203 posts and counting

"Tom Ace" wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in
bike wrenching; just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

Should politicians be tied and soldered?

If they get their taper lubed in the Oval Office, certainly!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo"
wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching;
just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?

Ginsu on steroids?

You guys never ate in a diner?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On 2 Nov 2005 14:45:20 -0800, wrote:

There is nothing on the left (individual exceptions aside) that
remotely approaches the rhetoric of a Coulter (_ Treason: Liberal
Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism_) or Malkin ( _In
Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II
and the War on Terror_) or Sean Hannity (_Deliver Us From Evil:
Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism_). A common element in
the rhetoric of the right-wing is elimination of the liberal opposition
which means that there would be NO opposition, for all practical
purposes, and the USA would cease to be a democracy (if that hasn't
happened already). I use the term fascist to describe a nationalist
movement with martial tendencies, melding corporate interests with
those of the state, and complete intolerance of dissent.

That pretty well sums up the climate in the suburbs and surrounding
countryside near here.

OTOH, on the left, there is considerable debate over the issue of how
to reach out to the "red states", the populations of which are
relatively economically disadvantaged compared to the blue states, and
whose politics are driven by religious ideology but would have a lot to
gain from national adoption of a liberal/ Democratic agenda.

Yet they remain solidly in the Republican camp, and have been there
since about 1964, when a certain utterance in a speech at the
Republican convention caused a mass defection of the Southern (and
ideologically like-leaning) rural-attitude voters to the Republican
camp. They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the faggots, the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise. They have gathered
under the politically-conservative-religious banner as a result of the
fact that it is an unassailable gathering point, unlike the lodges in
which they met in prior days. Their professed devoutness is belied by
their own actual behavior, however.

It might be a good start toward fence mending on a personal level if
_you_ wouldn't suggest that the best way to win your argument is by
blowing out the brains of people who disagree with you.

You incorrectly equate a recognition of the futility of verbal
persuasion with an active willingness to apply the described method.
The latter is characteristic (and a stated goal) of those with whom I
disagree; I would willingly debate the topics if there was any point
in doing so, but there isn't...precisely because *they* have made it
clear that they will resort to open warfare before they will give the
opposing point of view any credence.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:03:23 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo"
wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching;
just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?

Ginsu on steroids?

You guys never ate in a diner?

Any steak that can be used as a hammer was improperly prepared.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the faggots, the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Werehatrack wrote:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the faggots, the bla cks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as bull****:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005
Other relevant matters:
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Yeah right. g

You're bragging about off-topic political discussions in a bicycle TECH
group. Gosh, take your rants to a politcal group and see how well you do.
41 wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:


... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the faggots, the bla cks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)


SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as bull****:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005
Other relevant matters:
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.


Bill "those pesky facts again" S.


Yeah right. g

On 11/3/05 2:01 AM, in article ,
"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the faggots, the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.


It is you who have those pesky facts wrong. Yes they WERE Democrats,
Southern Democrats, now they are Republicans; and they have been Republicans
for the past 30+ years. They were Republicans long before Clinton was
elected.
Chuck

Scott wrote:
There are no "blue" states. Only "red" states that have huge liberal
concentrations in one or two major cities that allowed for the combined
liberal voting block of those cities to override the vote of the rest
of the state.

Bull****. When we give the vote to chickens, that map will mean
something; in the meantime, it's people that vote. The design of the
electoral college already gives a bigger vote to people living in the
countryside, so quit complaining.

BTW, it's the people in those cities that pay the taxes that allow the
farm subsidies for all those people living in the countryside. The
urban areas of the US, contrary to the popular rightwing rhetoric, are
the economic engine of the country. If Werehatrack's revolution ever
takes place and the US breaks up, the red states will get a big dose of
reality about just who gets the welfare in this country.

Werehatrack wrote:
You incorrectly equate a recognition of the futility of verbal
persuasion with an active willingness to apply the described method.

No. I _correlate_ rhetoric that includes threats of physical violence
with active willingness to apply the described method. But, regradless,
I also oppose that type of rhetoric on the grounds that even if you
don't intend to resort to it, it may reinforce the idea that it is
acceptable among people who already have tendencies toward it.