Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> > > > > with the word 'leftard?'
> > > >
> > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > >
> > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult to be.
> >
> > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
>
> Sure I did, [.]

Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.

So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
you use that term? Anything? At all?

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> > > >
> > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter. By
> > > > this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> > >
> > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that piss
> > > off libruls.
> >
> > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with my
> > definition?
>
> Why do you disagree with mine?

Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant,
xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception? Do you not want to
have to defend yourself from those terms?

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:12u8qqs8ck29d9a@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:1hu5r2n.k4yxr1od64p9N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use in
> > > > the case of abortion.
> > >
> > > I didn't use 'kill' in the case of abortion. You asked if it's possible
> > > to kill something -- *anything* -- that's unable to live on its own. And
> > > the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > A houseplant needs water. So it's unable to live on its own. Take away
> > > the water, and you kill the plant. That solves the philosophical problem
> > > of whether you can kill something that can't live on its own, for
> > > varying defintiions of independence.
> > >
> > > If you're asking if a fetus can be killed, I'd say it's a matter of
> > > political definition. The fetus was 'viable,' but now it's not, so was
> > > it killed? This leads inexorably to a shouting match, especially on
> > > usenet. In the political realm, it's simultaneously fair and unfair to
> > > say that it was killed. Schroedinger's rhetorical fetus. For instance:
> > > Does it diminish the fetus to say you killed it like you'd kill a
> > > houseplant? This is actually a very, very important distinction, and
> > > it's good that we haven't reached a unanimous verdict yet.
> > >
> > As I recall, they often us the term "kill" with cancer - as in "kill the
> > cancer".
>
> Sure. You "kill" things, sort of, affirmatively. I dunno if that's the best
> word. But you "kill" enemy soldiers, you "kill" cancers, you "kill" the
> radio when Rush Limbaugh comes on. You "kill" something because you don't
> like it, or you don't like what it's doing. You don't "kill" your pets when
> they're old and sick. You "put them down" or "have them put to sleep" or
> some other term. It's the connotations of the word "kill" that I object to.
> See?

That's exactly what I was addressing above. Anti-abortion people want to
say that abortion is murder. They want to do this because it implies
that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. They're using words in a
vivid way. And talking about killing the unborn works the same way. It's
a whole vocabulary that makes their point in as vivid a way as possible.

But there's also an ambiguity. Compare these statements:

"Killing a fetus is like killing a houseplant."

"Killing a fetus is like killing a child."

Neither is really false, and neither is really true. Neither tells the
whole story, and either could hide a political agenda.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:04:21 -0500, Harold Burton
> <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <dis5u2pmemm2apa8m53qua9gk0e72nrb26@4ax.com>,
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:04:58 -0500, Harold Burton
>>> <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <HDsEh.1584$aO6.128@trndny06>,
>>> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>> >
>>> >Yep, but choosing isn't absolute, a fact Don left out.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone say that choosing is "absolute?" So few things
>>> are.
>>
>>
>>> But when the choice is Your to make,
>>
>>And how does one determine that the choice is his to make?
>
> In this case, wouldn't you at least imagine that the choice would be
> Hers, and not His?
>
> Seems to me it would.
>
>> Like having
>>the choice to go to a restaurant in NYC and ordering food with
>>trans-fats in it? Or deciding that I'd like to permit smoking in my
>>bar or restaurant and not being given that choice.
>
> I can't even Imagine how such things would apply. Pray, explain how
> the analogy is apt.
>
>>> is there some good reason why
>>> Someone Else ought to be making it for you, or forcing you to do
>>> something that would otherwise not be Your choice?
>>
>>Happens all the time. See above for two examples. There are many
>>more.
>
> Regulating a public service is one thing.
>
> Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.

Like whether or not your children get vaccinated.

f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
>>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>>>>
>>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other
>>>> adults.
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that
>>>> of someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of
>>>> your business in the first place.
>>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>>
>> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
>> children yet?
>>
>
> There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
>

f650 for how long?

Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:

> In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> > Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
>>
>>
>> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>
> Dumb Shits in Academia do not last but about one sixth as long as Bush
> and Cheney.
>

Depends on whether or not they have tenure.

Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:

> In article <f0MEh.24785$s72.5475@fe12.news.easynews.com>,
> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -snip-
>> >>
>> >>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in
>> >>> academia.
>> >>
>> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>> >
>> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last
>>
>> Yes they do, it's called TENURE!
>
> You know nothing about Tenure. It is awarded after about 20 or so
> years of high level productivity. The dumb shits like bush are weeded
> out long before that.
>

No, it's a LOT less than 20. And the level of 'productivity' is a few
papers per yer (avg) and getting enough grant money to offset Some of
your salary.

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
>> > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
>> > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
>> > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
>> > > >
>> > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter.
>> > > > By this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
>> > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
>> > >
>> > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that
>> > > piss off libruls.
>> >
>> > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with
>> > my definition?
>>
>> Why do you disagree with mine?
>
> Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant,
> xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception? Do you not want to
> have to defend yourself from those terms?
>

Paul, you're a fucking moron. People don't defend themselves against
fucking morons. It's not nice.

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
>> > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>> > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
>> > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you
>> > > > > came up with the word 'leftard?'
>> > > >
>> > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
>> > >
>> > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult
>> > > to be.
>> >
>> > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
>>
>> Sure I did, [.]
>
> Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
>
> So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> you use that term? Anything? At all?
>

He's trying to tell you politely that you're a fucking moron. He's being
Nice.

In article <EV1Fh.2001$RN6.1127@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <f0MEh.24785$s72.5475@fe12.news.easynews.com>,
> > f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
> >
> >> Ockham's Razor wrote:
> >> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> -snip-
> >> >>
> >> >>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in
> >> >>> academia.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
> >> >
> >> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last
> >>
> >> Yes they do, it's called TENURE!
> >
> > You know nothing about Tenure. It is awarded after about 20 or so
> > years of high level productivity. The dumb shits like bush are weeded
> > out long before that.
> >
>
> No, it's a LOT less than 20. And the level of 'productivity' is a few
> papers per yer (avg) and getting enough grant money to offset Some of
> your salary.

It is less than 20 for a few who are remarkably productive and become
nationally or internationally recognized. Many work their entire career
and are never tenured. "A few papers per year" will just about allow
you to keep your job but only if they are published in leading journals.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article <ST1Fh.2000$RN6.881@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >>
> >> -snip-
> >>
> >> > Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
> >
> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last but about one sixth as long as Bush
> > and Cheney.
> >
>
> Depends on whether or not they have tenure.

Dumb shits do not get tenure. They are recognized and replaced in about
a year.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article <kR1Fh.1999$RN6.1602@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
> > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
> >>>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
> >>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
> >>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other
> >>>> adults.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that
> >>>> of someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of
> >>>> your business in the first place.
> >>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
> >>
> >> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
> >> children yet?
> >>
> >
> > There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
> >
>
> f650 for how long?

forever, he seems to be a pedophil.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article <EQ1Fh.1998$RN6.359@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> > Regulating a public service is one thing.
> >
> > Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.
>
> Like whether or not your children get vaccinated.

Immunization of children is a public health measure. Just because some
parents are too stupid to have their children immunized does not mean it
is not a good idea. Prevention of epidemic diseases is a good thing.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> >> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> >> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> >> > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> >> > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> >> > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter.
> >> > > > By this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> >> > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> >> > >
> >> > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that
> >> > > piss off libruls.
> >> >
> >> > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with
> >> > my definition?
> >>
> >> Why do you disagree with mine?
> >
> > Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant,
> > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception? Do you not want to
> > have to defend yourself from those terms?
>
> Paul, you're a fucking moron. People don't defend themselves against
> fucking morons. It's not nice.

So *you'll* defend Harold from the accusation, but Harold won't defend
himself.

It's fascinating how you'll read my definition of 'conservative,' and
then go to such lengths to prove me right while arguing that I'm wrong.

Lobby: Just chill out. It's all good, d00d.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

In article <1hu6xy3.1x0ebrp3nauizN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> > > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> > > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> > > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> > > > >
> > > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter. By
> > > > > this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> > > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> > > >
> > > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that piss
> > > > off libruls.
> > >
> > > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with my
> > > definition?
> >
> > Why do you disagree with mine?
>
> Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant...


Nope.

In article <1hu7a5q.1v006ozd170boN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > >> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > >> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> > >> > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> > >> > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> > >> > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter.
> > >> > > > By this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> > >> > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that
> > >> > > piss off libruls.
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with
> > >> > my definition?
> > >>
> > >> Why do you disagree with mine?
> > >
> > > Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant,
> > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception? Do you not want to
> > > have to defend yourself from those terms?
> >
> > Paul, you're a fucking moron. People don't defend themselves against
> > fucking morons. It's not nice.
>
> So *you'll* defend Harold from the accusation...



What accusation? Please be precise and provide credible support of
whatever accusation you make. I don't waste my time refuting every
silly accusation some leftard makes but without providing some basis for
that accusation.

In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > >
> > > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult to
> > > > be.
> > >
> > > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> >
> > Sure I did, [.]
>
> Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
>
> So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> you use that term? Anything? At all?


The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use of
the term "rightard"?

In article <F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> >> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> >> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> >> > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you
> >> > > > > came up with the word 'leftard?'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> >> > >
> >> > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult
> >> > > to be.
> >> >
> >> > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> >>
> >> Sure I did, [.]
> >
> > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> >
> > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > you use that term? Anything? At all?


> He's trying to tell you politely that you're a fucking moron. He's being
> Nice.


Again leave it to someone other than a leftard to "get" it.

They (leftards) love to use the term "rightard" but if anyone does the
same thing to them they (leftards) get their panties all in a knot.
I'm glad to know they (leftards) are so sensitive about the term
(leftards) so I'll keep using it. heheheheheh.

Iarnrod wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:07 pm, f650 <f...@rd.dually> wrote:
>> Iarnrodwrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 10:04 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
>>>> Iarnrodwrote:
>>>>> On Feb 25, 6:50 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
>>>>>> Iarnrodwrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 1:38 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:45E1E3AD.C80CE103@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:wajEh.9987$gl2.4523@fe10.news.easynews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in news:ZP9Eh.3718$_X1.3164
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @fe05.news.easynews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in news:%47Eh.5412$k82.1626
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @fe07.news.easynews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Larry (Scratch)" <Scra...@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in news:4t-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dnb7N5a2wOH3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7in...@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 12:27 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.break.com/index/pro_abortionist_attacks_pro_life_woman.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think you're anything but foolish for saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'leftists'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are represented by a single person whose stated gripe had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the political message, but the images of dead fetuses on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signboards?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it happens all the time. It's not an isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incident.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv9xa-VxchM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell you what. You park your car with a "Kerry Edwards"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sticker in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhood, I'll park my car with a "Bush Cheney" in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhood. I'll pay for your repairs and you pay for mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep! Leftists believe in free speech just as long as IT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THEIR FREE SPEECH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shooting abortion doctors in the back and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compares in what numbers to owning the mass media and controlling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universities?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who controls what universities?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh.....the LEFT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That explains "leftist" college professors like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and Phil Gramm and Henry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kissinger and Ken Starr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, right.....................
>>>>>>>>>>>> And they constitute the MAJORITY????
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom
>>>>>>>>>>>> by Cal Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>>> Townhall.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> March 31, 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050330.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd better sit down and firmly grip your bowl of Corn Flakes while
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading this shocking news: College faculties are not only mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have
>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined.
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to a study by professors at Smith College, George Mason
>>>>>>>>>>>> University and the University of Toronto (they surveyed 1,643
>>>>>>>>>>>> full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools), 72 percent of professors
>>>>>>>>>>>> at American universities labeled themselves liberal, while just 15
>>>>>>>>>>>> percent said they are conservative. 50 percent of faculty members
>>>>>>>>>>>> identified themselves as Democrats and only 11 percent Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>>> So what you are trying to say is that educated
>>>>>>>>>>> people tend to be liberal and stupid people tend to
>>>>>>>>>>> be conservative.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us something we don't already know.........;)
>>>>>>>>>> It's not very smart of you to conclude the academia represents the
>>>>>>>>>> location of the smartest people.
>>>>>>>>> It represents those smarter than "C-average"
>>>>>>>> LikeWardChurchillthe fake Indian?
>>>>>>> Ward Churchill is a Republican.
>>>>>> yawn...and a cop-hater, and a liar, and a crank, and a smoker, and a
>>>>>> rabble rouser, and...
>>>>> well, and a Republican, as in...
>>>> ...as in also: a male, a Boulder resident, a poor husband, a flesh
>>>> eater, etc...
>>>> You're fucking SLOW on the uptake....
>>> You're petulant when your covering up your own mistakes.
>> Am I?
>
> Who the fuck are you?

I am me and you are merely you.

>>> Ward is a Republican, as in...
>
> As in, as keeps getting snipped, Not. A. Democrat. Which shows that
> those here who said or implied he was were, well, wrong.

Who said that?

He's neither imo, he's an anarchistic liberal CRANK!

>> As in not representative of said party nor anything more than a fraud.
>
> And, dickwad, neither is he representative of any Democrats.

So?

>> A fake Indian.
>
> Yep.
>
>> A fake scholar.
>
> Yep.
>
>> A plagiarizer.
>
> A serial plagiarizer.
>
>> A disposed of used up piece of shit!
>
> Well, not quite yet. A result of over-due process.

No process was due, save for flushing him.

>> Join him in the crapper you fuckwit - FLUSH!
>
> You know, for someone who sides with thr losing assholes here, your
> iddy biddy bit of usenet bwavado is simply precious!
>
> Go smoke a blunt, dipshit.

Sounds more your speed, druggie.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>> everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter'
>>>> Is that why lieberals favor junk science?
>>> What do you mean by 'lieberal?'
>> Any and all lefty liars.
>
> So all lefties that lie.

Yup, and most do.

> Why do you believe that the lefties that lie
> favor junk science?

Simple, it suits their socialistic needs.

In article <1hu6xs3.1ky13l6jrc3uoN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu5vgm.1lsbiwp1tpyp5uN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > point you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how
> > > > > > > > > you came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because I asked nicely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do you
> > > > > > need to know?
> > > >
> > > > > That's not the same question.
> > > >
> > > > > I am asking for you to explain to me what you mean by 'leftard.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I'm asking you why do you need to know?
> > >
> > > Because it interests me, obviously.
> >
> > Read Bob Tiernan's post.
>
> Just tell me.


How about:

Leftard - someone too stupid to follow simple instructions like "Read
Bob Tiernan's post."

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> f650 wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
>>> everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter'
>
>> Is that why lieberals favor junk science?
>
> You mean like the global warming deniers?

Why deny what happened in the late Cretaceous?

History repeats, just no humans to blame the last CO2 bubble on...

War and oppression,

Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E3EA0D17906ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
>
>>> Is that why lieberals favor junk science?
>>
>> "Junk science" - like evolution, heliocentrism,
>> germ theory and parthenogenesis?
>
> Gravity. Don't forget gravity.
>
Why not, you have.

Clave wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu600r.17fw5sth3xrmaN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> Clave <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12u7jvsfeash695@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns98E3EA0D17906ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
>>>>
>>>>>> Is that why lieberals favor junk science?
>>>>> "Junk science" - like evolution, heliocentrism, germ theory and
>>>>> parthenogenesis?
>>>> Gravity. Don't forget gravity.
>>> Einstein was a liberal.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> No, a 'lieberal.'
>
> Who favoured junk science.
>
He made some errors didn't he?

Curt wrote:
> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> news:BSNEh.25683$s72.21265@fe12.news.easynews.com...
>> Curt wrote:
>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:1hu5nrg.o0bkmu11t6akN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>>>> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>>>>>>>>>> But not in reality.
>>>>>>>>> Because you don't define it as "murder".
>>>>>>>> No, I don't. So?
>>>>>>> That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that
>>> a
>>>>>>> living thing isn't being killed either way.
>>>>>> But it's still not murder, regardless.
>>>>> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?
>>>> Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.
>>> Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use in the
>>> case of abortion. You're not "killing" a living being, in the normal
> sense
>>> of the word. You're removing a fetus that doesn't have any self
> awareness
>> Is that why mothers sing to them, play classical music on their bellies
>> with portable speakers and let their husbands stroke their stomachs and
>> kiss their unborn children?
>>
>> You are so callously inhumane and definably unevolved I am ashamed to
>> know you are also human.
>>
>> Damn your soul to HELL!
>
> I suppose that was meant to make me feel bad,

But a soulless scumball like you can never feel.