat the
shit out of them both and she just might be up to it.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 02:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
I really don't care what she believes, and I don't think I've ever heard the
Dixie Chicks. I might have without knowing it.
Saw a poster or picture once. Think you can get me a date?
With you? I know you're impressed with my amazing powers of
persuasion, but now you've gone too far.
I'm impressed with you all right, and exactly in the way you must suspect.
LOL
Impressed with you "all right"? I'm sorry, but in the sprit of being
impressed, I couldn't resist.
Post by John R. Carroll
Too bad though, she's not bad lookin' and with all of that fire she's
probably really something.
Yeah, something like a real bitch. It's like a poster of a babe in a bikini
I saw once. The caption at the bottom said, "She may look good, but some
guy, somewhere, is having to put up with her shit." Truer words were never
spoken
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Anyway, she just told a simple truth and you just think it's mud
slinging, or as you put it, an "ad hominem".
Nope, sorry, wrong. Attacking someone personally rather than their
argument is ad hominem, plain and simple.
http://tinyurl.com/gjbl4
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why she hates him and called him a dumb fuck.
I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. Got a cite or are you making
this up as you go?
I have to find a cite for you to know she hates Bush? Huh?
[Begin Twilight Zone theme music here]
Post by John R. Carroll
There are a lot of people who were uncomfortable with the way the
2000 election was finally decided and not necessarily believers in
the "stolen election" theory. I'm one of those. It bugged me that
the Supremes made any
call whatever, it wasn't ripe. They did and that is that for you see, unlike
George Bush, I believe in and respect the constitution - even when it leads
to results that don't suit me.
A Federal election for president cannot take place when the legal
deadline for recounts has passed and the state SC simply refuses to
uphold the law. The USSC had no choice but to intercede. To allow
such a precedent would have destroyed the election process in the US.
Is that the result you would have respected, even though you disagree?
I'm not sure I agree with your underlying premise Mike.
In any event, I'd have respected any decision that had transparently worked
its way through the system.
It would have taken months to work through the system. There is no way a
Federal election for president can be put through endless recounts by the
loser for as long as he wants and a state SC decides it will last. The legal
limit for recounts in Florida had expired and Bush had the most votes in the
initial count, as well as every subsequent recount. When the election was
called Gore appealed to the Florida SC and they extended the deadline in
direct violation of Florida law. The Florida SC at the time was infamous for
it's activist, left-wing decisions. What the hell do you think would have
happened to US presidential elections in the future if the Florida decision
had been allowed to stand? We'd be put through an endless spectacle of
recounts by the loser in every remotely close election Ad infinitum. A
presidential election is ultimately a national election, and even though it
is conducted state by state, it is still subject to federal oversight. It
has to be. No rogue state can be allowed to undermine that. As such, the
USSC was well within it's jurisdiction.
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
I don't think Bush actually set out to steal anything but I also
believe that he would do so and without blinking an eye. That isn't
a comment on the
election but it reflects my asesment of Bush's character and
integrity. I don't think he has much of either.
It's Gore that wouldn't blink an eye at stealing an election. That's
why he parachuted in Richard "vote often and vote early" Daley's boy
Bill to spearhead his effort. Must have been a real disappointment to
the old man though.
The Dems could have brought God to the table and it wouldn't have mattered.
Jeb and Harris weren't going to let things get out of hand.
They have no authority over the Florida SC, other than to impeach later on.
The only overriding authority in the interim was the USSC, and they did
their job, thank god. Had we had a leftist court at the time we would have
had the first stolen election in US history. Can you say "civil war"?
Because that's just exactly what people who understood what was going on
were thinking. Today's democrats who think Bush stole the election are just
stupid kooks. Told what to think by their lying DNC masters.
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
8 years as Clinton's VP utterly corrupted Gore. Someone should have
told Gore that he ain't no Clinton.
Gore was born, litterally, in D.C. He was raised in and grew up around big
league politics.
By that standard he'd been corrupted by the time he started pre-school.
Before Clinton, he was a reasoned man. Some would even say moderate. I'd
agree with that. After eight years as Clinton's VP he was a radical and a
fire brand. He actually thought he could pull a Clinton and convince people
that his cherry picking of heavily democratic Florida districts for recounts
would swing it for him. He thought that fraud would win the day. That's a
fact.
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Therefore, she is the obvious dumb fuck,
as she can only express her hatred in ad hominem. An ad hominem that
she doesn't even believe.
Well Mike, I hope she does believe it. If that isn't the case she's
paid a big price for nothing. That in itself makes your proposition
unlikely. Not impossible mind you, just unlikely.
Again, my assertion is that she hates Bush and expressed that hatred
by calling him a dumb ass. Not only is that likely, it's reality.
OK but that doesn't make HER a dumb ass or even dishonest. A little checking
revealed that she no doubt believed what she was saying.
Let me try this one more time. And listen. She hates Bush because she thinks
he stole two elections and masterminded a war in Iraq over false pretenses.
That means that she hates Bush because she thinks he is an evil genius, not
a dumb ass. Hers was ad hominem. Get it yet? Sure, I knew you could...
Post by John R. Carroll
I don't think I'd let her out hunting with George, or even Dick!
Not that she'd shoot either one but she might use her shotgun to beat the
shit out of them both and she just might be up to it.
An outing with Cheney and she wouldn't have a chance....
C J Nelson
2006-09-13 17:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large.
Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
piece of dog shit." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
is called correlating.
Nice try though.
An ad hominem is characterized by an attack on the person rather than
their argument; appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
You made no attempt to discuss the liberal arguments, simply resorted
to the use of base and groundless canulars formulated to elicit an
emotional response of support from your coreligionaries.
There was no liberal argument. Just an ad hominem attack on Bush, dolt.
"She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and
reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''"
She was making a factual observation. She could as easily have said that he
was sixty, or from Conneticut. One is as true as any of the others.
The facts are Bush's enemy.
Democrats are full of shit and so are the Dixie Shits.

And you know what I could give a shit if you don't like my opinion.

Liberals are a massive waste of time and human DNA.

The Democrat must never be given power to protect the nation. BECAUSE
THEY WON'T!
Post by John R. Carroll
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Geno1234
2006-09-13 15:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
She then looks into the camera, as if addressing
Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''
Oooooooh. She said bad words into the camera. And why do Liberals find
that entertaining? Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. Natalie Mains isn't worthy to suck George W.
Bush's cock.
Besides, it's not like the Dixie Chicks are highly regarded
practitioners of country music anyway. If they were real country girls,
they'd shut the fuck up and clean something.
K. A. Cannon
2006-09-13 16:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
She then looks into the camera, as if addressing
Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''
Oooooooh. She said bad words into the camera. And why do Liberals find
that entertaining? Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. Natalie Mains isn't worthy to suck George W.
Bush's cock.
Besides, it's not like the Dixie Chicks are highly regarded
practitioners of country music anyway. If they were real country girls,
they'd shut the fuck up and clean something.
Why is this being crossposted to us.military.army?

Plonk'ing this subject...

Idiots.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

On 16 Aug 2006 08:00:23 Chuck Lysaght did threaten in
Message-ID: <***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Another threat? I think I'll e-mail your employer and see how they feel
about you harassing someone on usenet while you're at work.
Fred Oinka
2006-09-13 17:34:21 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com.au wrote:

"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "

Prove it. Cite?
C J Nelson
2006-09-13 18:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-13 20:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
Exactly!

Hahahahahahahah!
Fred Oinka
2006-09-13 21:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
Exactly!
Hahahahahahahah!
So you fellows take an opinion, unsupported by any evidence and claim
it as a fact.
That's the wingnut way.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 21:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
Exactly!
Hahahahahahahah!
So you fellows take an opinion, unsupported by any evidence and claim
it as a fact.
That's the wingnut way.
The proof is substantiated by having listened to them.
Hugh Gibbons
2006-09-15 04:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Mike Flannigan
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
Exactly!
Hahahahahahahah!
So you fellows take an opinion, unsupported by any evidence and claim
it as a fact.
That's the wingnut way.
The proof is substantiated by having listened to them.
The fact that you don't understand what we tell you is not
due to a defect in OUR intelligence.

miguel
2006-09-13 20:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
My irony meter just exploded.
Mike Flannigan
2006-09-14 21:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by C J Nelson
Post by Fred Oinka
"Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
the population at large. "
Prove it. Cite?
Who needs proof just listen to them.
My irony meter just exploded.
No, that was your head.
Loading...