Rudy Canoza wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:

<snips>

>>> It's a play that usually works, for the same bad reason that
>>> "supersize me" works. The national motto for stupid Americans is:
>>> if a little bit of something is good, a lot must be great. That's
>>> plainly a false statement, but it most definitely *is* the American
>>> motto, and it explains how an intrinsically fuckwitted label like
>>> "radical moderate" could gain any traction. Any stupid shitbag who
>>> describes himself as a "radical moderate" is simply engaging in
>>> "supersize me" bullshit marketing. There are no *degrees* of being
>>> centrist; you're either a centrist, or you're not.
>>
>>
>> I don't characterize myself as a "radical moderate".
>
>
> Uh-huh. That's why you *twice* have posted this "radical center"
> bullshit link.

A "moderate" is generally partisan to either the Democratic or
Republican party, and within the spectrum of that particular Party is
moderate only because they are not extremist.

I'm more in the center, but as regards being in the center, I am
extremist rather than moderate. Understand?


>>>>>> http://www.radicalcenter.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, they show their true rightwing colors soon enough:
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Americans are really rather conservative in
>>>>> their core values. They want to perpetuate their way
>>>>> of life. They want a strong nation with a robust
>>>>> economy. They want to have savings accounts that
>>>>> grow and pay interest. They want careers that will
>>>>> pay them decently for their hard work. They want
>>>>> good educations for their children. They want their
>>>>> Constitution honored by the government.
>
>
> You see, stupid? I already went to your corny "radical center" page.

But I want everyone else to go.

http://www.radicalcenter.org/


>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, all of those apply to virtually all Americans, but the
>>>>> last one - constitutional governance - does *not* apply to the sort
>>>>> of bigoted suburban conservative these fraudsters are trying to reach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? First, kindly demonstrate that conservatives are suburban,
>>>> that suburban conservatives are bigoted, and that conservative
>>>> suburban bigots are the core audience to whom we intend our appeal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I could never demonstrate it as well as they do themselves, softman.
>>
>>
>> Please demonstrate how this is so.
>
>
> As I said, softman - I leave that to the practitioners of the bullshit.
> I only take note of it.

In other words, you have nothing with which to back up your stunning
indictment of all of suburbia?


>>>> And having demonstrated that, you'll have demonstrated that the
>>>> Radical Center doesn't at all have that as our target audience,
>>>> because we really do want our Constitution honored by the
>>>> government. And according to you, they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't. You support all kinds of right-wing shredding of the
>>> Constitution.
>>
>>
>> Do I? Please demonstrate that this is so.
>
>
> softman, please stop trying to trick me into wasting time demonstrating
> the obvious. I'm far too clever to fall for that trick, and you only
> look even more stupid for attempting it.

In other words, you have nothing to back up your accusations. You're
just flinging aspersions to the wind and hoping nobody will call you on it.

>>>> BTW, the hardcore leftwing necessarily will find us to its right,
>>>> and the hardcore rightwing necessarily will find us to its left.
>>>
>>> As if that's any great endorsement for your mush.
>>
>> Oh, there's no mush involved.
>
>
> Yes, there is.

Please provide evidence for this alleged "mush".


>> Can _you_ pass the Trout Test?
>
>
> Never heard of it. However, I know for certain how you would fare on
> the World's Smallest Political Quiz, http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

It claims I'm a "liberal".

That's fairly embarassing.

<quote in-part>


LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control
of the economy. They generally support a government-funded
"safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate
strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor
environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and
free expression, support government action to promote
equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

</quote

The diagram that it generates shows me as a red dot located just outside
of the "centrist" zone and just to the left of the "libertarian" zone,
and about equally far from "statist" or "conservative".


>>> The same thing applies to how the extreme left and the extreme right
>>> view libertarians, and yet there is little in common between your
>>> "radical moderate" bullshit and authentic libertarianism.
>>
>>
>> I'm not in the least Libertarian.
>
>
> Oh, don't I know it! That's the last thing I would have labeled you,
> softman.
>
>
>> As noted elsewhere, I see Libertarians as being the political
>> equivalent of a pack of wolves agitating for the repeal of laws
>> prohibiting them from devouring sheep.
>
>
> Yes, you would, little statist.

Actually, I think that the State's primary goals should be to provide
for the common defense, and should only out of clear necessity restrain
liberty. "Statist" is one of the last things anyone would call me,
unless they were a frothing Objectivist.


>>> You and your fellow goofy "radical moderates"
>>
>>
>> I am not, nor do I claim to be, a "radical moderate".
>
>
> You don't use the label, but it explains your repeated reference to
> "radical centrist/moderate" bullshit.

I'm not moderate in my centrism. I'm fairly extremist in my centrism,
which I believe is a good thing.


>>> are farther down in the lower right quandrant of this chart than you
>>> like to admit:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pournelle_chart_color.gif.
>>> Small-ell libertarians are up in the upper left quadrant.
>>
>>
>> I might point out the simpleness and incomprehension -- or is it
>> disingenuousness? -- that you display by simply pointing to a
>> Pournelle Chart without also including a link to the text required to
>> understand it.
>>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
>
>
> I did give you at least enough credit for the ability to look it up for
> yourself. Good dog, softman.
>
> The point is, you

I do not. Prove that I do.


> simplistically invoke a left-right linear model, when
> in fact the Pournelle chart and others correctly elaborate that there is
> more than just a simple line, as you

Do I?

> wish (wrongly) to portray it. Any
> such physical depiction of the political spectrum is going to be a
> simplification, but theirs is better than yours.

Mine?


> I'm beginning to think that what you really are, softman, is a radical
> simpleton.

Wow, go ahead, put words in my mouth and then condemn me on the basis of
things I didn't say. How original and clever of you.


>> Personally, I don't think that society is perfectable, due to the
>> fallibility of human nature.
>
>
> That's fundamentally a conservative proposition. I don't dispute it, I
> just want you to know that this is a cornerstone of why you're a
> conservative, not a centrist or moderate.

According to the Pournelle Chart, it's not solely a conservative
position, it's also a position of the counter-culture, anarchists, etc.


>> I do believe that people should do their best to become sufficiently
>> informed so as to be able to make personal moral choices that enable
>> them to attempt to perfect themselves; and as they free their minds,
>> their asses will follow, and following on that will be the improvement
>> of the State
>
>
> Improper use of capitalization that, however, is useful in revealing
> your rather high degree of state worship.

Now you're a fucking grammar critic? It's common enough to capitalize
that to indicate that one's talking about the Ideal rather than the
polity. Yeesh.


>> and the reciprocal relationships between the constituents and their
>> governance.
>
>
> You're so funny. "Reciprocal" my ass. In any free society, there is
> *no* reciprocity - our governors are supposed to be our servants.

"People get the government they deserve," don't you think, Woodie?
There's your reciprocity.


>> This is, of course, a reflection of the concepts in Confucius's "Great
>> Learning":
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> [wheeze]
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> See? I told you I was Pagan.
>
>
> Pig-headed. Pretty bad misspelling, softman.

But what about the Trout?

The public has a right to know how you feel about Trout.

--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

 
T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Tim Crowley wrote:
> > Jafo wrote:
> >
> >>As viewed from alt.california, Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>less than 10%. that's about right. 90% of Americans reject your hate.
> >>>>>What's funny is you seem to think you did good. You failed. People
> >>>>>rejected you and your ideas in HUGE numbers.
> >>
> >>>>You keep trying to upset me by repeatedly posting this.
> >>
> >>>I don't want to upset you. I want you to face reality. Yours is a
> >>>loosing point of view. It's not accepted by the American People. Don't
> >>>get upset. Be a man and accept responsibility for your failure.
> >>
> >>>>I honestly don't give a crap; it's January and the elections were
> >>>>back in November.
> >>
> >>>Snicker. Yeah, sure - we can tell you don't care. Why lie?
> >>>
> >>>You will never learn. If you run again, you will get even less votes.
> >>>I know, why don't you blame someone else.
> >>
> >>In your rush to personally attack someone whose views you obviously
> >>disagree with, you carefully omit this comment:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Yesterday the new Delegates were sworn in, and one of the very
> >>>>first new bills submitted was _exactly_ the one I would have
> >>>>submitted myself. Far from being upset, I am in fact ECSTATIC.
> >>>>Because what I wanted done, is done.
> >>
> >>So, how is this "a loosing [sic] point of view"?
> >>
> >>Cat got your tongue, Tim? :-D
> >
> >
> > what part of 5th place don't you understand. The FACT is the voters
> > overwhelming rejected Mr. Hardman. His views are out of the mainstream.
>
> And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the mainstream"?

You don't know your point of view???

How fucking dumb are you?

Go to
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=cESU5yQAAAB8kaXyx4bQPSwfJfCAwPiCLlnx8_3ll1-FGdrEeOwskDjwDXanyOqa0bKo3O7grdQ&scoring=d

and read the insane things you spout.

T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
>>>> It's a play that usually works, for the same bad reason that
>>>> "supersize me" works. The national motto for stupid Americans is:
>>>> if a little bit of something is good, a lot must be great. That's
>>>> plainly a false statement, but it most definitely *is* the American
>>>> motto, and it explains how an intrinsically fuckwitted label like
>>>> "radical moderate" could gain any traction. Any stupid shitbag who
>>>> describes himself as a "radical moderate" is simply engaging in
>>>> "supersize me" bullshit marketing. There are no *degrees* of being
>>>> centrist; you're either a centrist, or you're not.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't characterize myself as a "radical moderate".
>>
>>
>> Uh-huh. That's why you *twice* have posted this "radical center"
>> bullshit link.
>
> A "moderate" is generally partisan to either the Democratic or
> Republican party, and within the spectrum of that particular Party is
> moderate only because they are not extremist.
>
> I'm more in the center, but as regards being in the center, I am
> extremist rather than moderate. Understand?

I've got it all along, softman. My usage of "radical
moderate" is correct. As I said, you wrongly think
there are degrees of being at the center, and that's
just crap.


>>>>>>> http://www.radicalcenter.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, they show their true rightwing colors soon enough:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most Americans are really rather conservative in
>>>>>> their core values. They want to perpetuate their way
>>>>>> of life. They want a strong nation with a robust
>>>>>> economy. They want to have savings accounts that
>>>>>> grow and pay interest. They want careers that will
>>>>>> pay them decently for their hard work. They want
>>>>>> good educations for their children. They want their
>>>>>> Constitution honored by the government.
>>
>>
>> You see, stupid? I already went to your corny "radical center" page.
>
> But I want everyone else to go.

It's a waste of time.


>>>>>> Actually, all of those apply to virtually all Americans, but the
>>>>>> last one - constitutional governance - does *not* apply to the
>>>>>> sort of bigoted suburban conservative these fraudsters are trying
>>>>>> to reach.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? First, kindly demonstrate that conservatives are suburban,
>>>>> that suburban conservatives are bigoted, and that conservative
>>>>> suburban bigots are the core audience to whom we intend our appeal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I could never demonstrate it as well as they do themselves, softman.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please demonstrate how this is so.
>>
>>
>> As I said, softman - I leave that to the practitioners of the
>> bullshit. I only take note of it.
>
> In other words,

In other words, softman, I'm not letting you waste my time.


>>>>> And having demonstrated that, you'll have demonstrated that the
>>>>> Radical Center doesn't at all have that as our target audience,
>>>>> because we really do want our Constitution honored by the
>>>>> government. And according to you, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They don't. You support all kinds of right-wing shredding of the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do I? Please demonstrate that this is so.
>>
>>
>> softman, please stop trying to trick me into wasting time
>> demonstrating the obvious. I'm far too clever to fall for that trick,
>> and you only look even more stupid for attempting it.
>
> In other words,

In other words, softman, I'm not letting you waste my time.


>>>>> BTW, the hardcore leftwing necessarily will find us to its right,
>>>>> and the hardcore rightwing necessarily will find us to its left.
>>>>
>>>> As if that's any great endorsement for your mush.
>>>
>>> Oh, there's no mush involved.
>>
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>
> Please provide evidence for this alleged "mush".

In other words, softman, I'm not letting you waste my time.


>>> Can _you_ pass the Trout Test?
>>
>>
>> Never heard of it. However, I know for certain how you would fare on
>> the World's Smallest Political Quiz,
>> http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
>
> It claims I'm a "liberal".

A statist, in other words - just what I've been saying.


>>>> The same thing applies to how the extreme left and the extreme right
>>>> view libertarians, and yet there is little in common between your
>>>> "radical moderate" bullshit and authentic libertarianism.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not in the least Libertarian.
>>
>>
>> Oh, don't I know it! That's the last thing I would have labeled you,
>> softman.
>>
>>
>>> As noted elsewhere, I see Libertarians as being the political
>>> equivalent of a pack of wolves agitating for the repeal of laws
>>> prohibiting them from devouring sheep.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you would, little statist.
>
> Actually, I think that the State's primary goals should be to provide
> for the common defense, and should only out of clear necessity restrain
> liberty.

The problem is the low bar at which you define "necessity".


> "Statist" is one of the last things anyone would call me,

Probably wrong.


> unless they were a frothing Objectivist.
>
>
>>>> You and your fellow goofy "radical moderates"
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not, nor do I claim to be, a "radical moderate".
>>
>>
>> You don't use the label, but it explains your repeated reference to
>> "radical centrist/moderate" bullshit.
>
> I'm not moderate in my centrism.

Exactly, you idiot, softman - you're radical in it, as
if you think it's a virtue.


> I'm fairly extremist

aka radical...


> in my centrism,
> which I believe is a good thing.

It isn't. "Centrist" mostly means embracing the WORST
of left and right.


>>>> are farther down in the lower right quandrant of this chart than you
>>>> like to admit:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pournelle_chart_color.gif.
>>>> Small-ell libertarians are up in the upper left quadrant.
>>>
>>>
>>> I might point out the simpleness and incomprehension -- or is it
>>> disingenuousness? -- that you display by simply pointing to a
>>> Pournelle Chart without also including a link to the text required to
>>> understand it.
>>>
>>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
>>
>>
>> I did give you at least enough credit for the ability to look it up
>> for yourself. Good dog, softman.
>>
>> The point is, you
>
> I do not. Prove that I do.

In other words, softman, I'm not letting you waste my time.


>> simplistically invoke a left-right linear model, when in fact the
>> Pournelle chart and others correctly elaborate that there is more than
>> just a simple line, as you
>
> Do I?

Yes.


>> wish (wrongly) to portray it. Any such physical depiction of the
>> political spectrum is going to be a simplification, but theirs is
>> better than yours.
>
> Mine?

Yes, yours.


>> I'm beginning to think that what you really are, softman, is a radical
>> simpleton.
>
> Wow, go ahead, put words in my mouth

I didn't. I never do that.


>>> Personally, I don't think that society is perfectable, due to the
>>> fallibility of human nature.
>>
>>
>> That's fundamentally a conservative proposition. I don't dispute it,
>> I just want you to know that this is a cornerstone of why you're a
>> conservative, not a centrist or moderate.
>
> According to the Pournelle Chart,

No, the chart makes no such determination. You clearly
didn't get it.


> it's not solely a conservative
> position, it's also a position of the counter-culture, anarchists, etc.

Any way you slice it, softman, you're at the irrational
end of the scale.


>>> I do believe that people should do their best to become sufficiently
>>> informed so as to be able to make personal moral choices that enable
>>> them to attempt to perfect themselves; and as they free their minds,
>>> their asses will follow, and following on that will be the
>>> improvement of the State
>>
>>
>> Improper use of capitalization that, however, is useful in revealing
>> your rather high degree of state worship.
>
> Now you're a fucking grammar critic?

No, not exactly; not here, anyway. You just don't
understand how your involuntary choice of which words
to capitalize reveals your values.


> It's common enough to capitalize that

False.


>>> and the reciprocal relationships between the constituents and their
>>> governance.
>>
>>
>> You're so funny. "Reciprocal" my ass. In any free society, there is
>> *no* reciprocity - our governors are supposed to be our servants.
>
> "People get the government they deserve," don't you think, Rudy?
> There's your reciprocity.

That's not reciprocity.


>>> This is, of course, a reflection of the concepts in Confucius's
>>> "Great Learning":
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> [wheeze]
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> See? I told you I was Pagan.
>>
>>
>> Pig-headed. Pretty bad misspelling, softman.
>
> But what about the Trout?
>
> The public has a right to know how you feel about Trout.

It's delicious.

Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
> cunnon secgan to soðe:
>
>
>>And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the
>>mainstream"?
>
>
> Repug views, dimwit.

Republicans may not be the majority nor in control of both houses of
Congress anymore, however, they remain _nearly_ the majority. That would
be a clue that their views remain mainstream.

--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

Tim Crowley wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>>Tim Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>Jafo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As viewed from alt.california, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>less than 10%. that's about right. 90% of Americans reject your hate.
>>>>>>>What's funny is you seem to think you did good. You failed. People
>>>>>>>rejected you and your ideas in HUGE numbers.
>>>>
>>>>>>You keep trying to upset me by repeatedly posting this.
>>>>
>>>>>I don't want to upset you. I want you to face reality. Yours is a
>>>>>loosing point of view. It's not accepted by the American People. Don't
>>>>>get upset. Be a man and accept responsibility for your failure.
>>>>
>>>>>>I honestly don't give a crap; it's January and the elections were
>>>>>>back in November.
>>>>
>>>>>Snicker. Yeah, sure - we can tell you don't care. Why lie?
>>>>>
>>>>>You will never learn. If you run again, you will get even less votes.
>>>>>I know, why don't you blame someone else.
>>>>
>>>>In your rush to personally attack someone whose views you obviously
>>>>disagree with, you carefully omit this comment:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Yesterday the new Delegates were sworn in, and one of the very
>>>>>>first new bills submitted was _exactly_ the one I would have
>>>>>>submitted myself. Far from being upset, I am in fact ECSTATIC.
>>>>>>Because what I wanted done, is done.
>>>>
>>>>So, how is this "a loosing [sic] point of view"?
>>>>
>>>>Cat got your tongue, Tim? :-D
>>>
>>>
>>>what part of 5th place don't you understand. The FACT is the voters
>>>overwhelming rejected Mr. Hardman. His views are out of the mainstream.
>>
>>And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the mainstream"?
>
>
> You don't know your point of view???

I don't want my opinion, I want yours.

Which views, exactly, are "out of the mainstream"? Further, please
define views that would be in the mainstream. Then, contrast and compare
as to how my view and the mainstream views differ.





--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Carl Nisarel wrote:
>> Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
>> cunnon secgan to soðe:
>>
>>> And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the
>>> mainstream"?
>>
>>
>> Repug views, dimwit.
>
> Republicans may not be the majority nor in control of both houses of
> Congress anymore, however, they remain _nearly_ the majority. That would
> be a clue that their views remain mainstream.

No. Increasingly over the past several years, the
midpoint of the Republican party - far more so than for
the Democrats - has moved away from the center, toward
the extreme right. In both parties, candidates win
primaries generally by moving toward the extreme end of
their respective parties - rightward for Republicans,
leftward for Democrats - then moving more toward the
center for the general elections.

Republican extremist candidates still get the votes of
center-leaning Republicans, because party loyalty plays
a role, and there's a lesser-of-two-evils dimension to
it. But increasingly, Republican officeholders are
estranged from more centrist Republican voters, and
from *all* Democrats. Thus, they are moving out of the
mainstream.

That's what this last election was mostly about.

 
T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Tim Crowley wrote:
> > T Jr Hardman wrote:
> >
> >>Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jafo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>As viewed from alt.california, Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>less than 10%. that's about right. 90% of Americans reject your hate.
> >>>>>>>What's funny is you seem to think you did good. You failed. People
> >>>>>>>rejected you and your ideas in HUGE numbers.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>You keep trying to upset me by repeatedly posting this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>I don't want to upset you. I want you to face reality. Yours is a
> >>>>>loosing point of view. It's not accepted by the American People. Don't
> >>>>>get upset. Be a man and accept responsibility for your failure.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I honestly don't give a crap; it's January and the elections were
> >>>>>>back in November.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Snicker. Yeah, sure - we can tell you don't care. Why lie?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You will never learn. If you run again, you will get even less votes.
> >>>>>I know, why don't you blame someone else.
> >>>>
> >>>>In your rush to personally attack someone whose views you obviously
> >>>>disagree with, you carefully omit this comment:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Yesterday the new Delegates were sworn in, and one of the very
> >>>>>>first new bills submitted was _exactly_ the one I would have
> >>>>>>submitted myself. Far from being upset, I am in fact ECSTATIC.
> >>>>>>Because what I wanted done, is done.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, how is this "a loosing [sic] point of view"?
> >>>>
> >>>>Cat got your tongue, Tim? :-D
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>what part of 5th place don't you understand. The FACT is the voters
> >>>overwhelming rejected Mr. Hardman. His views are out of the mainstream.
> >>
> >>And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the mainstream"?
> >
> >
> > You don't know your point of view???
>
> I don't want my opinion, I want yours.

My opinion is that you have mental issues and should seek help.

T Jr Hardman wrote:

> Republicans may not be the majority nor in control of both houses of
> Congress anymore, however, they remain _nearly_ the majority. That would
> be a clue that their views remain mainstream.

That would require a change in the definition of "main".

What is it about you GOPers that you keep trying to redefine the
Enlgish language?

T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Tim Crowley wrote:

> > End of story. He lost. Big time. He's still in denial.
>
> Not at all.

never have been, never will be - no way, no how.
hahahahahaha

Hwæt! Larry in AZ <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com>, men ne cunnon
secgan to soðe:

>> And that's why the Repugs were trounced in 2006 and why they'll
>> be wiped out in 2008
>
> You sound as if you've got a rabid Shia vs. Sunni kind of thing
> going.

Nah, the Repugs don't have the balls to be the equivalent to Sunni.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hwæt! samovar <bala@laik.a>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe:

>> And that's why the Repugs were trounced in 2006
>
> But of course they were

bitchslapped royally.

For the first time ever, a major party failed to get a Congressional
district to switch parties.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
cunnon secgan to soðe:

> In the last few elections,
> they didn't have enough candidates to run for all three seats in
> the district, and were quite happy to have me.

They'll be quite more discriminant next time.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
cunnon secgan to soðe:

> Republicans may not be the majority nor in control of both
> houses of Congress anymore, however, they remain _nearly_ the
> majority.

Not even close.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tim Crowley wrote:
> Yours is a
> loosing point of view.

How loose is it?

Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
> cunnon secgan to soðe:
>
>> And how many times has Karl Rove been elected? Not too many, I
>> don't guess. Yet the entire ideological basis of the current
>> Administration is his.
>
> And that's why the Repugs were trounced in 2006

But of course they were not, the margin was paper thin in almost all
elections, stop lying.

Tim Crowley wrote:

> How fucking dumb are you?

Looking for a successor to your crown?

Tim Crowley wrote:

> My opinion is that you have mental issues

Well, not that you aren't accomplished there yourself....

Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
cunnon secgan to soðe:

> Also considering that I got no party support at all in the last
> election, and still got over 10K votes, they may consider that
> it's worthwhile to support me, I might get even more. I might
> even win.

All three Repugs got 10K votes. You didn't even get the most Repug
votes.

You won't win. You won't even be on the ballot.

We'll all be laughing at your pathetic mewling.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>> Republicans may not be the majority nor in control of both houses of
>> Congress anymore, however, they remain _nearly_ the majority. That
>> would be a clue that their views remain mainstream.
>
>
> That would require a change in the definition of "main".
>
> What is it about you GOPers that you keep trying to redefine the Enlgish
> language?

What is it about you that in a message declaring that Republicans are
trying to redefine the English language you misspell "English"?

Your fingers, maybe, refuse to lie for you?


--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

Tim Crowley wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>>Tim Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jafo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As viewed from alt.california, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>less than 10%. that's about right. 90% of Americans reject your hate.
>>>>>>>>>What's funny is you seem to think you did good. You failed. People
>>>>>>>>>rejected you and your ideas in HUGE numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You keep trying to upset me by repeatedly posting this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't want to upset you. I want you to face reality. Yours is a
>>>>>>>loosing point of view. It's not accepted by the American People. Don't
>>>>>>>get upset. Be a man and accept responsibility for your failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I honestly don't give a crap; it's January and the elections were
>>>>>>>>back in November.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Snicker. Yeah, sure - we can tell you don't care. Why lie?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You will never learn. If you run again, you will get even less votes.
>>>>>>>I know, why don't you blame someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In your rush to personally attack someone whose views you obviously
>>>>>>disagree with, you carefully omit this comment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yesterday the new Delegates were sworn in, and one of the very
>>>>>>>>first new bills submitted was _exactly_ the one I would have
>>>>>>>>submitted myself. Far from being upset, I am in fact ECSTATIC.
>>>>>>>>Because what I wanted done, is done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, how is this "a loosing [sic] point of view"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cat got your tongue, Tim? :-D
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>what part of 5th place don't you understand. The FACT is the voters
>>>>>overwhelming rejected Mr. Hardman. His views are out of the mainstream.
>>>>
>>>>And what, exactly, are these "views" that are "out of the mainstream"?
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't know your point of view???
>>
>>I don't want my opinion, I want yours.
>
>
> My opinion is that you have mental issues and should seek help.

Every reader's opinion is that you just ducked and dodged.



--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

samovar wrote:
> Tim Crowley wrote:
>
>> Yours is a
>> loosing point of view.
>
>
> How loose is it?

Loose as a goose.


--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Hwæt! T Jr Hardman <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com>, men ne
> cunnon secgan to soðe:
>
>
>>In the last few elections,
>>they didn't have enough candidates to run for all three seats in
>>the district, and were quite happy to have me.
>
>
> They'll be quite more discriminant next time.

Quite honestly, due to the way local elections are run, they don't get a
choice.

Also considering that I got no party support at all in the last
election, and still got over 10K votes, they may consider that it's
worthwhile to support me, I might get even more. I might even win.


--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

T Jr Hardman wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> What is it about you GOPers that you keep trying to redefine the
>> Enlgish language?
>
> What is it about you that in a message declaring that Republicans are
> trying to redefine the English language you misspell "English"?

-PLONK-

 
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:hWsph.13116$X72.5315@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Fooled By Folksy Republicans wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:8Wkph.8709$pQ3.6831@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> paul wrote:
>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4Qaph.13559$ZT3.6152@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> paul wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 20 years ago i used to brag about being a radical moderate. i suspect
>>>>>> now that i am a bit more conservitive than that now on a few issues.
>>>>>> i must say, i have found nothing that you have posted that is in the
>>>>>> least unreasonable.
>>>>> It's funny how fools like you call for MORE and BIGGER government and
>>>>> then call yourself conservative.
>>>> it never happened. you are full of shit.
>>> Tut, tut - and you pretend to object to my (non-existent) "namecalling".
>>>
>>> Anyway, it *did* happen. It happened when you voted for Bush.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It's no wonder you can't win any converts to your anti-mexican cause.
>>>> YOU are the one with a racist cause, you worthless piece of human
>>>> flesh!
>>> Namecalling? Just wondering.
>>
>> You're a ______________.
>
> I'm a fat mentally defective far right trolling queer. Fuck off.


I've taken the liberty of correcting a few grammatical errors on your
part...I do so hope that my efforts will help you do better in future.
Please do ever have such a nice day, and if time permits, a nice warm cup of
tea.

FBFR

Fooled By Folksy Republicans wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:hWsph.13116$X72.5315@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Fooled By Folksy Republicans wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8Wkph.8709$pQ3.6831@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> paul wrote:
>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4Qaph.13559$ZT3.6152@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>> paul wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 20 years ago i used to brag about being a radical moderate. i suspect
>>>>>>> now that i am a bit more conservitive than that now on a few issues.
>>>>>>> i must say, i have found nothing that you have posted that is in the
>>>>>>> least unreasonable.
>>>>>> It's funny how fools like you call for MORE and BIGGER government and
>>>>>> then call yourself conservative.
>>>>> it never happened. you are full of shit.
>>>> Tut, tut - and you pretend to object to my (non-existent) "namecalling".
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, it *did* happen. It happened when you voted for Bush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's no wonder you can't win any converts to your anti-mexican cause.
>>>>> YOU are the one with a racist cause, you worthless piece of human
>>>>> flesh!
>>>> Namecalling? Just wondering.
>>> You're a ______________.
>> You're a fat mentally defective far left trolling queer. Fuck off.
>
>
> I've taken a dump

Of course. That's terrific.