Dixie Chicks revenge is sweet. Depression is rampant in the rightard community.

[Guest WF Peifer]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171411581.229450.271900@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > Actually, we are used to being correct -- witness the 2006

> > election.

>

> Witness the 16 years prior to it.

 

You mean the 16 years of unprecedented greed, corruption and partisanship in

the House of Representatives? Yes, history has witnessed it, which will

hopefully keep future generations of voters from allowing it to be repeated.

[Guest gaffo]

WF Peifer wrote:

> "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:1171400610.465495.294160@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> > >

> > > > IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU WON THE ELECTION!!!

> > >

> > > > I can still give my opinion, jerk.

> > >

> > > It's the very fact that the Democrats won that election that

> > > insures

> that we

> > > are ALL still entitled to our own opinions . . . a right that was

> > > in jeopardy until the elections removed many of the legislators

> > > who

> supported

> > > Emperor Dumbya, and his "my way or the highway" approach to

> > > governing.

> He

> > > no longer gets a rubber-stamp from Congress when he tries to play

> > > "The Decider". Other opinions and alternate points of view are

> > > once again allowed.

> >

> > Wow, talk about reading something into nothing.

>

> Hardly "nothing". SyVyN11 stated that he/she was entitled to his/her

> own opinion. I simply pointed out that the very right to have an

> opinion of ones own had been threatened, but that the election of

> November of 2006 restored the "checks and balances" in our

> government, thus removing much of that threat.

>

> Right-wingers, in general, are adamant about the fact that they have

> a right to form their own opinions, and then opine that the world

> would be better off if nobody EXCEPT them had that right, often

> calling or wishing for that right to be rescinded when it comes to

> opinions that don't coincide with theirs. SyVyN11 is a classic

> example of such a person.

 

 

 

 

I beleive they are called "Hypocrites" whole Nation is made up of them.

 

--

[Guest SyVyN11]

"WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in message

news:_IydndK4_tT-uU_YnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@comcast.com...

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:eqt2an$aiq$1@news.albasani.net...

>>

>> IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU WON THE ELECTION!!!

>>

>> I can still give my opinion, jerk.

>

> It's the very fact that the Democrats won that election that insures that

> we

> are ALL still entitled to our own opinions . .

 

in your world, only libs have a right to opinions. I will give my opinon

and you can't do a thing about it.

[Guest SyVyN11]

"Passerby" <MrE @midnight.net> wrote in message

news:pxpAh.29248$I8.9536@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>

> "WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in message

> news:r6-dnb24P6bYgk_YnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com...

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:eqt5t3$gl7$1@news.albasani.net...

>>

>> God, I hope all you libs die!

>>

>> I really do. America would be so much better if all you usenet libs

>> were

>> to die!

>

> In other words, you actually believe that America would be better off with

> no dissent allowed, equal rights for racial and religious minorities and

> women repealed, no regulations on corporations so we could go back to the

> 72-hour work week for barely subsistence wages and just letting the sick

> die

> if they weren't lucky enough to be rich and educational possibilities

> restricted to the children of the wealthy.

>

> How very Fascist of you! Mussolini, Hitler and George W. Bush would be so

> proud!

>

> The perfect repubLIECON patsy...

 

Point of order.

 

I said USENET libs! Not the normal run of the mill libs.

 

They can live, you fucks need to die.

>

>

>

>

[Guest President Obama. Get used to it.]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>> political prescience as well.

>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

 

<smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

 

---

President Obama. Get used to it.

[Guest President Obama. Get used to it.]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>God, I hope all you libs die!

 

Well golly, rightard, why don't you just pick up that rifle and

start shooting? I mean babyfuck Jesus, pal, you want to.

 

---

President Obama. Get used to it.

[Guest SyVyN11]

<President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)> wrote

in message news:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>

>>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>> political prescience as well.

>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>

> <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

> that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

 

because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use this to

fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

>

> ---

> President Obama. Get used to it.

>

[Guest Big Al]

"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:12t41ee39oh577@corp.supernews.com...

>

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:eqsvvq$6hl$1@news.albasani.net...

>

>> Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>> Most of us don't give a fuck.

>

> You care so little, you call them names.

>

 

He cared so little about them, he posted about 30 times in a thread about

the Dixie Chicks when the Grammy Awards were on. If you really want to get

him going, tell him you think Jethro Tull was the greatest metal band ever

<g>.

 

> How did that election go last November, by the way? I forget.

>

> --

> ____________________

>

>

> George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,

> their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other

> western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and

> violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States

> Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining

> American

> freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.

> Supporting Bush is treason.

> _____________________

>

>

> JW

>

> "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

> Have

> you left no sense of decency?"

> http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html

> The New Face of the Republican Party

> http://tinyurl.com/y2j2yr

>

>

[Guest WF Peifer]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:eqtrih$kvt$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> in your world, only libs have a right to opinions. I will give my

opinon

> and you can't do a thing about it.

 

Many who you would call "libs" have fought and died to protect your right to

have your own opinion, while those that I would call "chickenhawks" were

happy to send them, but unwilling to go themselves. I'd be willing to bet

that the only fighting you've ever done has been with your big mouth, and

you wouldn't even use that to protect a liberal's rights.

[Guest WF Peifer]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:eqttvm$o69$1@news.albasani.net...

>

>

> Point of order.

>

> I said USENET libs! Not the normal run of the mill libs.

>

> They can live, you fucks need to die.

 

Big threats so often come from small minds.

[Guest Joe King]

Monica Lewinski was the original DickSee Chick.

 

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:eqtrih$kvt$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> "WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in message

> news:_IydndK4_tT-uU_YnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

>> news:eqt2an$aiq$1@news.albasani.net...

>>>

>>> IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU WON THE ELECTION!!!

>>>

>>> I can still give my opinion, jerk.

>>

>> It's the very fact that the Democrats won that election that insures that

>> we

>> are ALL still entitled to our own opinions . .

>

> in your world, only libs have a right to opinions. I will give my

> opinon and you can't do a thing about it.

>

>

[Guest Roger]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:eqtrih$kvt$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> "WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in message

> news:_IydndK4_tT-uU_YnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

>> news:eqt2an$aiq$1@news.albasani.net...

>>>

>>> IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU WON THE ELECTION!!!

>>>

>>> I can still give my opinion, jerk.

>>

>> It's the very fact that the Democrats won that election that insures that

>> we

>> are ALL still entitled to our own opinions . .

>

> in your world, only libs have a right to opinions. I will give my

> opinon and you can't do a thing about it.

 

Nor care.

[Guest President Obama. Get used to it.]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

><President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)> wrote

>in message news:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

>> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>>> political prescience as well.

>>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>> <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>> that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>because this is your top issue right now.

 

LOL! The "top issue" to executing your Fuhrer and his fellow Christian

terrorists, but for now it's enough seeing you steam at the Dixie Chicks.

 

---

President Obama. Get used to it.

[Guest Vandar]

Joseph Welch wrote:

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:eqsvvq$6hl$1@news.albasani.net...

>

>

>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing. Most

>>of us don't give a fuck.

>

>

> You care so little, you call them names.

>

> How did that election go last November, by the way? I forget.

 

A bunch of corrupt, incompetent, partisan fools were replaced by a bunch

of corrupt, incompetent, partisan fools.

Meanwhile, life for the average American remains unchanged.

[Guest WF Peifer]

"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:F6HAh.2813$ya1.2405@news02.roc.ny...

> > How did that election go last November, by the way? I forget.

>

> A bunch of corrupt, incompetent, partisan fools were replaced by a bunch

> of corrupt, incompetent, partisan fools.

> Meanwhile, life for the average American remains unchanged.

 

Actually, not quite a complete analysis. In reality, a bunch of corrupt,

incompetent, partisan fools who were quite willing to let Dumbya do whatever

he wanted, whenever he wanted, regardless of the cost to the American people

were replaced by a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, partisan fools who were

determined to impede Dumbya's plans at almost every turn. In terms of the

ultimate cost to Americans, this represents a government that can accomplish

little, which is usually a good thing.

[Guest Scotius]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:05:20 GMT, President Obama. Get used to it.

(President Obama. Get used to it.) wrote:

>"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>

>>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>> political prescience as well.

>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>

><smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>

 

Alas poor Frederic L. Rice, who sees fit now to change his

name so people won't know to not bother reading his screeds,

froth-at-the-mouth lefty though they be? No, it will only take seeing

one, and then it's back to plonkville.

Too bad too that he has to imagine that someone's upset

greatly at something they couldn't care less about. Such is the state

of alt.politics leftism.

>---

>President Obama. Get used to it.

[Guest kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Feb 13, 7:27 pm, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1171411581.229450.271900@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > > Actually, we are used to being correct -- witness the 2006

> > > election.

>

> > Witness the 16 years prior to it.

>

> You mean the 16 years of unprecedented greed, corruption and partisanship in

> the House of Representatives? Yes, history has witnessed it, which will

> hopefully keep future generations of voters from allowing it to be repeated.

 

I mean the period of time that the Democratic party couldn't even win

an election against a Bush Jr. because most Americans hate their

barely concealed socialism more than they fear a Texan hothead in the

Whitehouse. See what happens to the moderate vote if Hillary becomes

the Democratic nominee.

[Guest WF Peifer]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171489874.223735.8990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

> >

> > > Witness the 16 years prior to it.

> >

> > You mean the 16 years of unprecedented greed, corruption and

partisanship in

> > the House of Representatives? Yes, history has witnessed it, which will

> > hopefully keep future generations of voters from allowing it to be

repeated.

>

> I mean the period of time that the Democratic party couldn't even win

> an election against a Bush Jr. because most Americans hate their

> barely concealed socialism more than they fear a Texan hothead in the

> Whitehouse. See what happens to the moderate vote if Hillary becomes

> the Democratic nominee.

 

16 years ago "Bush Jr." wasn't even a blip on the political radar. He was

an unsuccessful Congressional candidate who had enough money to buy into a

baseball team. As far as the 4 year (plus one day) period where Bush

managed to win those two elections, there are many who will contend to their

deaths that Bush actually didn't win either of them.

 

There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major contributing

factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't have

been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader not

drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore. Plus, of course, there are the

allegations of voter suppression in predominantly black districts. That

election will always have an asterisk next to it in the history books.

 

In 2004 there were even more allegations of election "irregularities", both

in Florida and Ohio. But that election would not have been close enough for

those irregularities to affect anything had it not been for a very

successful "fear and smear" campaign by the Bush/Cheney campaign team,

alternately doing their best to delude the American public into thinking

that terrorists bringing nuclear suitcase bombs into American cities was a

forgone conclusion should Kerry be elected, and also financing an effective

smear campaign by the "Swift Boat Veterans".

 

All of that said, the bottom line is that it was not fear of what you call

"barely concealed socialism" that drove American voters to Bush. It was the

fact that the "average" American voter pays virtually no attention to what's

really going on in the country or in the world, and is easily duped by

crafty campaign managers. The good news is that they've gotten smarter, as

evidenced in the 2006 elections. Moderates won't run from Hillary. She's

pretty much a moderate herself. It will be the closet chauvinists that may

well be her downfall, just as the closet racists will not give Obama the

support a white candidate with the same views would have. What will be

REALLY interesting to see is how much support Giuliani will get from the

conservative religious-right-wing "family values" crowd, with his multiple

divorces, constant affairs and living for a time in the home of two gay

friends.

[Guest President Obama. Get used to it.]

Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:05:20 GMT, President Obama. Get used to it.

>(President Obama. Get used to it.) wrote:

>>"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>>> political prescience as well.

>>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>><smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>>that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

> Alas poor Frederic L. Rice, who sees fit now to change his

>name so people won't know to not bother reading his screeds,

>froth-at-the-mouth lefty though they be? No, it will only take seeing

>one, and then it's back to plonkville.

> Too bad too that he has to imagine that someone's upset

>greatly at something they couldn't care less about. Such is the state

>of alt.politics leftism.

 

LOL! Look at the poor rightard shitting his underroos in frustation

at his Republinazi party getting its comeuppance. Sucks to have

backed a mass murdering terrorist Christian, huh, cunt?

 

---

President Obama. Get used to it.

[Guest kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 6:28 pm, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1171489874.223735.8990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > > > Witness the 16 years prior to it.

>

> > > You mean the 16 years of unprecedented greed, corruption and

> partisanship in

> > > the House of Representatives? Yes, history has witnessed it, which will

> > > hopefully keep future generations of voters from allowing it to be

> repeated.

>

> > I mean the period of time that the Democratic party couldn't even win

> > an election against a Bush Jr. because most Americans hate their

> > barely concealed socialism more than they fear a Texan hothead in the

> > Whitehouse. See what happens to the moderate vote if Hillary becomes

> > the Democratic nominee.

>

> 16 years ago "Bush Jr." wasn't even a blip on the political radar.

 

The Democratic party was moribund for almost 2 decades on the national

scene. In the middle of an already popular war the Dems couldn't get

it together well enough to unseat a man with the speaking skills of a

13 year old.

 

He was

> an unsuccessful Congressional candidate who had enough money to buy into a

> baseball team. As far as the 4 year (plus one day) period where Bush

> managed to win those two elections, there are many who will contend to their

> deaths that Bush actually didn't win either of them.

 

Many people are partisan fools and revisionists.

> There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major contributing

> factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't have

> been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader not

> drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore.

 

1) Wrong; several independent analyses confirmed he won FL.

Furthermore, the nature of the objections was absolutely ludicrous. I

lived in Palm Beach County and was able to understand the infamous

butterfly ballot on a field trip in 3rd grade. If you're literally

too dumb to be sure you cast your ballot as intended before you drop

your ballot into the box, you deserve to lose your vote.

2) Ralph Nader did run, so what is your point? It wasn't illegal.

>Plus, of course, there are the

> allegations of voter suppression in predominantly black districts. That

> election will always have an asterisk next to it in the history books.

 

Placed there by propagandists such as yourself who spout baseless

accusations as if they gain accuracy through repetition and anonymity.

> In 2004 there were even more allegations of election "irregularities", both

> in Florida and Ohio. But that election would not have been close enough for

> those irregularities to affect anything had it not been for a very

> successful "fear and smear" campaign by the Bush/Cheney campaign team,

> alternately doing their best to delude the American public into thinking

> that terrorists bringing nuclear suitcase bombs into American cities was a

> forgone conclusion should Kerry be elected, and also financing an effective

> smear campaign by the "Swift Boat Veterans".

 

Kerry was just unlikeable and blatantly hypocritical; he was a

political butterfly and his 'electability' didn't wash with most

people.

> All of that said, the bottom line is that it was not fear of what you call

> "barely concealed socialism" that drove American voters to Bush. It was the

> fact that the "average" American voter pays virtually no attention to what's

> really going on in the country or in the world, and is easily duped by

> crafty campaign managers.

 

You're right; all those red states love welfare statism. I can hear

their clamoring for midnight basketball even as I type. How did

Reagan capture the 'Reagan Democrats'? The left is intellectually

bankrupt; your only hope is that some muck-racking scandal drags down

whoever the Repubs field.

 

The good news is that they've gotten smarter, as

> evidenced in the 2006 elections. Moderates won't run from Hillary. She's

> pretty much a moderate herself. It will be the closet chauvinists that may

> well be her downfall, just as the closet racists will not give Obama the

> support a white candidate with the same views would have.

 

He's a leftist. He wouldn't get much support for that, regardless of

his skin.

 

What will be

> REALLY interesting to see is how much support Giuliani will get from the

> conservative religious-right-wing "family values" crowd, with his multiple

> divorces, constant affairs and living for a time in the home of two gay

> friends.

 

Screw Guiliani; I'm voting libertarian.

[Guest fargo116]

On Feb 13, 9:15 pm, "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> <President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)> wrote

> in messagenews:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

>

> > "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>

> >>"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

> >>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

> >>> political prescience as well.

> >>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>

> > <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

> > that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>

> because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use this to

> fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

 

LMAO! Sylvia claims not to care about the grammys and the Dixie Chicks

while posting eight times in a thread about that very subject. LOL!

 

S. Olson

[Guest SyVyN11]

"fargo116" <fargo116@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1171517987.976256.266480@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 13, 9:15 pm, "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> <President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)>

>> wrote

>> in messagenews:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

>>

>> > "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>

>> >>"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>> >>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>> >>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>> >>> political prescience as well.

>> >>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>>

>> > <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>> > that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>>

>> because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use this

>> to

>> fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

>

> LMAO! Sylvia claims not to care about the grammys and the Dixie Chicks

> while posting eight times in a thread about that very subject. LOL!

 

Don't know who this Sylvia person is, but it's not the fact that I care if

they won. It's the fact that you see it as a watershed moment in history.

It isn't, all it is about is the music industry being political and passing

over talent for a political message.

>

> S. Olson

>

[Guest Fred Fazemeier]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:er13n5$tiv$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> "fargo116" <fargo116@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1171517987.976256.266480@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 13, 9:15 pm, "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> >> <President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)>

> >> wrote

> >> in messagenews:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

> >>

> >> > "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> >>

> >> >>"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >> >>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

> >> >>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but

her

> >> >>> political prescience as well.

> >> >>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

> >>

> >> > <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

> >> > that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

> >>

> >> because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use

this

> >> to

> >> fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

> >

> > LMAO! Sylvia claims not to care about the grammys and the Dixie Chicks

> > while posting eight times in a thread about that very subject. LOL!

>

> Don't know who this Sylvia person is, but it's not the fact that I care if

> they won. It's the fact that you see it as a watershed moment in

history.

> It isn't, all it is about is the music industry being political and

passing

> over talent for a political message.

 

9 times.

[Guest WF Peifer]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171517616.293538.284350@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

>

> The Democratic party was moribund for almost 2 decades on the national

> scene. In the middle of an already popular war the Dems couldn't get

> it together well enough to unseat a man with the speaking skills of a

> 13 year old.

 

Once again, you greatly exaggerate. This time about the state of the

Democratic Party. "Moribund"? Approaching death? They held the Senate for

most of that 16-year period and held the White House for half of it, as well

as about half of the Governorships and a majority of the state legislatures.

It was only in the House of Representatives that they were never able to

achieve a majority.

 

And for many voters, Bush's incoherence was a plus. It gives him a certain

"folksiness" that appeals to that near-illiterate portion of the population

that live in trailers and drive beat-up pickup trucks with NRA bumper

stickers on the rear end. It makes them feel that he's one of them.

 

The problem in 2004 wasn't the message of the Democratic Party, but rather

the gullibility of the American public. When high-ranking members of the

administration travel around the country (at taxpayer expense) spreading

messages like only reelecting Bush will save them from the terrorists, and

giving gays the same rights as straights will destroy their own marriages,

there is a certain element in the nation that will believe the lies. But

why am I bothering to explain this to you? After all, it appears that

you're among that element.

> He was

> > an unsuccessful Congressional candidate who had enough money to buy into

a

> > baseball team. As far as the 4 year (plus one day) period where Bush

> > managed to win those two elections, there are many who will contend to

their

> > deaths that Bush actually didn't win either of them.

>

> Many people are partisan fools and revisionists.

 

True. Fortunately, that group . . . those who still support Bush and the

rest of the neo-con con artists who now control the Republican Party . . .

are on the decline

> > There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major

contributing

> > factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't

have

> > been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader not

> > drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore.

>

> 1) Wrong; several independent analyses confirmed he won FL.

 

And several other independent analyses dispute that claim, based on the

number of ballots that had been thrown out and never included in any

analysis.

> Furthermore, the nature of the objections was absolutely ludicrous. I

> lived in Palm Beach County and was able to understand the infamous

> butterfly ballot on a field trip in 3rd grade.

 

Really? So you're only in the 10th grade now? You write fairly well, for a

high school student.

> If you're literally

> too dumb to be sure you cast your ballot as intended before you drop

> your ballot into the box, you deserve to lose your vote.

 

Do those who were unlucky enough to have an extra "chad" start to come loose

on their ballots as the sheets are handled and mishandled also deserve to

lose their vote? How about the folks who never make it to the polls because

of a police checkpoint set up between their homes and their polling place

stalling traffic in black neighborhoods until after the polls close? How

about those who are intimidated by large men, sitting in lawnchairs set up

in the beds of their Bush-bumper-stickered pickup trucks, holding baseball

bats? Do those folks deserve to be disenfranchised, as well?

> 2) Ralph Nader did run, so what is your point? It wasn't illegal.

 

True enough. It wasn't illegal. Stupid on the part of Nader and his

supporters, but not illegal. But I can guarantee you that had Nader not

been in the race, and had Gore won by less than 2,000 votes, and had

Buchanan taken 100,000 votes away from Bush, Republicans in Florida would

have been scrambling to try to institute some sort of retroactive "instant

runoff" system to give Buchanan's votes and the state to Bush anyway.

> >Plus, of course, there are the

> > allegations of voter suppression in predominantly black districts. That

> > election will always have an asterisk next to it in the history books.

>

> Placed there by propagandists such as yourself who spout baseless

> accusations as if they gain accuracy through repetition and anonymity.

 

No, placed there by historians who will look at all the facts surrounding

the election, including the unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court that

allowing existing state laws to prevail in an election that is technically a

state election somehow violates the "equal protection" clause of the

Constitution.

> > In 2004 there were even more allegations of election "irregularities",

both

> > in Florida and Ohio. But that election would not have been close enough

for

> > those irregularities to affect anything had it not been for a very

> > successful "fear and smear" campaign by the Bush/Cheney campaign team,

> > alternately doing their best to delude the American public into thinking

> > that terrorists bringing nuclear suitcase bombs into American cities was

a

> > forgone conclusion should Kerry be elected, and also financing an

effective

> > smear campaign by the "Swift Boat Veterans".

>

> Kerry was just unlikeable and blatantly hypocritical; he was a

> political butterfly and his 'electability' didn't wash with most

> people.

 

Kerry is likeable enough. I've met the man. Have you? And by "blatantly

hypocritical", I can only assume that you're refering to Kerry's comment

that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Kerry did a poor job of explaining that the first vote was for a bill that

actually provided for a means of raising that $87 billion (reversing tax

cuts), and that the second vote was against the bill with the means of

raising the money removed, giving Bush carte blanche to spend money he

didn't have. You may view that as being "blatantly hypocritical". I view

it as being "fiscally responsible", something this administration and its

supporters have no concept of. But, of course, the Bush/Cheney campaign

team spun that into a "flip-flop", and used it to deceive a gullible public.

> > All of that said, the bottom line is that it was not fear of what you

call

> > "barely concealed socialism" that drove American voters to Bush. It was

the

> > fact that the "average" American voter pays virtually no attention to

what's

> > really going on in the country or in the world, and is easily duped by

> > crafty campaign managers.

>

> You're right; all those red states love welfare statism. I can hear

> their clamoring for midnight basketball even as I type. How did

> Reagan capture the 'Reagan Democrats'? The left is intellectually

> bankrupt; your only hope is that some muck-racking scandal drags down

> whoever the Repubs field.

 

The right only wins when an uninformed public believes their lies and spin.

Reagan captured the "Reagan Democrats" by promising tax cuts, coupled with

reduced spending. He delivered on the first part, but reneged on the second

part. He won them a second time by pointing out that he gave them tax cuts

and blaming Congress for an increase in spending instead of reduced

spending, even though most of the spending increases were in pieces of

legislation that he demanded from Congress. Intellectual and moral

bankruptcy are hallmarks of the GOP. The ideas coming from the left are

sound and logical, but the right will continue to distort the position of

the left in attempts to regain their power, which is desired only to amass

more wealth for their corporate masters. Democrats won't need any scandals

to drag down the Republican candidate. Giuliani and McCain will "Swift

Boat" each other during the primaries for them.

> The good news is that they've gotten smarter, as

> > evidenced in the 2006 elections. Moderates won't run from Hillary.

She's

> > pretty much a moderate herself. It will be the closet chauvinists that

may

> > well be her downfall, just as the closet racists will not give Obama the

> > support a white candidate with the same views would have.

>

> He's a leftist. He wouldn't get much support for that, regardless of

> his skin.

 

Even with the color of his skin, he's already got twice the support of any

of the Republican candidates. I won't be supporting either him or Hillary

in the primaries, but if either of them wins the nomination they'll win the

White House. The GOP has nothing and nobody with which to beat them.

> What will be

> > REALLY interesting to see is how much support Giuliani will get from the

> > conservative religious-right-wing "family values" crowd, with his

multiple

> > divorces, constant affairs and living for a time in the home of two gay

> > friends.

>

> Screw Guiliani; I'm voting libertarian.

 

You were in 3rd grade in 2000 and plan on voting in 2008? How many times

did you get left back? But, if you're old enough to vote, please DO vote

libertarian. That will essentially be another vote for the Democrat.

[Guest Scotius]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:02:29 GMT, frice@skeptictank.org (President

Obama. Get used to it.) wrote:

>Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:

>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:05:20 GMT, President Obama. Get used to it.

>>(President Obama. Get used to it.) wrote:

>>>"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>>"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>>>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>>>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>>>> political prescience as well.

>>>>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>>><smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>>>that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>> Alas poor Frederic L. Rice, who sees fit now to change his

>>name so people won't know to not bother reading his screeds,

>>froth-at-the-mouth lefty though they be? No, it will only take seeing

>>one, and then it's back to plonkville.

>> Too bad too that he has to imagine that someone's upset

>>greatly at something they couldn't care less about. Such is the state

>>of alt.politics leftism.

>

>LOL! Look at the poor rightard shitting his underroos in frustation

>at his Republinazi party getting its comeuppance. Sucks to have

>backed a mass murdering terrorist Christian, huh, cunt?

 

Firstly, if you think the Dixie Chicks winning grammies means

the Republicans are getting comeuppance, you're an idiot.

Secondly, I was willing to give Bush a chance when he started,

and he blew it quite a while back, so I'm not a Bush backer.

Unfortunately for you, I'm also not an idiot backer, so you

get no approval from me for your stupid rants and diatribes posted

here, bitchboy.

>

>---

>President Obama. Get used to it.