A Final Election Assessment

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:22:16 GMT, h squared wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....uni-berlin.de

Funny.

Me too.

Stewart Fleming wrote:


Tim Lines wrote:

Not a chance. If he was caught with a bag of dope or involved in a
sexual relationship with another man, he'd be a goner. But this
trivial stuff you mention is easily dimissed.


I thought I heard this week that Bush had a man date...?

That's SO awful, it's great!

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

Stewart Fleming wrote:


Tim Lines wrote:

Not a chance. If he was caught with a bag of dope or involved in a
sexual relationship with another man, he'd be a goner. But this
trivial stuff you mention is easily dimissed.


I thought I heard this week that Bush had a man date...?

That's SO awful, it's great!

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

From: Tim Lines

I thought I heard this week that Bush had a man date...?

That's SO awful, it's great!

--



ARRGGGhhhhh, owwwwchhh. I missed it the first time. Awesome pun! It was
incredibly painful, as all great puns should be.
Bill C

From: Tim Lines

I thought I heard this week that Bush had a man date...?

That's SO awful, it's great!

--



ARRGGGhhhhh, owwwwchhh. I missed it the first time. Awesome pun! It was
incredibly painful, as all great puns should be.
Bill C

"robet" wrote in message
.. .

IMPEAECHMENT IS THE ONLY RECOURSE NOW.

That's a thought, there's plenty of ammo but we would need the likes of Ken
Starr to pursue it and make it stick. Question is, could it be done before
Bush is out of office, othewise it's useless.

"robet" wrote in message
.. .

IMPEAECHMENT IS THE ONLY RECOURSE NOW.

That's a thought, there's plenty of ammo but we would need the likes of Ken
Starr to pursue it and make it stick. Question is, could it be done before
Bush is out of office, othewise it's useless.

Tom Arsenault wrote:


I'm thinking it would be better for all of the liberals who said that
they were moving out of country if Bush won to stay, and let's reform
the system, and get the evil Republicans out of power ASAP.

Why? Why stay in this country and defy its constitutional foundations of
limited government, individual rights/freedom/liberty, and separation of church
and state? You really should emigrate to a country more in tune with you
ideals. It is no joke.

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal
or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary
barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the
proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government
sponsored social security!!! He wants to impose his socialist religion upon
citizens via taxation at the business end of a gun barrel. Jesse Jackson, a
"leader" of the "american left" also is fond of such socialist-religious
statements. It goes on and on.

Another example of the barbaric reactionary left is that of Mrs. Billary Clinton
and her book _It Takes a Village_. If *anything* is more reactionary than to
try to impose the collectivist culture of primitive villagers upon the extended
market order of human cooperation (a *huge* number of *individuals* acting
*privately*), than I don't know what it could be. Of course, primitive
villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive
instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The
"american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling
themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be?

I've got my problems/arguments with the ideals of most republicans too. But at
least they are more consistant, straightforward, and honest about their ideals.
The democrats are far more devious, whether intentionally, or out of sheer
ignorance (who cares which?). More amusingly, they often promote themselves as
"intellectuals," apparently unaware of the savage faith-based collectivist
nature of their ideals.

Republicans can be taken head-on, but because democrats ("left") are so much
more devious, they are currently a much greater menace IMO. Can democrats ever
rise above their commonplace stature of useful idiots for tyranny? There is
much doubt.

I mean,
the Republicans hounded Clinton for many years, and finally got him
to lie about getting a blow job in the Oval Office, I'm sure that the
Democrats, with the right monetary backing, could get some dirt on
George W. and get him impeached. But then again, I'm sure that the
Republicans would consider that un-patriotic, even though they did
the same thing. **** Bush, that guy sucks.

What is un-american ("un-patriotic"?) is trying to change the US from a
minimalist government (state) into one which government is supposed to solve
"social problems," whatever that happens to mean to the particular individual
intending to promote his/her own pet project upon other the backs of other free
citizens. The primitive reactionary socialist despises freedom, and freedom is
the ideal upon which the US is founded. Really, *please leave*. I have no
problem taking on the republicans next.

To my knowledge, I am the only true liberal who frequents rbr. The other
so-called liberals aren't liberals at all. They are socialists, and really the
most reactionary (conservative) and primitive of all citizens. It is very
perplexing that "conservatives" in the US use the term "liberal" as a term of
insult (opprobrium) regarding the "left," as Hayek wrote. You should be free to
practice your religion. You are not free to impose it upon me.


"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable
term [liberalism] but should even have assisted by beginning to use it
themselves as a term of opprobrium." -- Hayek

Tom Arsenault wrote:


I'm thinking it would be better for all of the liberals who said that
they were moving out of country if Bush won to stay, and let's reform
the system, and get the evil Republicans out of power ASAP.

Why? Why stay in this country and defy its constitutional foundations of
limited government, individual rights/freedom/liberty, and separation of church
and state? You really should emigrate to a country more in tune with you
ideals. It is no joke.

And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal
or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary
barbarians simply trying to acquire political control.

The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon
the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the
proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy"
and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government
sponsored social security!!! He wants to impose his socialist religion upon
citizens via taxation at the business end of a gun barrel. Jesse Jackson, a
"leader" of the "american left" also is fond of such socialist-religious
statements. It goes on and on.

Another example of the barbaric reactionary left is that of Mrs. Billary Clinton
and her book _It Takes a Village_. If *anything* is more reactionary than to
try to impose the collectivist culture of primitive villagers upon the extended
market order of human cooperation (a *huge* number of *individuals* acting
*privately*), than I don't know what it could be. Of course, primitive
villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive
instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The
"american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling
themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be?

I've got my problems/arguments with the ideals of most republicans too. But at
least they are more consistant, straightforward, and honest about their ideals.
The democrats are far more devious, whether intentionally, or out of sheer
ignorance (who cares which?). More amusingly, they often promote themselves as
"intellectuals," apparently unaware of the savage faith-based collectivist
nature of their ideals.

Republicans can be taken head-on, but because democrats ("left") are so much
more devious, they are currently a much greater menace IMO. Can democrats ever
rise above their commonplace stature of useful idiots for tyranny? There is
much doubt.

I mean,
the Republicans hounded Clinton for many years, and finally got him
to lie about getting a blow job in the Oval Office, I'm sure that the
Democrats, with the right monetary backing, could get some dirt on
George W. and get him impeached. But then again, I'm sure that the
Republicans would consider that un-patriotic, even though they did
the same thing. **** Bush, that guy sucks.

What is un-american ("un-patriotic"?) is trying to change the US from a
minimalist government (state) into one which government is supposed to solve
"social problems," whatever that happens to mean to the particular individual
intending to promote his/her own pet project upon other the backs of other free
citizens. The primitive reactionary socialist despises freedom, and freedom is
the ideal upon which the US is founded. Really, *please leave*. I have no
problem taking on the republicans next.

To my knowledge, I am the only true liberal who frequents rbr. The other
so-called liberals aren't liberals at all. They are socialists, and really the
most reactionary (conservative) and primitive of all citizens. It is very
perplexing that "conservatives" in the US use the term "liberal" as a term of
insult (opprobrium) regarding the "left," as Hayek wrote. You should be free to
practice your religion. You are not free to impose it upon me.


"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable
term [liberalism] but should even have assisted by beginning to use it
themselves as a term of opprobrium." -- Hayek

From: gwhite

Why? Why stay in this country and defy its constitutional foundations of
limited government, individual rights/freedom/liberty, and separation of
church
and state?

Let me put it to you this way: Because you just got yourself elected President,
and you've got some political capital to spend, and you mean to spend it?

You really should emigrate to a country more in tune with you
ideals. It is no joke.

Me ideals? Agreed, not a joke.

But seriously, gwhite: not much chance of either Dubbya or me moving anytime
soon. "Get over it"? --TP