Leaving the community

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Greg Butler" wrote in message
. ..
[...] most Bush voters, however, look at the data first, then make up
their minds.

Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Indirectly, he was.

How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

Christ, we couldn't trust the left to run a lemonade stand, much less some
serious business.


What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
for the draft? Oh, wait. I guess Gallup did not want to ask questions that
would make Democrats uncomfortable.

How many still buy the notion that the peace and prosperity of the 90's was
Bubba's doing?

(Think: Reagan doctrine, and Y2K run-up)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Indirectly, he was.

Indirectly, YOU are.

But we're not talking about "indirect involvement" here.

How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

"TERRORIDM"? Uh, okay. If you say so. And yet, that still doesn't explain
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of innocent
civilians terrorism.

Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection prior
to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".

No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Yes, there is.

Frank wrote:
[...deletia...]
The biggest difference I see today is in attitude. "Reds" seem to have one
of "I've got mine, you get yours" while the "blues" is more like "We have
so much, we should try to make life better for the less fortunate".


Actually, the Blues I've seen seem to say "You have so much, give me some!"

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...


Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...


I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

I was accused of being paranoid and asked for a reason why Cecil thought so.
You posted a copy of a web page.



I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

I watch about 2 hours per month, nice try though. I was expecting to see a
post that was relevant to what I had asked, not some regurgitation of
something that had no bearing on my post, though I did see that projection
was mentioned and i can only attribute that to Cecil and his ideas about gun
owners.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

No sore spot, just wondering why it was presented. I asked about paranoia
and was responded to with Freudian nonsense. I also see no neurosis in my
behavior, though will admit that you may not think I can be objective on
this point. Owning firearms and stating so does not make one paranoid or
neurotic, in spite of what the gun control crowd will have people believe.