OT Political Stuff: Embrace the Liberal Label!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.