|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe
that the Democratic Party more wholesomely embraces the spirit of liberty - freedom - to the contrast of the Republican Party platform (I'm not saying Republicans don't back liberty, their view of it is just more "conservative" than the Democrats' vision). Let's be real clear about your pre-disposition to harbor animus toward Democrats: your email address gives it all away. To you liberal means tax and spend. Now for God's sake can you explain to me how you support Bush's economic policies when he spends way more than he takes in, while continuing to spend more than he takes in. Regan was the same way. So was Ford. And Nixon. I get a kick out of "fiscal conservatism" when it means it's okay to spend **** loads of money on bombs while forgetting about the needs of people at home, our schools, roads, hospitals and so on. We'll never agree, so I'm through discussing politics with you, unless you wish to do so off RBR. -Philip "gwhite" wrote in message ... "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: ****brick- Dumbass, You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a dumbass. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe
that the Democratic Party more wholesomely embraces the spirit of liberty - freedom - to the contrast of the Republican Party platform (I'm not saying Republicans don't back liberty, their view of it is just more "conservative" than the Democrats' vision). Let's be real clear about your pre-disposition to harbor animus toward Democrats: your email address gives it all away. To you liberal means tax and spend. Now for God's sake can you explain to me how you support Bush's economic policies when he spends way more than he takes in, while continuing to spend more than he takes in. Regan was the same way. So was Ford. And Nixon. I get a kick out of "fiscal conservatism" when it means it's okay to spend **** loads of money on bombs while forgetting about the needs of people at home, our schools, roads, hospitals and so on. We'll never agree, so I'm through discussing politics with you, unless you wish to do so off RBR. -Philip "gwhite" wrote in message ... "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: ****brick- Dumbass, You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a dumbass. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Phillip!!!
http://tinyurl.com/3ssb4 On 10/31/04 6:58 PM, in article , "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe that the Democratic Party more wholesomely embraces the spirit of liberty - freedom - to the contrast of the Republican Party platform (I'm not saying Republicans don't back liberty, their view of it is just more "conservative" than the Democrats' vision). Let's be real clear about your pre-disposition to harbor animus toward Democrats: your email address gives it all away. To you liberal means tax and spend. Now for God's sake can you explain to me how you support Bush's economic policies when he spends way more than he takes in, while continuing to spend more than he takes in. Regan was the same way. So was Ford. And Nixon. I get a kick out of "fiscal conservatism" when it means it's okay to spend **** loads of money on bombs while forgetting about the needs of people at home, our schools, roads, hospitals and so on. We'll never agree, so I'm through discussing politics with you, unless you wish to do so off RBR. -Philip "gwhite" wrote in message ... "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: ****brick- Dumbass, You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a dumbass. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Steve:
In case you forgot, http://www.pillclan.com/dc/reminder2.jpg. Regards, Philip. "Steve" wrote in message .. . Phillip!!! http://tinyurl.com/3ssb4 On 10/31/04 6:58 PM, in article , "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe that the Democratic Party more wholesomely embraces the spirit of liberty - freedom - to the contrast of the Republican Party platform (I'm not saying Republicans don't back liberty, their view of it is just more "conservative" than the Democrats' vision). Let's be real clear about your pre-disposition to harbor animus toward Democrats: your email address gives it all away. To you liberal means tax and spend. Now for God's sake can you explain to me how you support Bush's economic policies when he spends way more than he takes in, while continuing to spend more than he takes in. Regan was the same way. So was Ford. And Nixon. I get a kick out of "fiscal conservatism" when it means it's okay to spend **** loads of money on bombs while forgetting about the needs of people at home, our schools, roads, hospitals and so on. We'll never agree, so I'm through discussing politics with you, unless you wish to do so off RBR. -Philip "gwhite" wrote in message ... "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: ****brick- Dumbass, You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a dumbass. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Steve:
In case you forgot, http://www.pillclan.com/dc/reminder2.jpg. Regards, Philip. "Steve" wrote in message .. . Phillip!!! http://tinyurl.com/3ssb4 On 10/31/04 6:58 PM, in article , "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe that the Democratic Party more wholesomely embraces the spirit of liberty - freedom - to the contrast of the Republican Party platform (I'm not saying Republicans don't back liberty, their view of it is just more "conservative" than the Democrats' vision). Let's be real clear about your pre-disposition to harbor animus toward Democrats: your email address gives it all away. To you liberal means tax and spend. Now for God's sake can you explain to me how you support Bush's economic policies when he spends way more than he takes in, while continuing to spend more than he takes in. Regan was the same way. So was Ford. And Nixon. I get a kick out of "fiscal conservatism" when it means it's okay to spend **** loads of money on bombs while forgetting about the needs of people at home, our schools, roads, hospitals and so on. We'll never agree, so I'm through discussing politics with you, unless you wish to do so off RBR. -Philip "gwhite" wrote in message ... "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote: ****brick- Dumbass, You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a dumbass. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe Non-sequiturs are what you don't cut the hedge with. I CAN spell dumas. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe Non-sequiturs are what you don't cut the hedge with. I CAN spell dumas. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
HA! I AM THE DUMBASS!!! STEWART IS 100% RIGHT ON THE SPELLING - IT'S
SEQUITUR NOT SEQUITOR. I'M THE LAWYER AND HE CAN SPELL THE LEGALESE... I WILL SHUT THE **** UP FOR A WHILE!!! "Stewart Fleming" wrote in message ... Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe Non-sequiturs are what you don't cut the hedge with. I CAN spell dumas. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
HA! I AM THE DUMBASS!!! STEWART IS 100% RIGHT ON THE SPELLING - IT'S
SEQUITUR NOT SEQUITOR. I'M THE LAWYER AND HE CAN SPELL THE LEGALESE... I WILL SHUT THE **** UP FOR A WHILE!!! "Stewart Fleming" wrote in message ... Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote: I CAN spell non-sequitor, know what it means, and do whole-heartedly believe Non-sequiturs are what you don't cut the hedge with. I CAN spell dumas. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sound familiar | Bob | Mountain Biking | 12 | March 9th 04 12:38 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |