|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife.
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242281 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 22:02 |
|
Hey, things will swing back in time from the current ultra-Conservatism or,
at least, the interest in same - they always do. People will grow listless
and swing back to center. What, beyond center? Nah. The problem that we
see today is that things are right of center and people are trying to pull
it even more right, while others are trying to pull it back towards center.
Very left? Compared to other countries that's a lie - many other countries
are far more radical than America has ever been or will ever be.
Center is a very nice place to be.
It's just a convenient lie to make everybody fear - just about everything -
that is keeping the swing from happening already. Fear is currently making
the political world go 'round.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242282 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 22:25 |
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:00:13 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
trolled:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:5h6b2252rfusl6fr5v5ojbumikqqhvdef2 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:07:17 GMT, "Snake"
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
>> trolled:
>>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>news:vld9221vqp42dp1127kvk37q9pu6ht1ggj [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
>>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled:
>>>>
>>>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
>>>>>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see a difference, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the
>>>>>middle
>>>>>of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
>>>> shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
>>>> are in prison for it.
>>>
>>>I didn't know that Lewinsky filed sexual harrasment charges, even after
>>>all
>>>the media coverage...
>>
>> You make such an effort to get things wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>So I guess the proscecutor would do that for her.
>>
>> Maybe you should look at what actually happened.
>>
>>>
>>>Yup. She had an affair with the President - a consenting adult willingly
>>>having a *continuous* affair with another consenting adult.
>>>
>>>Certainly a criminal offense of Congressional interest, yes??
>>
>> Lewinsky was never the subject of the interest - perjury was.
>
>Interesting skip-over of the actual "issue"
The issue is "is perjury a crime?".
You note that "I" didn't skip over the issue, I have repeatedly
dealt with it.
I do see part of your problem - projection.
>
>> I guess perjury in a court of law by the President of the United
>> States is ok with you. Given that attitude, why do you believe that we
>> should have any laws in the first place?
>> Unless the law only covers people who you disagree with.
>>
>>>
>>>>> - the 6th "investigation" so far as
>>>>>it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
>>>>>illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
>>>>>your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
>>>>>manner
>>>>>to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
>>>>
>>>> He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
>>>
>>>The point is - in case you missed the 4th Amendment - was after *6*
>>>investigations he shouldn't have been asked the question...AT ALL.
>>
>> So, because "you" don't like the question, it shouldn't be asked?
>>
>> And yes, i've read the 4th Amendment. It says nothing about however
>> many investigations "you" think there should have been.
>> In fact, the 4th Amendment specifically uses the term "probable
>> cause" - under which the questions asked clearly fell.
>>
>>>
>>>That is what the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect someone from. If
>>>you
>>>would have been placed in exactly the same position your lawers would have
>>>called for a stop to the police harrassment after the *third*
>>>investigation - while not being found guilty - and the court would have
>>>found in your favor. I think you should check court prescident.
>>
>> I think you should check the 4th Amendment.
>
>I did - apparently you haven't, nor have *any* clue to how your Constitution
>is supposed to protect you.
>
>Game over.
So, because I don't have a clue as to how your misrepresentation of
the Constitution works, you're going to stop trolling?
Ok.
>
>>>You know the type.
>>
>> Yes, I've been reading your posts.
>
>Oh, a nice lying redirection. Very well done!!! ^_^
Now you're twisting my accurate description of your posts into
"lying redirection".
>
>Next try, please.
I don't need to "try" anything - I leave that to you.
>
>A fool will keep making his own proofs...keep it up.
Ok, you'll keep it up. Again, no problem.
>
>>>
>>>Yup, I KNEW you'd complain.
>>
>> No complaints from me, just pointing out the credibility chasm that
>> your side has.
>
>But of course you would. Anybody who doesn't believe as your side believes
>isn't "credible". We have 20 year's proof of this - my bad for thinking
>otherwise!!
Your error here is that you're "thinking". We've seen no evidence of
that so far, just rehashed failed liberalisms, easily refuted.
>
>>>But, of course, since a Conservative is always right everybody else must
>>>be
>>>wrong...right??
>>
>> I never said that. I never said that Conservatives were always
>> right. I never said that anyone else must always be wrong.
>> Why don't you respond to what I did say?
>
>I did. Read again. Your position is that nothing is "credible" when it
>points against your position. When a public poll points to you being right
>it is "proof" - or even worse, using modern euthanisms, a "mandate" ^_^
That's not my position. If you had read what I posted, you would've
known that.
My position on polls is to look at who is giving the poll, what the
poll questions are, and who the respondants are.
"Did you beat your wife today?" is not an honest poll question.
A poll with a 23% Conservative sample, a 33% moderate sample, and a
44% liberal sample is not an honest poll - especially as many liberals
purposefully call themselves "moderates" so as to defeat the poll.
Then we have the built-in bias of most major polling organizations,
as described by a liberal as giving their side a 15% boost.
>
>When against you it's not "credible".
>
>Can you prove otherwise?
>
>Next case.
Refuted above.
Next.
>
>>>Yup. And the current party in power is running scared from the public's
>>>opinion of them. I didn't make the opinion, only reporting it.
>>
>> Ok, you're reporting your own opinion. No problem there.
>
>Nice. Creating a fantasy revisionist reality to support your own
>conclusions. The polls are documented, as the web link I supplied provides,
>yet *I'm* reporting my "own opinion".
More projection from you. daily kos and democrat underground do not
count as credible ;-)
>
>Oooh, self-deception and denial of reality, all in the same person!
I'm glad you recognize it in yourself.
>
>>>I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.
>>
>> I have no problem with your opinion.
>>
>> I'll wait till you post some facts.
>
>Apparently I am wasting my time. When you can learn how to *READ* - see:
>link provided - we can talk.
When you can post facts, and debate without the resorting to the
liberal handbook - then we can talk.
>
>Illiteracy is pretty ugly.
More projection.
>
>-end-
Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
>
>(snip)
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242286 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 08:08 |
|
Wrong analogy again:
<<How "big" should we act?
Should we just appease every tyranny that comes along?>>
This has nothing to do with "appeasement," Iraq was making no
territorial demands (nor any other kind either) when it was invaded by
the U.S. in 2003--nor did it have weapons of mass destruction nor was
it supporting Islamic terrorism.
This situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, another situation
in which the U.S. political leadership ignored reality and tried to
impose a pro-American government on a foreign people by force of arms,
only to have the misguided effort *blow up* in its face.
<<I note that England did that (with Neville Chamberlain) and it got us
WWII. We here in the USA are trying to avoid that mistake.>>
The United States didn't exactly confront Hitler over the
Sudetenland either, did it? The situation is hardly comparable anyway,
since Germany in 1938 was twenty times the threat that Iraq was in
2003...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242287 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 08:26 |
|
Watergate *revisionism*:
<<When Richard Nixon committed a cover-up and was to be impeached, it
was the Republicans that went to him and convinced him to resign for
the best of the country.>>
Nixon didn't resign "for the best of the country," he resigned to
protect his pension and perks as a former president, which he would've
lost if convicted and removed from office by the impeachment process.
Nixon didn't do anything "for the good of the country," he was all
about personal power and *getting even* with his "enemies."
The Republicans convinced him to resign because his own secret
taping system had provided the "smoking gun" that doomed his
defense--before that, most Republicans were going to happily deny his
obvious guilt and stand behind him based on partisan politics. However,
the tapes made Nixon a liability to their party--that's why Republicans
then wanted him to resign, it had nothing to do with any "national
interest."
Corruption is fairly common in government, but Nixon's was dangerous
to the democratic process because it wasn't about money, it was about
stifling dissent and intimidating his political rivals and critics...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242288 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 08:40 |
|
The Clinton Impeachment Fiasco:
<<When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the
middle
of a supposedly *criminal* investigation - the 6th "investigation" so
far as
it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them
"Mine
your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
manner
to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
I see a difference, do you? Most Americans realized it was an
infringement
into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview.
And
after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
"issue" as yet another media ploy.>>
While this is basically true historically (the Paula Jones case was
kept *alive* by Clinton's political opponents just long enough that he
could be asked about "other relationships" under oath), Clinton still
shouldn't have let his ego get the best of him and been *suckered* into
responding as he did--he simply should've told the relevant truth, it
wouldn't have mattered much since he wasn't elected and reelected
because the American people thought he was a model of marital fidelity
anyway.
I've got to give the American people credit on this one--they can
often be manipulated and misled by slick propaganda campaigns over the
short term, but they *saw through* the impeachment hoopla (except for
those with ideological "axes to grind" who resented Clinton for his
electoral success) quickly and thoroughly...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242289 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 09:09 |
|
"Breaking the U.S. Constitution":
<<Historically, the Constitution was broken by Abraham Lincoln when he
suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and had a lot of
opposition antiwar Democrats arrested without trial.>>
Well, IIRC Article One, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution does
allow for suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus during times of
"foreign invasion or insurrection," which would certainly include the
Civil War--therefore IMHO Lincoln wasn't in violation of the
Constitution.
However, I'd argue that the Constitution has been violated on
numerous occasions--the Alien and Sedition Acts (1790's), the Espionage
Act and Sedition Act (World War I), the forced relocation (with
property loss) of innocent American citizens (World War II), the
existence of "Jim Crow" segregation and racial discrimination (for at
least a century in some areas of the Deep South) in violation of the
14th & 15th Amendments, numerous broken treaties with American Indian
tribes.
In most cases, the American federal court system (headed by the
Supreme Court) simply turned away from its duty to enforce the
Constitution, upholding unconstitutional actions by the government or
avoiding ruling on them--at least until it was too late to prevent
injustices from occurring.
Sadly but truly, the courts were in general reflecting overall
public opinion in America at those times...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242290 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 09:23 |
|
"Gaining Peace":
<<That is what us on the conservative side of the fence say and feel.
You dont
gain peace by acting weak and divided in your stance on these issues of
the day.>>
Preferring diplomacy and negotiation to aggressive militarism isn't
"acting weak and divided," and I find too many hard-core ideologues who
believe in forcing *our way of life* on other peoples via conquest and
occupation.
The Federation's Prime Directive (difficult as it is to apply
consistently) was created primarily to avoid that use of overwhelming
power, and there are numerous "Trek" episodes (all series) in which the
use of force is avoided in producing a favorable outcome.
This doesn't mean that the Federation won't fight effectively to
defend itself if attacked, but it does mean that the use of military
force is considered the LAST option.
Which is as it should be...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242291 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 09:37 |
|
"CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143355240.529674.51870 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> While this is basically true historically (the Paula Jones case was
> kept *alive* by Clinton's political opponents just long enough that he
> could be asked about "other relationships" under oath), Clinton still
> shouldn't have let his ego get the best of him and been *suckered* into
> responding as he did--he simply should've told the relevant truth, it
> wouldn't have mattered much since he wasn't elected and reelected
> because the American people thought he was a model of marital fidelity
> anyway.
Indeed. It has been noted by political historians that when George Herbert
Walker Bush was asked the same question - did you have personal relations
with [this person], he was (politically and legally) astute enough to say
'None of your business, it is irrelevant to the investigation'. Clinton
apparently, for what it is worth, was not as intelligent.
He should have said 'Stuff you. And this is relevant to a (supposedly)
criminal investigation how, exactly?'
But he didn't, which led to...
> I've got to give the American people credit on this one--they can
> often be manipulated and misled by slick propaganda campaigns over the
> short term, but they *saw through* the impeachment hoopla (except for
> those with ideological "axes to grind" who resented Clinton for his
> electoral success) quickly and thoroughly...
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242293 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 10:31 |
|
On 25 Mar 2006 22:08:27 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
wrote:
>Wrong analogy again:
>
>
> <<How "big" should we act?
> Should we just appease every tyranny that comes along?>>
>
> This has nothing to do with "appeasement,"
IUt has everything to do with appeasement.
> Iraq was making no
>territorial demands (nor any other kind either) when it was invaded by
>the U.S. in 2003--nor did it have weapons of mass destruction nor was
>it supporting Islamic terrorism.
You have one thing partially right - Iraq was making no territorial
demands because of their failed war against Iran and they had been put
down for their invasion of Kuwait.
However, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and they were
supporting - and promoting - islamic terrorism. Those are proven
facts.
> This situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, another situation
>in which the U.S. political leadership ignored reality and tried to
>impose a pro-American government on a foreign people by force of arms,
>only to have the misguided effort *blow up* in its face.
It isn't my side that ignores political reality. If you look at the
facts about Vietnam, we actually won the military campaign, it was
only people like the traitorous jane fonda and john kerry that allowed
the North Vietnamese to win.
Your history revisionism doesn't change the facts.
>
><<I note that England did that (with Neville Chamberlain) and it got us
>
>WWII. We here in the USA are trying to avoid that mistake.>>
>
> The United States didn't exactly confront Hitler over the
>Sudetenland either, did it? The situation is hardly comparable anyway,
>since Germany in 1938 was twenty times the threat that Iraq was in
>2003...
So, Hitler wouldn't have used an atomic bomb if he could've had one?
Appeasement never works.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242294 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 10:40 |
|
On 25 Mar 2006 22:26:44 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
wrote:
>Watergate *revisionism*:
Maybe you should read what I posted.
>
><<When Richard Nixon committed a cover-up and was to be impeached, it
>was the Republicans that went to him and convinced him to resign for
>the best of the country.>>
>
> Nixon didn't resign "for the best of the country," he resigned to
>protect his pension and perks as a former president, which he would've
>lost if convicted and removed from office by the impeachment process.
> Nixon didn't do anything "for the good of the country," he was all
>about personal power and *getting even* with his "enemies."
While I do agreee that Nixon could be vain and petty, he didn't
resign until the Republicans went to him and told him that he couldn't
win. Until that happened, he was going to stay and fight it out.
That is my point.
>
> The Republicans convinced him to resign because his own secret
>taping system had provided the "smoking gun" that doomed his
>defense--before that, most Republicans were going to happily deny his
>obvious guilt and stand behind him based on partisan politics. However,
>the tapes made Nixon a liability to their party--that's why Republicans
>then wanted him to resign, it had nothing to do with any "national
>interest."
It had everything to do with the national interest, they didn't want
the country brought down by an impeachment.
>
> Corruption is fairly common in government, but Nixon's was dangerous
>to the democratic process because it wasn't about money, it was about
>stifling dissent and intimidating his political rivals and critics...
Same as Clinton. Only your side cheered Clinton on...
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242295 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 13:10 |
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:53:41 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:28:29 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
>nospam.net> trolled:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:13:00 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
>>>nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
>>>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>>>>
>>>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you all think?
>>>>>
>>>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>>>
>>>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>>>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>>>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>>>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>>>
>>> There will never be another Star Trek series as long as trolls like
>>>you continue to use failed liberal ideology in place of fact. Come to
>>>think of it, there will never be a Star Trek in real life if people
>>>like you ever take power.
>>>
>>> And yes, we do know what needs to happen - trolls like you need to
>>>experience the joys of Sharia Law and Dhimmitude - but you need to do
>>>it over there, so that the rest of us don't have to put up with your
>>>incessant whining.
>>>
>>>John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>>>destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>>>that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>>>actions.
>>
>>I know that idiots like you burn books,
>
> It's not my side that's burning books.
>
>> deny history,
>
> My side hasn't done that either.
Yes, all those people Bush never met.
>
>> shred the
>>Constitution,
>
> Nor that.
Patriot Acts.
>
>> and love torturing people in the sweet name of Jesus.
>
> Another missed target.
> You really need to get away from the liberal handbook.
My handbook is the Bible, a book unknown to you.
>
>>But despite getting high by licking the blood off your fingers from
>>your new Crusades,
>
> No blood on the fingers of my side. Nor is my side getting high from
>anything.
You better before more of you get indicted and go to prison for your
organized criminality.
> As far as a new Crusades, we actually need more of that. The
>Crusades were an effort to free the Holy lands from Islamic tyranny.
> Why is it that your side always seems to come down on the side of
>tyranny?
My side comes down hard on your side every time it commits tyranny.
You really hate America.
>
>>you act like two terms of a criminal Republican
>>administration (there seems to be no other, i.e. Nixon, Reagan,
>>Bushes)
>
> No criminal administrations on my side- with the possible exception
>of Nixon (who actually committed fewer crimes than Clinton).
It is more a crime to have an eager blowjob from your intern than to
murder hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Muslims in a
phony war? Clinton never resigned. Clinton never took a pardon.
Let's see, Nixon was a Republican, wasn't he? Kind of queers your
argument doesn't it? And glory be - the same bastards are BACK.
> Remember, just because someone has a policy different than yours
>doesn't make it a crime.
What makes it a crime is lying to America to go to war when you know
there are no WMD in Iraq.
>
>> means there has never been any other political party in power.
>
> Carter was never President? Clinton was never President? Democrats
>have never held power in Congress?
My point exactly. Two terms of a Republican barely (if even) elected
and your side acts like Democrats have never been overwhelmingly been
chosen by the American people for leadership.
>
>>You are truly stupid.
>
> I'm not the one saying that democrats have never been in power.
Neither did I. I said your side ACTS like Democrats have never been
in power just because they won two terms. Keep building strawmen.
>
>> When your Fuhrer
>
> Ah, the nazi analogy. When you can't post facts...
Your side can't handle the truth because Bush never makes mistakes.
>
> I note that nazi stands for "national socialist" - and that is
>exactly the opposite of what my side stands for.
Your side stands for corporate welfare, no bid contracts, and selling
the US to the Chinese and the Saudis for a phony war. Want more?
>
> Where does your stand stand?
Stand stand? I'm for small government, a balanced budget, secure
borders. Your side stands for "Buy American while we ship your job
overseas."
>
>>is convicted and put up
>>against the wall, like the Germans, you will say you were duped and
>>only following orders.
>
> Convicted for freeing 50 million people from tyranny? Convicted for
>saving the world from people like you?
First your side trained Saddam to be a terrorist, then you attack him
because he is a terrorist. You need your meds.
>
> Bring on the convictions!
>
> The trouble is that your side won't be putting my side up against
>any walls. Your side will be up against the wall, and not from my
>side, rather from the terrorists. Or maybe they'll be sawing your
>heads off on live tv.
> Still, my side will be battling to save you, from your arrogance and
>willful ignorance.
Your side is busy blaming faggots for 9-11, wishing death against
South American heads of State, trading security for our freedom, and
claiming God is on your side as you break his commandments. Christ
had a word for your kind - Pharisees
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/pharisees.html
"In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They
were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the
law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when
brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee
(Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of
religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality
(Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice
of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by John the
Baptist with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were
noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke
7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt.
12:39; 16:1-4).
From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed
themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not
bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his
influence among the people."
Today, we call them Republicans.
>
>> Yours is the arrogance of the ignorant.
>
> Mine is the knowledge of factual history, not the ignorant
>revisionism that people like you preach.
Your side white washes the history of your lies more than the
Communists. Too bad you can't hide the skeletons under all those
flags.
>
> Yours appears to be projection and trolling.
>
> Care to prove me wrong?
>
> John H. Schneider II
The only projection is your hypocricy.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242296 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 14:51 |
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:10:41 -0600, bush stew [at] rock ers.net trolled:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:53:41 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
--brevity--
>>>>John H. Schneider II
>>>>
>>>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>>>>destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>>>>that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>>>>actions.
>>>
>>>I know that idiots like you burn books,
>>
>> It's not my side that's burning books.
>>
>>> deny history,
>>
>> My side hasn't done that either.
>
>Yes, all those people Bush never met.
Please indicate who you are talking about.
>
>>
>>> shred the
>>>Constitution,
>>
>> Nor that.
>
>Patriot Acts.
The Patriot Act didn't shred the Constitution.
>
>>
>>> and love torturing people in the sweet name of Jesus.
>>
>> Another missed target.
>> You really need to get away from the liberal handbook.
>
>My handbook is the Bible, a book unknown to you.
Why don't you ask before making declarative statements about things
that you know nothing about?
Given your response though, I'd venture that I know far more of the
Bible than you ever have, or ever will.
>
>>
>>>But despite getting high by licking the blood off your fingers from
>>>your new Crusades,
>>
>> No blood on the fingers of my side. Nor is my side getting high from
>>anything.
>
>You better before more of you get indicted and go to prison for your
>organized criminality.
So, you support Sharia Law and Dhimmitude?
Sharia Law is the only place that would indict me, or put me i
prison for any sort of "organized criminality"
>
>> As far as a new Crusades, we actually need more of that. The
>>Crusades were an effort to free the Holy lands from Islamic tyranny.
>> Why is it that your side always seems to come down on the side of
>>tyranny?
>
>My side comes down hard on your side every time it commits tyranny.
>You really hate America.
My side has never committed tyranny.
I do begin to understand your problem now, you project your own
hatred and failings. I don't hate America - my side champions America.
>
>>
>>>you act like two terms of a criminal Republican
>>>administration (there seems to be no other, i.e. Nixon, Reagan,
>>>Bushes)
>>
>> No criminal administrations on my side- with the possible exception
>>of Nixon (who actually committed fewer crimes than Clinton).
>
>It is more a crime to have an eager blowjob from your intern than to
>murder hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Muslims in a
>phony war?
Nobody ever said that a "blowjob" was a crime. Perjury isn't a
blowjob. Perjury is a crime.
Read the Constitution.
As far as a phone war, maybe you missed the attacks on 9/11. I can
think of over than 3000 people who wish they could've missed it too.
Oh, one other thing - "hundreds of thousands" haven't been killed in
the war. The terrorists wish they could have done that (and apparently
you too), but it hasn't happened.
> Clinton never resigned. Clinton never took a pardon.
Clinton never resigned or took a pardon because he has sycophants
like you.
>Let's see, Nixon was a Republican, wasn't he? Kind of queers your
>argument doesn't it? And glory be - the same bastards are BACK.
Nixon resigned rather than drag the country through the muck of an
impeachment. Clinton said "the hell with the country" and dragged the
country down.
My arguement still stands.
And guess what, the people who won't drag the country through the
muck are in power.
>
>> Remember, just because someone has a policy different than yours
>>doesn't make it a crime.
>
>What makes it a crime is lying to America to go to war when you know
>there are no WMD in Iraq.
No lies from my side. We have found WMD's, but you still won't admit
it. You still have the same blind obedience to the liberal handbook.
>
>>
>>> means there has never been any other political party in power.
>>
>> Carter was never President? Clinton was never President? Democrats
>>have never held power in Congress?
>
>My point exactly.
Your point is that Carter was never President? Clinton was never
President? Democrats never held power in Congress"
I can see your problem - total and complete denial of reality.
I thought you would at least admit that people you worship so much
were at least once in the positions that you would've wanted them to
be in.
> Two terms of a Republican barely (if even) elected
More denial of reality. GW Bush was elected, then President GW Bush
was re-elected. No "barely" or "(if even)" involved.
>and your side acts like Democrats have never been overwhelmingly been
>chosen by the American people for leadership.
Where do you get that from? My side doesn't act like that.
>
>>
>>>You are truly stupid.
>>
>> I'm not the one saying that democrats have never been in power.
>
>Neither did I. I said your side ACTS like Democrats have never been
>in power just because they won two terms. Keep building strawmen.
Again, my side doesn't act like that. In fact, my side is trying to
undo all of the damage that your side has done to the country over the
last 70 years.
The only strawmen come from you.
>
>>
>>> When your Fuhrer
>>
>> Ah, the nazi analogy. When you can't post facts...
>
>Your side can't handle the truth because Bush never makes mistakes.
My side champions the truth. It's why we don't call a reduction in
the rate of growth from 12% to 11.9% "draconian cuts".
Nobody on my side ever said that President GW Bush makes no
mistakes. If only your side had the same attitude about Bill Clinton.
>
>>
>> I note that nazi stands for "national socialist" - and that is
>>exactly the opposite of what my side stands for.
>
>Your side stands for corporate welfare, no bid contracts, and selling
>the US to the Chinese and the Saudis for a phony war. Want more?
You're a liar. You're at least good at projection.
My side stands for smaller government, lower taxes, defending
America, and fighting the enemy on their soil rather than over here.
>
>>
>> Where does your stand stand?
>
>Stand stand? I'm for small government, a balanced budget, secure
>borders.
See, you have what the two sides stand for reversed.
You probably had no problem whatsoever when Bill Clinton tried to
nationalize health care (the most massive increase in size of
governement in the last 50 years), it was your side that fought tooth
and nail against Newt Gingrich to balance the budget, and your side
needs the borders open so you can get the illegal immigrant vote.
> Your side stands for "Buy American while we ship your job
>overseas."
We only get this when your side is in power.
>
>>
>>>is convicted and put up
>>>against the wall, like the Germans, you will say you were duped and
>>>only following orders.
>>
>> Convicted for freeing 50 million people from tyranny? Convicted for
>>saving the world from people like you?
>
>First your side trained Saddam to be a terrorist, then you attack him
>because he is a terrorist. You need your meds.
I see that you missed entirely the Cold War, and that the Iraqi Army
was supplied with Soviet weapons. I'm not the one denying reality
>
>>
>> Bring on the convictions!
>>
>> The trouble is that your side won't be putting my side up against
>>any walls. Your side will be up against the wall, and not from my
>>side, rather from the terrorists. Or maybe they'll be sawing your
>>heads off on live tv.
>> Still, my side will be battling to save you, from your arrogance and
>>willful ignorance.
>
>Your side is busy blaming faggots for 9-11,
Not my side. We blame the terrorists.
> wishing death against
>South American heads of State,
Are you talking Hugo Chaves? The man who said that America needs to
be destroyed?
You probably would've championed Adolph Hitler in the 1930's too.
> trading security for our freedom,
No trading from my side. No appeasement of the terrorists either.
>and
>claiming God is on your side as you break his commandments. Christ
>had a word for your kind - Pharisees
>
>http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/pharisees.html
>
>"In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They
>were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the
>law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when
>brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee
>(Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).
>
>There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of
>religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality
>(Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice
>of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by John the
>Baptist with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were
>noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke
>7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt.
>12:39; 16:1-4).
>
>From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed
>themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not
>bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his
>influence among the people."
And now you claim to speak for God. The one who needs meds is you.
There is a word for my kind: Patriots. We believe in this country,
and will continue to do so, even when faced with the likes of you.
>
>Today, we call them Republicans.
You really need to get back to your meds.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Yours is the arrogance of the ignorant.
>>
>> Mine is the knowledge of factual history, not the ignorant
>>revisionism that people like you preach.
>
>Your side white washes the history of your lies more than the
>Communists. Too bad you can't hide the skeletons under all those
>flags.
More projection. My side looks at what actually happened in history,
rather than your warped historical revisionism. We don't have to hide
anything.
Wish we could say the same thing about you.
>
>>
>> Yours appears to be projection and trolling.
>>
>> Care to prove me wrong?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>The only projection is your hypocricy.
No projection from me. No hypocricy from me.
And, as expected, no proving me wrong from you.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242297 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 15:15 |
|
John H. Schneider II (JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com) wrote:
: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
: <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
: >"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
: >news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
: >> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
: >> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
: >>
: >> I see a difference, do you?
: >
: >When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
: >of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
: Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
: shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
: are in prison for it.
: > - the 6th "investigation" so far as
: >it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
: >illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
: >your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a manner
: >to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
: He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
: >
: >I see a difference, do you?
: The difference that you see is that one side (yours) should be
: allowed to flout the law with no consequences, while the other side
: should be criminalized for differences of opinion.
: >Most Americans
: You and a few liberal friends are not "most" Americans.
: > realized it was an infringement
: >into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
: >"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview. And
: >after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
: >"issue" as yet another media ploy.
: The "vast majority" of Americans still see perjury as a crime -
: that's why there has been no interest in changing that particular law.
: Perjury, by the way, is not "another media ploy".
: >
: >But what are you worried about my good man?
: Why do you want claim that I'm worried?
: > Almost 2/3 of Americans - from
: >all aspects of life - currently believe that Mr. Bush and his administration
: >are doing a certain quality of work. Come elections Your Man Bush & Co.
: >will be able to reap the rewards that their efficiency, and quality of work,
: >as brought them.
: Brought to you by the same cBS news that brought us the Dan Rather
: memo's. You know, the same memo's that they still keep defending as
: being factual.
: >
: > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main 1350874.shtml
: >
: >Patience, young grasshopper. See you in a few years come new elections!
: >^_^
: >
: Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
: later this year.
: BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
Why not? He's only won once so far :)
Brad
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242298 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 15:50 |
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC), al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
Filippone) wrote:
>John H. Schneider II (JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com) wrote:
--brevity--
>
>: Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
>: later this year.
>
>: BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
>
>Why not? He's only won once so far :)
Your attempt at humor falls far short.
Interestingly enough, both of GW Bush's victories had a higher
percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever recieved.
>
>Brad
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242299 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 19:55 |
|
"Brad Filippone" <al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:e0646a$jnb$1 [at] News.Dal.Ca...
> : >Most Americans
>
> : You and a few liberal friends are not "most" Americans.
If it were only a "few liberal friends" then William Jefferson Clinton would
have been fully impeached and people still would be considering this one of
the most serious presidential abuses of power in recent times.
Yet both those statements are false, aren't they?
"A few liberal friends" would NEVER have been able to prevent what is
implied as an outcome here - "justice" - as the government (Congress) was
Republican majority controlled, wasn't it?
So, oooh, the Big Bad Liberals - the entire *minority* of them, unless
everyone not labeled "Republican" gets conveniently labeled "Liberal" [sic]
(a word now attempting to be used as a derogatory statement) - got together
and overthrew the complete power base of the Strong, Righteous Conservative
Majority and destroyed the cause of god and Justice all by their small,
little old selves.
David won over Goliath! Oh, how could this happen? How could the
god-fearing, Theocratic-desiring Constitutional-wall-breaking peoples -
....for, after all, having a platform that states openly we wish for American
law and statues to be based on Judeo-Christian interpretations of Biblical
law and writings, even though we go to the Middle East to forward a cause of
"freedom from tyranny and oppression" when governments are set up to based
their laws and statues on *Muslim* interpretations of Biblical law...and
that's different, right, because Muslim Theocracy is evil but
Judeo-Christian Theocracy is good and holy, never mind we claim to be
"conservative" in our interpretations of the Constitution but the very first
Amendment promises "freedom of religion" for *everyone*, not just people who
pray to the Bible in exactly the same way...
- overthrow justice of that terrible Pariah of modern times, William
Jefferson Clinton, while all the time Conservatives had power control
Congress and many state assemblies?
There's only one answer! Liberals! Yes! They must have landed their
spaceships from Jupiter and used their brain control ray guns to turn the
entire god-fearing Conservative-voting population to gelatinous mindless
zombies and then told them to ignore something that was such an OBVIOUSLY
important issue to them!
That's it!! I've hit it RIGHT on the head, haven't I?
The entire universe is out to get the perfectly-formed ideology of the
Conservative and Republican parties, so we should always be afraid and live
in paranoid fear. Fear of "our way of life" being usurped by the evil,
invading hordes of apparently-alien Liberals from Outer Space who can come
down and change the balance of power in our democratically-voted
Conservative ruled society to suit their purposes when such an evil man like
William Jefferson Clinton does the most horrible crime! He actually lied to
a prosecutor when asked about his personal sex life! In one fell swoop the
evil Liberal henchmen of Planet X can come down and wipe our god-loving
forces of Righteousness right off the map in a bold attack of brinkmanship
and deception!
It's brilliant!
No wonder the Conservatives base their entire political platform on profound
paranoia and the threat of the Liberal menace! It's true! Even when in a
minority rule the forwarder of righteousness around the world - the
Republican party - can be devastated by the ugly and scheming Liberals!
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
NOT
Why not do everyone a favor?
Why not have the political parties figure out how to SOLVE problems of the
people - regardless of who they are - rather than constantly MAKE their own
problems? The Clinton "issue" was decided by the American PEOPLE that...this
just wasn't an issue. Every single poll taken by any accredited source told
Congress to...forget it. Leave it be.
Why don't you do a Google on "Clinton Lewinsky" etc and find this out
yourself? Or, really, better yet, just check what Congress actually DID when
confronted by the opinion of it's own constituents, who actually spoke
*themselves*?
The issues was, as still is, according to the very Americans that have
claimed to be "injured"...a *non* issue.
But the demagogues will keep holding on to it, won't they? In hopes of
playing this one out until the end of time as a model for the ugliness of
Liberalism in our government and what happens when you don't vote for a
honest, good god-fearing Republican for the White House.
....and they have done exactly that, pulled out this (now) tired whore of a
"story", every time for the last 2 elections, haven't they?? Hmmmm????
Can't have a non-Bible fearing adulterer in the White House again, for it
could possibly lead to the fall of civilization as we know it. Even though
it was, indeed, between 2 consenting adults and heaven forbid anyone
actually lead their *own* lives instead of living it the way you are told to
by others?
Instead let's vote in a man who - almost the entire world has voiced this
opinion - barely has the mental capacity to deal with the devastating issues
at hand.
But since he proclaims honor to the Bible, fear of god and the desire to see
Biblical law imposed throughout the land via interpretation and
re-interpretations we have nothing to worry about, right?
I'm sure you know him and those types, right?...
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242300 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 20:02 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:ss6d22d5qstaf548gr992q1gbu82n0k1j1 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC), al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
> Filippone) wrote:
>
>>John H. Schneider II (JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com) wrote:
>
> --brevity--
>
>>
>>: Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
>>: later this year.
>>
>>: BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
>>
>>Why not? He's only won once so far :)
>
> Your attempt at humor falls far short.
>
> Interestingly enough, both of GW Bush's victories had a higher
> percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever recieved.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
"However, Bush's victory margin, in terms of absolute number of popular
votes, was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in
1948 and, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin of victory ever for a
sitting president."
You can take that as you may, I'll keep quiet.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242301 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 21:13 |
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:02:26 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> banged
his head against the keyboard until this came out:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:ss6d22d5qstaf548gr992q1gbu82n0k1j1 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC), al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
>> Filippone) wrote:
>>
>>>John H. Schneider II (JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com) wrote:
>>
>> --brevity--
>>
>>>
>>>: Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
>>>: later this year.
>>>
>>>: BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
>>>
>>>Why not? He's only won once so far :)
>>
>> Your attempt at humor falls far short.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, both of GW Bush's victories had a higher
>> percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever recieved.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
>
>"However, Bush's victory margin, in terms of absolute number of popular
>votes, was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in
>1948 and, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin of victory ever for a
>sitting president."
>
>You can take that as you may, I'll keep quiet.
>
I again note that GW Bush recieved more votes in either election
than Bill Clinton ever recieved in any election. GW Bush, in his
re-election, recieved more votes than any other man ever to run for
president.
You can try to spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242302 ] |
So, 26 März 2006 22:49 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:vnpd225kt8q6je7n15m39r558t14hhp5bl [at] 4ax.com...
> I again note that GW Bush recieved more votes in either election
> than Bill Clinton ever recieved in any election. GW Bush, in his
> re-election, recieved more votes than any other man ever to run for
> president.
>
> You can try to spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts.
>
> John H. Schneider II
The fact is that - AS USUAL - you only decide to speak half truths to
represent your own viewpoint. If you had bothered to read the links, which
you didn't -the Bush reelection had the largest voter turnout since 1948.
If you get the largest numbers coming in of *course* you are going to see
the largest numbers coming out when divide only amongst 2 candidates. This
is basic mathematical principles, silly.
The fact is that while both candidates divided the largest overall results
in recent electoral history the winner - Bush - ended up with the *lowest
winning percentage deviation* for that win in history.
But since you are deciding to slant basic mathematical principles to suit
your own agenda, total base sample rather than deviations - which is the
number actually used to decide the outcome - let's take a test, shall we?
John Kerry had *59,028,109* popular votes.
-- Therefore John Kerry, the "loser" of the election process, had more
popular votes than: --
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940 election - 27,313,945
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1944 election - 25,612,916
Harry S. Truman, 1948 - 24,179,347
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952 election - 34,075,529
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956 election - 35,579,180
John F. Kennedy, 1960 - 34,220,984
Lynden B. Johnson, 1964 - 43,127,041
Richard M. Nixon, 1968 election - 31,783,783
Richard M. Nixon, 1972 election - 47,168,710
James E. Carter, 1976 - 40,831,881
[your hero] Ronald W. Reagan, 1980 election - 43,903,230
[continuing on a theme] Ronald W. Reagan, 1984 election - 54,455,472
George H.W. Bush, 1988 - 48,886,597
William J. Clinton, 1992 election - 44,909,806
William J. Clinton, 1996 election - 47,400,125
George W. Bush, 2000 election - 50,460,110
I think that just about covers it, yes?
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/
---------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing. It's amazing how much a single person - you - can constantly
make a fool of himself by slanting basic quotable historical numbers to suit
his own agenda and yet continue to post on the same themes.
It is amazing that you think you have any credibility - your favorite
issue - at all.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242303 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 00:34 |
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:49:05 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:vnpd225kt8q6je7n15m39r558t14hhp5bl [at] 4ax.com...
>> I again note that GW Bush recieved more votes in either election
>> than Bill Clinton ever recieved in any election. GW Bush, in his
>> re-election, recieved more votes than any other man ever to run for
>> president.
>>
>> You can try to spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>The fact is that - AS USUAL - you only decide to speak half truths to
>represent your own viewpoint.
The fact is - AS USUAL - you either don't bother to read what I
actuall post or twist it isnto something which it is not.
> If you had bothered to read the links,
I've seen the numbers.
> which
>you didn't -the Bush reelection had the largest voter turnout since 1948.
>If you get the largest numbers coming in of *course* you are going to see
>the largest numbers coming out when divide only amongst 2 candidates. This
>is basic mathematical principles, silly.
No kidding. Really. Wow, you got a point there. /sarcasm mode
>
>The fact is that while both candidates divided the largest overall results
>in recent electoral history the winner - Bush - ended up with the *lowest
>winning percentage deviation* for that win in history.
But, he still wound up with more votes than anyone else. Why is it
so hard for you to admit?
>
>But since you are deciding to slant basic mathematical principles to suit
>your own agenda,
I'm not slanting anything. How can I slant "most votes in history"?
He either did get the most votes in history or he didn't.
> total base sample rather than deviations - which is the
>number actually used to decide the outcome - let's take a test, shall we?
>
>John Kerry had *59,028,109* popular votes.
>
>-- Therefore John Kerry, the "loser" of the election process, had more
>popular votes than: --
>
>Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940 election - 27,313,945
>Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1944 election - 25,612,916
>Harry S. Truman, 1948 - 24,179,347
>Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952 election - 34,075,529
>Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956 election - 35,579,180
>John F. Kennedy, 1960 - 34,220,984
>Lynden B. Johnson, 1964 - 43,127,041
>Richard M. Nixon, 1968 election - 31,783,783
>Richard M. Nixon, 1972 election - 47,168,710
>James E. Carter, 1976 - 40,831,881
>[your hero] Ronald W. Reagan, 1980 election - 43,903,230
>[continuing on a theme] Ronald W. Reagan, 1984 election - 54,455,472
>George H.W. Bush, 1988 - 48,886,597
>William J. Clinton, 1992 election - 44,909,806
>William J. Clinton, 1996 election - 47,400,125
>George W. Bush, 2000 election - 50,460,110
>
>I think that just about covers it, yes?
It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>
>http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>It's amazing. It's amazing how much a single person - you - can constantly
>make a fool of himself by slanting basic quotable historical numbers to suit
>his own agenda and yet continue to post on the same themes.
I'm not the one making a fool out of myself by denying reality.
President GW Bush recieved 62,040,610 votes, which is 3,012,172 more
votes than John Kerry.
Both GW's victories in 2000 and 2004 garnered him 47.9% and 50.7%
respectively, which are both greater than Clinton's 1992 total of 43%
and the 2004 total is greater than Clinton's 1996 total of 49.2%.
I note also that Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote.
The 2.4% margin of victory for President GW Bush in 2004 is also a
greater percentage than Carter won with in 1976 - and Carter had the
residue from Watergate to help him!
(and I might add, a greater percentage than John F Kennedy won with
in 1960).
>
>It is amazing that you think you have any credibility - your favorite
>issue - at all.
>
No issue with my credibility. I'm not the one twisting things to
make them fit a warped view of reality.
You, on the other hand, have a credibility gap. I'm going to try to
help you to not turn it into a chasm.
And yes, I used the same exact charts you sent me to.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242304 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 00:44 |
|
Made-up history:
<<However, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and they were
supporting - and promoting - islamic terrorism. Those are proven
facts.>>
No, they're not--except to right-wing ideologues who prefer
propaganda to truth, perhaps.
No WMDs were ever discovered in spite of a widespread search of Iraq
by U.S. occupation forces, because none existed.
Likewise, there were no ties to Islamic terrorists that were
discovered--even the "Dubya" administration reluctantly admitted that,
to the dismay of the extreme right wing of the GOP.
> This situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, another situation
>in which the U.S. political leadership ignored reality and tried to
>impose a pro-American government on a foreign people by force of arms,
>only to have the misguided effort *blow up* in its face.
<<It isn't my side that ignores political reality. If you look at the
facts about Vietnam, we actually won the military campaign, it was
only people like the traitorous jane fonda and john kerry that allowed
the North Vietnamese to win.>>
Neither Kerry nor Fonda were anywhere near Vietnam in 1975, when the
NLF Vietnamese forces that you claim were "defeated" totally overran
and overpowered the Saigon regime forces that the U.S. had supposedly
been "building up" for over a decade.
The fact is that only overwhelming American firepower, air power and
naval support kept the Saigon regime from collapsing much sooner--it
never had popular support from the Vietnamese people, so it was doomed
to collapse almost as soon as U.S. military forces stopped "propping it
up" artificially.
<<Your history revisionism doesn't change the facts.>>
The fact is that over 58,000 American servicepeople died needlessly
and pointlessly in Vietnam, for a policy that was mistaken from the
very beginning--and the pro-peace movement, including Kerry and Fonda
(who naively let herself be manipulated IMHO, but with good intentions
RE ending the conflict) and millions of other concerned Americans,
contributed to preventing further senseless American deaths by
pressuring the U.S. government to withdraw U.S. forces from combat in
Vietnam.
THAT's what happened, and it's in all the historic accounts--all the
ones not written by extreme-right *apologists* anyway.
<<I note that England did that (with Neville Chamberlain) and it got us
WWII. We here in the USA are trying to avoid that mistake.>>
> The United States didn't exactly confront Hitler over the
>Sudetenland either, did it? The situation is hardly comparable anyway,
>since Germany in 1938 was twenty times the threat that Iraq was in
>2003...
<<So, Hitler wouldn't have used an atomic bomb if he could've had
one?>>
I'm certain he would have--but even without the existence of atomic
weapons before 1945, Hitler was a long-term threat to the security of
the United States by the summer of 1940.
Saddam Hussein, OTOH, lacked sufficient military power to be much of
a threat to anyone after his defeat in 1991--his one attempt at
invading and occupying a smaller country had backfired badly on him,
and he had no realistic possibility of doing anything more than exude
belligerent-sounding but empty words of braggadico.
<<Appeasement never works.>>
But I wasn't ever discussing appeasement--that would've been
allowing Saddam to maintain his immoral invasion and occupation of
Kuwait in 1990--I'm discussing the unnecessary and unjustified American
invasion of a smaller, weaker, largely-isolated country that posed no
threat to U.S. interests or security.
Now the U.S. is in a situation roughly parallel to its disastrous
Vietnam *misadventure,* facing a hostile population that's supporting a
growing resistance movement against the U.S. occupation forces.
The sad, ironic truth is that in 2003 the U.S. did the same thing to
Iraq that the civilized world had rightfully condemed Iraq for doing to
Kuwait in 1990, and that an American-led coalition had gone to war to
oppose in '91.
We were the liberators in '91, but now we're the invaders and
occupiers...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242305 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 01:05 |
|
Weird "history":
<<Nixon resigned rather than drag the country through the muck of an
impeachment. Clinton said "the hell with the country" and dragged the
country down.>>
Nixon had no intention of resigning until his situation became
totally hopeless, due to the secret tapes that he'd had made of his
coverup conversations.
Nixon never cared about the country, but he did obviously care about
keeping his benefits and income as a former president--he would've lost
them if he'd been removed from office via the impeachment process, but
not if he resigned.
I find it *mind-boggling* that anyone would ascribe "nobility" to a
bitter, scheming manipulator like Nixon.
<<My arguement still stands.
And guess what, the people who won't drag the country through the
muck are in power.>>
The people in power are the ones that gave Kenneth Starr an
unlimited budget and told him to "find something, anything that we can
use against Clinton," and that led to the impeachment attempt.
Clinton didn't back down because he wasn't going to be intimidated
into giving up the presidency by an impeachment vote based on a
situation that he was *set up* into--he should've just admitted the
whole truth and foiled the *setup* that way, but IMHO he let his ego
get the best of his judgement.
Nonetheless, he was right to *stand his ground* as he hadn't
committed anything remotely approaching an impeachable offense.
Nonetheless, by bringing charges of impeachment based on
partisanship rather than patriotism, the Republicans subjected the
nation to a doomed-from-the-start impeachment trial.
Fortunately, most Americans immediately saw the Starr
"investigation" (and the resulting impeachment) as the farce that it
always was...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242306 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 01:12 |
|
Incomplete statistics:
<<Interestingly enough, both of GW Bush's victories had a higher
percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever recieved.>>
But that was because of the presence of H. Ross Perot as a
fairly-effective third party/independent candidate in both 1992 and
'96.
Clinton's MARGIN of victory (percentagewise) was much greater, in
both of his electoral victories, than "Dubya"'s was in either of his.
In 2000, "Dubya" was the first person since 1888 to be elected with
fewer popular votes than his major opponent...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242307 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 01:45 |
|
Non-comparable impeachment situations:
<<It had everything to do with the national interest, they didn't want
the country brought down by an impeachment.>>
No, the majority of Republicans were perfectly happy to fight the
impeachment process "to the bitter end" if Nixon might have won--but
when it became obvious that he couldn't (due to the tapes being
released) he resigned immediately.
The Watergate situation was increasingly dividing the country from
early 1973 on, yet Nixon didn't resign until August of '74, well over a
year later--clearly it wasn't done "to spare the country," it was done
when Nixon's situation became untenable.
> Corruption is fairly common in government, but Nixon's was dangerous
>to the democratic process because it wasn't about money, it was about
>stifling dissent and intimidating his political rivals and critics...
<<Same as Clinton. Only your side cheered Clinton on...>>
I never approved of Clinton's womanizing, and I've already stated
that he should've simply "come clean" about his relationship with
Monica Lewinsky.
However, he had a responsibility not to resign in the face of a
deliberately-manipulated *setup* when he hadn't done anything that was
remotely impeachable--the long-term damage to the democratic process
(of his resignig due to a partisan *setup*) would've been far more
damaging to the country than the actual impeachment was.
(Since the American people by-and-large realized that the Clinton
impeachment trial was a partisan farce anyway, it wasn't that divisive
to the country.)
However, having an extramarital sexual affair and lying about it,
while hardly admirable, isn't the same as creating "enemies lists" for
government retaliation and setting up secret "plumbers" to carry out
illegal operations against political dissenters as ordered by the White
House.
Clinton's administration never attempted to *undercut* the
democratic process in America, while Nixon's did...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242308 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 01:59 |
|
On 26 Mar 2006 14:44:57 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
spewed the failed liberalisms:
>Made-up history:
In other words: Facts you don't like.
>
><<However, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and they were
>supporting - and promoting - islamic terrorism. Those are proven
>facts.>>
>
> No, they're not--except to right-wing ideologues who prefer
>propaganda to truth, perhaps.
They are proven facts, but left-wing ideologues like you who prefers
propaganda to truth doesn't want to listen to facts.
> No WMDs were ever discovered in spite of a widespread search of Iraq
>by U.S. occupation forces, because none existed.
The facts are that WMD's have been discovered. According to recon
photos and documents still being gone through, most of the WMD's were
shipped out of the country in the run-up to the war.
> Likewise, there were no ties to Islamic terrorists that were
>discovered--even the "Dubya" administration reluctantly admitted that,
>to the dismay of the extreme right wing of the GOP.
Abu Abbas was living under Saddam's protection in Baghdad. Saddam
was also giving a $25,000 bounty to the families of any terrorist who
killed themselves in a terrorist act againstIisrael.
Only an extreme left-wing ideologue would continue to say that were
no ties to Islamic terrorists.
>
>> This situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, another situation
>>in which the U.S. political leadership ignored reality and tried to
>>impose a pro-American government on a foreign people by force of arms,
>>only to have the misguided effort *blow up* in its face.
>
><<It isn't my side that ignores political reality. If you look at the
>facts about Vietnam, we actually won the military campaign, it was
>only people like the traitorous jane fonda and john kerry that allowed
>the North Vietnamese to win.>>
>
> Neither Kerry nor Fonda were anywhere near Vietnam in 1975, when the
>NLF Vietnamese forces that you claim were "defeated" totally overran
>and overpowered the Saigon regime forces that the U.S. had supposedly
>been "building up" for over a decade.
I never said that either of them were in or near North Vietnam in
1975. Why don't you respond to what I actually post rather than
bringing up a strawman that you can so easily knock down.
> The fact is that only overwhelming American firepower, air power and
>naval support kept the Saigon regime from collapsing much sooner--it
>never had popular support from the Vietnamese people, so it was doomed
>to collapse almost as soon as U.S. military forces stopped "propping it
>up" artificially.
Your opinion, never proven.
>
><<Your history revisionism doesn't change the facts.>>
>
> The fact is that over 58,000 American servicepeople died needlessly
>and pointlessly in Vietnam, for a policy that was mistaken from the
>very beginning
Why was the policy of stopping Soviet expansion mistaken?
I noticed that when President Reagan reinstated the US policy of
stoppng Soviet expansion - we won the Cold War.
>--and the pro-peace movement, including Kerry and Fonda
>(who naively let herself be manipulated IMHO, but with good intentions
>RE ending the conflict)
How is being Soviet stooges having "good intentions"?
> and millions of other concerned Americans,
>contributed to preventing further senseless American deaths by
>pressuring the U.S. government to withdraw U.S. forces from combat in
>Vietnam.
> THAT's what happened, and it's in all the historic accounts--all the
>ones not written by extreme-right *apologists* anyway.
At this point, you'll try linking Pol Pot to Ronald Reagan.
The more you type, the less credibility you have.
>
><<I note that England did that (with Neville Chamberlain) and it got us
>WWII. We here in the USA are trying to avoid that mistake.>>
>
>> The United States didn't exactly confront Hitler over the
>>Sudetenland either, did it? The situation is hardly comparable anyway,
>>since Germany in 1938 was twenty times the threat that Iraq was in
>>2003...
>
><<So, Hitler wouldn't have used an atomic bomb if he could've had
>one?>>
>
> I'm certain he would have--but even without the existence of atomic
>weapons before 1945, Hitler was a long-term threat to the security of
>the United States by the summer of 1940.
> Saddam Hussein, OTOH, lacked sufficient military power to be much of
>a threat to anyone after his defeat in 1991--his one attempt at
>invading and occupying a smaller country had backfired badly on him,
>and he had no realistic possibility of doing anything more than exude
>belligerent-sounding but empty words of braggadico.
Ah, back to the Saddam never had any connection to terrorists and
had no WMD's fiction.
Here's something you can read, and it isn't your left-winger
propaganda either:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
>
><<Appeasement never works.>>
>
> But I wasn't ever discussing appeasement
You've been discussing appeasement all along.
>--that would've been
>allowing Saddam to maintain his immoral invasion and occupation of
>Kuwait in 1990--I'm discussing the unnecessary and unjustified American
>invasion of a smaller, weaker, largely-isolated country that posed no
>threat to U.S. interests or security.
And right here is where you discuss appeasement.
I note that on 9/10/01 19 men with boxcutters also posed no threats
to US interests or security. What a difference a day makes...
> Now the U.S. is in a situation roughly parallel to its disastrous
>Vietnam *misadventure,* facing a hostile population that's supporting a
>growing resistance movement against the U.S. occupation forces.
Now the US had bases in a strategic part of the Middle East, from
which we can ddeploy to any necessary target without having to use an
"air bridge" over hostile territory or having to fly over that same
hostile territory.
Your mischaracterization of the local situation is exactly what we
would expect from someone who can't get past their extremist left-wing
ideology.
>
> The sad, ironic truth is that in 2003 the U.S. did the same thing to
>Iraq that the civilized world had rightfully condemed Iraq for doing to
>Kuwait in 1990, and that an American-led coalition had gone to war to
>oppose in '91.
> We were the liberators in '91, but now we're the invaders and
>occupiers...
The sad thing is that you would prefer a world which was run by the
likes of Saddam, never realizing that if you got what you wanted - you
would be one of those executed for protesting about the way they
treated you.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
We were the liberators then, we're the liberators now. Well, unless
you support authoritarian regimes that use WMD's against their own
people.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242309 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 02:09 |
|
On 26 Mar 2006 15:05:25 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
posted more from the liberal handbook:
>Weird "history":
Why don't you stop posting it?
>
><<Nixon resigned rather than drag the country through the muck of an
>impeachment. Clinton said "the hell with the country" and dragged the
>country down.>>
>
> Nixon had no intention of resigning until his situation became
>totally hopeless, due to the secret tapes that he'd had made of his
>coverup conversations.
> Nixon never cared about the country, but he did obviously care about
>keeping his benefits and income as a former president--he would've lost
>them if he'd been removed from office via the impeachment process, but
>not if he resigned.
>
> I find it *mind-boggling* that anyone would ascribe "nobility" to a
>bitter, scheming manipulator like Nixon.
I never ascribed "nobility" to Nixon. You seem to have a problem
with comprehension.
>
><<My arguement still stands.
> And guess what, the people who won't drag the country through the
>muck are in power.>>
>
> The people in power are the ones that gave Kenneth Starr an
>unlimited budget and told him to "find something, anything that we can
>use against Clinton," and that led to the impeachment attempt.
Wrong again. Clinton did it to himself. Kenneth Star never made
Clinton committ perjury, nor did he ever force Clinton to obstruct
justice.
> Clinton didn't back down because he wasn't going to be intimidated
>into giving up the presidency by an impeachment vote based on a
>situation that he was *set up* into--he should've just admitted the
>whole truth and foiled the *setup* that way, but IMHO he let his ego
>get the best of his judgement.
Clinton didn't back down because he knew that liberal ideologues
like you would support him no matter what he did.
> Nonetheless, he was right to *stand his ground* as he hadn't
>committed anything remotely approaching an impeachable offense.
Perjury is still a crime. Obstruction of justice is still a crime.
Both are still impeachable offenses.
>
> Nonetheless, by bringing charges of impeachment based on
>partisanship rather than patriotism, the Republicans subjected the
>nation to a doomed-from-the-start impeachment trial.
By bringing charges of impeachment upon Clinton for impeachable
crimes, the Republicans shoewd that they valued the Constitution more
than any one individual who thought he was above the law.
> Fortunately, most Americans immediately saw the Starr
>"investigation" (and the resulting impeachment) as the farce that it
>always was...
The only people who believe this are left-wing ideologues like you.
Clinton is above the law.
I don't wish Republicans could get away with it because we have more
respect for the Country and the Constitution than you apparently do.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242312 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 04:59 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:2oae22tnm60agvs67fv8biosmek9quukkd [at] 4ax.com...
> On 26 Mar 2006 15:05:25 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
> posted more from the liberal handbook:
>> The people in power are the ones that gave Kenneth Starr an
>>unlimited budget and told him to "find something, anything that we can
>>use against Clinton," and that led to the impeachment attempt.
>
> Wrong again. Clinton did it to himself. Kenneth Star never made
> Clinton committ perjury, nor did he ever force Clinton to obstruct
> justice.
Well, FWIW, that's a good statement. Clinton should have simply not
answered the question about his personal sexual life at all. Starr had no
right to ask in the first place. Clinton was then in the position of having
to do things to keep the statement he never should have had to say in public
intact.
Who's to blame?
Everyone involved. From the Republicans to Clinton to Starr - each one had
a hand in the entire "affair". If everyone would have simply kept their own
business to the business at hand - that of the United States government,
rather than a personal sexual trist - none of this would have happened.
And there's the real truth of the matter - everyone's to blame.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242313 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 05:03 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
If you wish to make the statement based upon a number reading one way the
other way still has merit.
You sure you wish to persue this path?
Up to you my good man. It's a rapidly sinking ship.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242314 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 05:22 |
|
CrimsnKid6 wrote:
> "Breaking the U.S. Constitution":
>
> <<Historically, the Constitution was broken by Abraham Lincoln when he
> suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and had a lot of
> opposition antiwar Democrats arrested without trial.>>
>
> Well, IIRC Article One, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution does
> allow for suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus during times of
> "foreign invasion or insurrection," which would certainly include the
> Civil War--therefore IMHO Lincoln wasn't in violation of the
> Constitution.
Article I deals with the powers of the *LEGISLATIVE* Branch. And the
title of Section 9 is "Limits on CONGRESS," making it clear that it's
talking about what Congress can and cannot do. It does NOT give the
President authority to suspend Habeas Corpus.
Now Article II does deal with the powers of the Executive Branch. And
notice how limited and short that Article is. The Framers didn't want
the President to have sweeping powers.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242315 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 05:55 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:47 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>
>Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>
>More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
If more people than "anyone else in history" wanted President GW
Bush "out", then why did he get more votes for re-election?
Apparently more people wanted him re-elected than wanted him out.
>
>If you wish to make the statement based upon a number reading one way the
>other way still has merit.
>
>You sure you wish to persue this path?
>
>Up to you my good man. It's a rapidly sinking ship.
>
Well, since your ship is sinking, I suggest you abandon it.
I doubt you will though.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242316 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 07:17 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:pcoe2256k63moqhbv35hsiqgqaae6bvgbm [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:47 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>>> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>>
>>Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>>
>>More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>
> If more people than "anyone else in history" wanted President GW
> Bush "out", then why did he get more votes for re-election?
>
> Apparently more people wanted him re-elected than wanted him out.
That is very true!
All of 5.1% more of the American public did indeed want that...
> I doubt you will though.
As I said, it's up to you. Apparently being overmatched in a joust of
factual wits doesn't disturb you so...the ball of discontinuance is still
under your court's control.
If you'd like to continue, you may next use the political agenda's spin of
having a "mandate" to pursue the current course. Then I will reply "if you
consider 5.1% a "mandate", to which you will reply "Since we won the
election with the greatest number in history the public spoke with it's
votes", to which I will reply "Yes it did. That .9541x (95.14%) of the same
number of people you think voted for you voted *against* you, so please
don't talk asbout a "mandate"...
And it will pleasantly go round and 'round.
Of course, you are unable to compute that far into this discussion so why
bother. A person who manifests themselves in a manner similar to your own
shows a distinct inability for actual independent thought processes.
Hmmm. I believe everyone else does not bother with you because...you are a
profound waste of mental energies and time. Keeping myself at your mental
level is proving tedious as lowering myself down that far is a stoop that,
in the future, I'd rather welcomely avoid.
My partner has just suggested that continued mental masturbations at your
level of wisdom is like playing limbo at the height of 2 Coca-Cola cans.
Same nasty taste, no real benefits. Replies like yours simply goes to prove
that Borel's Thousand Monkey Theorem really does work.
[toilet flushing sound]
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242317 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 10:26 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:17:35 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:pcoe2256k63moqhbv35hsiqgqaae6bvgbm [at] 4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:47 GMT, "Snake"
>
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>
>>>news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>
>>>> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>
>>>
>
>>>Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>
>>>
>
>>>More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>
>>
>
>> If more people than "anyone else in history" wanted President GW
>
>> Bush "out", then why did he get more votes for re-election?
>
>>
>
>> Apparently more people wanted him re-elected than wanted him out.
>
>That is very true!
>
>All of 5.1% more of the American public did indeed want that...
>
>> I doubt you will though.
>
>As I said, it's up to you. Apparently being overmatched in a joust of
>factual wits doesn't disturb you so...the ball of discontinuance is still
>under your court's control.
>
>If you'd like to continue, you may next use the political agenda's spin of
>having a "mandate" to pursue the current course. Then I will reply "if you
>consider 5.1% a "mandate", to which you will reply "Since we won the
>election with the greatest number in history the public spoke with it's
>votes", to which I will reply "Yes it did. That .9541x (95.14%) of the same
>number of people you think voted for you voted *against* you, so please
>don't talk asbout a "mandate"...
>
>And it will pleasantly go round and 'round.
>
>Of course, you are unable to compute that far into this discussion so why
>bother. A person who manifests themselves in a manner similar to your own
>shows a distinct inability for actual independent thought processes.
>
>Hmmm. I believe everyone else does not bother with you because...you are a
>profound waste of mental energies and time. Keeping myself at your mental
>level is proving tedious as lowering myself down that far is a stoop that,
>in the future, I'd rather welcomely avoid.
>
>My partner has just suggested that continued mental masturbations at your
>level of wisdom is like playing limbo at the height of 2 Coca-Cola cans.
>Same nasty taste, no real benefits. Replies like yours simply goes to prove
>that Borel's Thousand Monkey Theorem really does work.
>
>[toilet flushing sound]
>
Idiots like Schneider who worship Dubai Bush cannot be reasoned with
any more than those who worship Slick Willy. If you start with the
Republican Kleenex premise that Bush is perfect like the Pope, God,
Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, there's no point in telling the truth to a
liar like Schneider.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242318 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 14:28 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:17:35 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
and projected:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:pcoe2256k63moqhbv35hsiqgqaae6bvgbm [at] 4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:47 GMT, "Snake"
>
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>
>>>news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>
>>>> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>
>>>
>
>>>Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>
>>>
>
>>>More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>
>>
>
>> If more people than "anyone else in history" wanted President GW
>
>> Bush "out", then why did he get more votes for re-election?
>
>>
>
>> Apparently more people wanted him re-elected than wanted him out.
>
>That is very true!
>
>All of 5.1% more of the American public did indeed want that...
>
>> I doubt you will though.
>
>As I said, it's up to you. Apparently being overmatched in a joust of
>factual wits doesn't disturb you so...the ball of discontinuance is still
>under your court's control.
I see you're still having those projection problems. That's ok, when
you can't win you have to claim that you did.
>
>If you'd like to continue, you may next use the political agenda's spin of
>having a "mandate" to pursue the current course. Then I will reply "if you
>consider 5.1% a "mandate", to which you will reply "Since we won the
>election with the greatest number in history the public spoke with it's
>votes", to which I will reply "Yes it did. That .9541x (95.14%) of the same
>number of people you think voted for you voted *against* you, so please
>don't talk asbout a "mandate"...
>
>And it will pleasantly go round and 'round.
Not my arguement at all. All Presidents have a mandate, that's
generally why they were elected.
>
>Of course, you are unable to compute that far into this discussion so why
>bother. A person who manifests themselves in a manner similar to your own
>shows a distinct inability for actual independent thought processes.
More projection from you. I do admire your way of creating strawmen
so that you can knock them down while avoiding the actual issues and
content of my posts. Note that while I do admire your ability, it
means in no way that I want to follow in your footsteps.
>
>Hmmm. I believe everyone else does not bother with you because...you are a
>profound waste of mental energies and time. Keeping myself at your mental
>level is proving tedious as lowering myself down that far is a stoop that,
>in the future, I'd rather welcomely avoid.
The reason that most other people don't want to get involved in your
trolling is because it is precisely that - trolling.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back on your supposedly
superior debating skills and overall greater intelligence. /sarcasm
>
>My partner has just suggested that continued mental masturbations at your
>level of wisdom is like playing limbo at the height of 2 Coca-Cola cans.
>Same nasty taste, no real benefits. Replies like yours simply goes to prove
>that Borel's Thousand Monkey Theorem really does work.
>
>[toilet flushing sound]
>
Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242319 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 14:43 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:26:45 -0600, an zi [at] koo ker. net trolled and
baited:
--brevity--
>
>Idiots like Schneider who worship Dubai Bush cannot be reasoned with
>any more than those who worship Slick Willy. If you start with the
>Republican Kleenex premise that Bush is perfect like the Pope, God,
>Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, there's no point in telling the truth to a
>liar like Schneider.
And here we have the next contestant in the "How can I make myself
look like an idiot".
First, I do not worship President GW Bush. Also, President GW Bush
is not known as "Dubai Bush. Those two things alone discredit anything
else in the entire post.
And no, the Dan Rather excuse of "forged but accurate" won't cut it.
Care to go for the next round, or do you actually want to post
something with a bit of maturity and/or credibility?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242320 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 15:39 |
|
|
When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242321 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 15:40 |
|
Snake wrote:
> "John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
> news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>
>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>>got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>
>
> Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>
> More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
LOL, yeah, and I am one of them.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242322 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 15:58 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:39:58 -0500, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
Please indicate the "lie" by President GW Bush.
And, yes, it needs to be an actual "lie", and not a liberal twisting
of what he did say into something that it is not.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242323 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 16:23 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:QeCdnTF0EpzEdrrZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Snake wrote:
>> More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>
> LOL, yeah, and I am one of them.
:) Well, I think that John H. guy misunderstands - I was somewhat "pleased"
with Bush being re-elected in the end. I have my own reasons for this and
every day this reason is getting proved more and more, but fundamentally I
have no significant issue in the long run. He did win by the numbers...and
I am more than willing to wait for the fruits of that "significance" to come
to fruition.
Like I said before, I've planned out the long term projections :)
;-)
Current America is being torn apart by partisan politics. Why? Mostly the
party in "power" makes no compromise towards anyone else but themselves.
Right now, for the particular party in power, they constantly claim the wish
to abide closely to Constitutional values yet constantly work to undermine
those very values when the wording is read *precisely* rather than the
interpretive method they always wish to use (yet claim to be doing
otherwise. "Freedom of [religion, speech, press, pursuit of happiness]"
does not say "Freedom of...when interpreted through religious laws that only
some believe in")
If Side A would compromise with Side B more, and Side B would compromise
with Side A more, things would actually get done. But since they are
completely unwilling to do so, nothing happens - I humbly think the second
Bush administration will go down with historians as one of the most
ineffectual in modern history.
Kindly tell me any significant agenda the President has put forward since
the last election that did not either completely fail or utterly stall in
conflict or filibusters.
....didn't think so.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242324 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 16:53 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:2prf2217bglcckm0fjsed9laiqd9gklflq [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:39:58 -0500, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
>>When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
>
> Please indicate the "lie" by President GW Bush.
>
> And, yes, it needs to be an actual "lie", and not a liberal twisting
> of what he did say into something that it is not.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised."
- Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct 6.html
Even a "right wing" news group wishes to spin the issue:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
(hey, if our side lied we can say you lied, too! So na-na-na on you!)
Any questions?
Do you continue to enjoy being both constantly wrong and a utter mindless
puppet of the current political agenda or it any of this getting through?
When will you actually start doing the research instead of mouthing off a
party line like the good little robot zealot you keep making yourself out to
be?
And when will you realize that this is a STAR TREK board, not some mindless
teeny-bopper site, where the people here are generally far above normal
intelligence and therefore able to both think independently and have the
experience to know how to research their positions based upon factual
evidence, and not simply political stands of agenda? From TPM to Kweeg to
Graham the significant majority of people here have shown advanced thinking,
and yes this does include a number of individuals supporting the current
status quo - many of them can show research to base their principle
statements on, to which they receive a similiarly-researched reply.
But you do nothing but post propaganda and expect everyone to fall in line
like good little brainwashed ducks.
But be a bitch being you.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242325 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 17:07 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:23:53 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
>news:QeCdnTF0EpzEdrrZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>> Snake wrote:
>>> More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>>
>> LOL, yeah, and I am one of them.
>
>:) Well, I think that John H. guy misunderstands - I was somewhat "pleased"
>with Bush being re-elected in the end. I have my own reasons for this and
>every day this reason is getting proved more and more, but fundamentally I
>have no significant issue in the long run. He did win by the numbers...and
>I am more than willing to wait for the fruits of that "significance" to come
>to fruition.
>
>Like I said before, I've planned out the long term projections :)
>
>;-)
>
>Current America is being torn apart by partisan politics. Why? Mostly the
>party in "power" makes no compromise towards anyone else but themselves.
The party in "power" is trying to reverse some of the most
aggrecious things done by the party that had power before.
>Right now, for the particular party in power, they constantly claim the wish
>to abide closely to Constitutional values yet constantly work to undermine
>those very values when the wording is read *precisely* rather than the
>interpretive method they always wish to use (yet claim to be doing
>otherwise. "Freedom of [religion, speech, press, pursuit of happiness]"
>does not say "Freedom of...when interpreted through religious laws that only
>some believe in")
It isn't the Republicans or the Conservatives that are trying to
enforce religion or religious laws on anyone. It isn't Conservatives
that are trying to shut up people who disagree with us.
>
>If Side A would compromise with Side B more, and Side B would compromise
>with Side A more, things would actually get done.
Side B (the democrats) have shown no desire to compromise. Side B,
in fact, has used a campaign of lies, propaganda, and personal attacks
to undermine and destroy any hope of compromise.
> But since they are
>completely unwilling to do so, nothing happens - I humbly think the second
>Bush administration will go down with historians as one of the most
>ineffectual in modern history.
>
>Kindly tell me any significant agenda the President has put forward since
>the last election that did not either completely fail or utterly stall in
>conflict or filibusters.
>
>...didn't think so.
>
Kindly show me any agenda that President GW Bush has put forward
that the democrats/liberals haven't demagoged or undermined. Even when
President GW Bush allowed Senator Teddy kennedy to write the education
bill (no child left behind), the liberals/democrats still attacked GW
over it.
When the democrats/iberals can get past their "politics of personal
destruction", then maybe there can be some compromise.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242326 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 17:15 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
and projected:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:2prf2217bglcckm0fjsed9laiqd9gklflq [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:39:58 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>>
>>>When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
>>
>> Please indicate the "lie" by President GW Bush.
>>
>> And, yes, it needs to be an actual "lie", and not a liberal twisting
>> of what he did say into something that it is not.
>
>"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
>to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
>
>- State of the Union Address
>January 28, 2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate"
Unless you can show that our intelligence officials did NOT estimate
this, then it is not a lie.
>
>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>weapons ever devised."
>
>- Address to the Nation
>March 17, 2003
Again, not a lie. The intelligence gathered did indicate it. The
intelligence may have been wrong, but that does not make it a lie.
>
>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct 6.html
>
>Even a "right wing" news group wishes to spin the issue:
>
>http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
>
>(hey, if our side lied we can say you lied, too! So na-na-na on you!)
No spin from my side, and we're not saying that if your side did
it it is ok for us to repeat your actions.
That site is simply pointing out that your side made the same
statements.
>
>Any questions?
No. You've only proven here that they weren't lies.
>
>Do you continue to enjoy being both constantly wrong and a utter mindless
>puppet of the current political agenda or it any of this getting through?
And here we see you projecting after being proven wrong again.
>
>When will you actually start doing the research instead of mouthing off a
>party line like the good little robot zealot you keep making yourself out to
>be?
When will you post a fact rather than the usual liberal/democrat
spin?
>
>And when will you realize that this is a STAR TREK board,
Does this mean you're going to stop trolling here with your leftist
lies?
>not some mindless
>teeny-bopper site, where the people here are generally far above normal
>intelligence and therefore able to both think independently and have the
>experience to know how to research their positions based upon factual
>evidence, and not simply political stands of agenda? From TPM to Kweeg to
>Graham the significant majority of people here have shown advanced thinking,
>and yes this does include a number of individuals supporting the current
>status quo - many of them can show research to base their principle
>statements on, to which they receive a similiarly-researched reply.
Your opinion of yourself continues to exceed the reality.
>
>But you do nothing but post propaganda and expect everyone to fall in line
>like good little brainwashed ducks.
More projection.
>
>But be a bitch being you.
>
No problem here being me.
Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
Just a thought.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Feb 5 17:01:53 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06922 Sekunden |
