| |
Main
Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:47:21
From: liberal democrats
Subject: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 23:19:30
From: Geoff
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote in message
news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>
> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
We're the Cubs of politics.
And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 22:50:06
From: Free Lunch
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com > wrote in
<m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com >:
>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>
>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>
>We're the Cubs of politics.
>
>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>
And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
-- loudly and continually.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 04:46:45
From: liberal democrats
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
In article <ga06j2dlet941p4h781bl1ifcmoqu1mj1b@4ax.com >,
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us > wrote:
>On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
>"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in
><m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>>
>>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>
>>We're the Cubs of politics.
>>
>>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>>
>And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
>-- loudly and continually.
So you're saying that that explains why the liberal Democrats keep
losing elections.
Figured as much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 03:26:25
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
POINK
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote in message
news:MO8HG3AA39006.2824652778@anonymous.poster...
> In article <ga06j2dlet941p4h781bl1ifcmoqu1mj1b@4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in
>><m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>>>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>>>
>>>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>>
>>>We're the Cubs of politics.
>>>
>>>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>>>
>>And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
>>-- loudly and continually.
>
> So you're saying that that explains why the liberal Democrats keep
> losing elections.
>
> Figured as much.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified.
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:14:28
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
Starlord Dude,
I think that the correct word is "PLONK". Now repeat after me... PLONK. :-)
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:X62dne8S48aowq7YnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@inreach.com...
> POINK
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 23:53:18
From: Free Lunch
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On 16 2006 04:46:45 -0000, in alt.atheism
liberal democrats <liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote in
<MO8HG3AA39006.2824652778@anonymous.poster >:
>In article <ga06j2dlet941p4h781bl1ifcmoqu1mj1b@4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in
>><m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>>>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>>>
>>>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>>
>>>We're the Cubs of politics.
>>>
>>>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>>>
>>And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
>>-- loudly and continually.
>
>So you're saying that that explains why the liberal Democrats keep
>losing elections.
>
>Figured as much.
Yes, Republican lies are a major reason that Democrats lose. Not so much
the lies, but the unwillingness to fight back immediately when the
Republicans lie.
Why do people take the Republicans seriously when they claim to be
fiscally responsible. They aren't. Their spending is out of control, but
they put it on credit instead of paying for it. That merely makes them
even more irresponsible.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:15:04
From: AM
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
Free Lunch wrote:
>
> Yes, Republican lies are a major reason that Democrats lose.
Really ?
If this is the reason you believe, than you
are dumber than a rock.............
Democrats lose because most Americans are not willing to put
up with the far left ideals that the democratic leadership
exposes. They just dont get it..........
BTW, the govt. has more revenue coming in now, than ever before.
Tax cuts do work. And yet several dem governors are running with
raising taxes as part of their agenda. They just dont get it...
Less govt is better. People can be responsible for themselves.
Most Americans do NOT want a cradle to grave govt.
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 06:50:31
From: liberal democrats
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
In article <us36j292c3jmqq8u1hno98epcr4de1id4b@4ax.com >,
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us > wrote:
>On 16 2006 04:46:45 -0000, in alt.atheism
>liberal democrats <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in
><MO8HG3AA39006.2824652778@anonymous.poster>:
>>In article <ga06j2dlet941p4h781bl1ifcmoqu1mj1b@4ax.com>,
>>Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>>"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in
>>><m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>>>>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>>>>
>>>>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>>>
>>>>We're the Cubs of politics.
>>>>
>>>>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>>>>
>>>And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
>>>-- loudly and continually.
>>
>>So you're saying that that explains why the liberal Democrats keep
>>losing elections.
>>
>>Figured as much.
>
>Yes, Republican lies are a major reason that Democrats lose. Not so much
>the lies, but the unwillingness to fight back immediately when the
>Republicans lie.
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that the liberal Democrats
relied on worn-out bogus excuses like "republican lies" to justify
their inability to win elections. Thanks for setting me straight.
>
>Why do people take the Republicans seriously when they claim to be
>fiscally responsible. They aren't. Their spending is out of control, but
>they put it on credit instead of paying for it. That merely makes them
>even more irresponsible.
Which is why the liberal Democrats keep losing the elections.
Liberals are all useless rhetoric and no actual substance.
No wonder they lose. America is better for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 06:49:27
From: Free Lunch
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On 16 2006 06:50:31 -0000, in alt.atheism
liberal democrats <liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote in
<PE1MPIMB39006.3684143519@anonymous.poster >:
>In article <us36j292c3jmqq8u1hno98epcr4de1id4b@4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>On 16 2006 04:46:45 -0000, in alt.atheism
>>liberal democrats <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in
>><MO8HG3AA39006.2824652778@anonymous.poster>:
>>>In article <ga06j2dlet941p4h781bl1ifcmoqu1mj1b@4ax.com>,
>>>Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 15 2006 23:19:30 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>>>"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>><m_qdnaD0aOHfZ6_YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>>>>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
>>>>>news:XQJQDSOX39006.1995486111@anonymous.poster...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>>>>
>>>>>We're the Cubs of politics.
>>>>>
>>>>>And we don't sacrifice our young for political gain.
>>>>>
>>>>And let the Republicans tell lies without instantly calling them on it
>>>>-- loudly and continually.
>>>
>>>So you're saying that that explains why the liberal Democrats keep
>>>losing elections.
>>>
>>>Figured as much.
>>
>>Yes, Republican lies are a major reason that Democrats lose. Not so much
>>the lies, but the unwillingness to fight back immediately when the
>>Republicans lie.
>
>Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that the liberal Democrats
>relied on worn-out bogus excuses like "republican lies" to justify
>their inability to win elections. Thanks for setting me straight.
Republicans do lie. The question is why don't the Democracts act against
those lies more quickly.
>>Why do people take the Republicans seriously when they claim to be
>>fiscally responsible. They aren't. Their spending is out of control, but
>>they put it on credit instead of paying for it. That merely makes them
>>even more irresponsible.
>
>Which is why the liberal Democrats keep losing the elections.
>
>Liberals are all useless rhetoric and no actual substance.
>
>No wonder they lose. America is better for it.
Why do you think that America is better off under Bush's totally
incompetent governance?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:50:33
From: Al Klein
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On Mon, 16 2006 06:49:27 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us >
wrote:
>Why do you think that America is better off under Bush's totally
>incompetent governance?
He got that from a soldier who died unnecessarily in Putsch's phony
war.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 20:07:27
From: David Goldberg
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
liberal democrats wrote:
> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>
Because they have no original ideas.
Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
--
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 03:55:39
From: liberal democrats
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
In article <4532F76F.10017DCE@yahoo.com >,
David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com > wrote:
>liberal democrats wrote:
>
>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>
>
>Because they have no original ideas.
>
>Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
>
And they hate God. And they seem to hate winning elections, because
they keep losing the elections at the last minute.
I wonder what their clownish excuses will be this November eighth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 20:30:57
From: Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On Sun, 15 2006 20:07:27 -0700, David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>liberal democrats wrote:
>
>> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>
>
>Because they have no original ideas.
Because Liberal don't molest little kids like the Republicans do.
>Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
Except for lust for little kids, Republicans have nothing to offer
America.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2759 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 20:01:49
From: William Styron
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
The more astute among you may notice that the original poster, a pig
troll, posted his inflammatory message to alt.religion.christian,
sci.astro.amateur, and alt.atheism. Clearly an attempt to incite lots of
impassioned replies from those not on to his game.
Sort of like posting "Mohamed was a fag" to alt.religion.muslim and
alt.religion.christian. You get the drift.
Just don't buy into his game. It only encourages him/her/it/
On Mon, 16 2006 02:47:21 +0000, liberal democrats wrote:
>
>
> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:35:26
From: John Baker
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On 16 2006 02:47:21 -0000, liberal democrats
<liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote:
>
>
>so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Why are you so incompetent at trolling?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:42:11
From: Asshole Lee Perkoff
Subject: (alt.humor) Read My Part Of This Post, It's Pretty Funny
|
Geoff wrote:
> "Asshole Lee Perkoff" <donotmindme@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:1161030536.063974.287340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Geoff wrote:
> >> "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ak77j2pi2fq0plngpq0ukpfl03l6na7jcf@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >>> So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
> >> >>
> >> >>Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me
> >> >>one
> >> >>instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
> >> >
> >> > Now he'll cite this one and claim it proves his accusations.
> >>
> >> See the thread: "(Original Video) Me Dressed As Pee Wee Herman"
> >> (chronologically just after this one).
> >>
> >> His display name changed from Perkoff Kruger to Peewee
> >> Perkoff...obviously
> >> the same loser. Watch the video in that thread to see the juvenile mind
> >> in
> >> action.
> >
> > Say you're sorry for your previous asshole post and this asshole post.
>
> lol...if you're going to troll you can't be so sensitive...didn't you get
> the FAQ?
>
> *plonk*
If plonking me means you're going to stop trolling me, ouch, why'd you
do that? That hurts so bad.
Looks like Perkoff had a goal, and he did what he had to do to meet
that goal, I don't know how to spell acomplishment, unless that is how
you spell it, that's why I said meet instead of acomplishment.
http://perkoff.com
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:05:52
From: Kate
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
liberal democrats wrote:
> In article <EqCdnb9V8crMMa7YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> KenStahl <ktsahl@yoohoo.com> wrote:
> >liberal democrats wrote:
> >> In article <8sKdncDUbOaI4a7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Victor Velazquez" <arriba@soap.fan> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"liberal democrats" <liberal.democrats@lose.elections> wrote in message
> >>>news:V3DXAWRV39006.1756944444@anonymous.poster...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
> >>>
> >>>More often than not, diversity of ideas makes for better policy but less
> >>>effective campaigns. Also, they are more likely to want to be seen taking
> >>>the high road in a campaign since they often aren't perceived as occupying
> >>>the moral high ground regarding abortion, crime, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here, by diversity, I guess you mean the liberal Democrats are
> >> "diverse" in their political opinions. That doesn't seem to be
> >> the case. All they do is hate. No much "diversity" there.
> >>
> >> And by high road, they do seem to fancy themselves as "superior"
> >> to the lowly Republicans. Clearly you're right, that they gain
> >> no traction whatsoever on any morality issue. Not that all
> >> Republicans are living saints, or something like that. But
> >> compared to the "hate America first" liberal Democrats, most
> >> Repubs could pass for something akin to "sainthood." But I
> >> don't want to use bad behavior to justify somebody else's bad
> >> behavior. The Republicans could use something of a refresher
> >> course in morals and ethics, "seven deadly sins," you know.
> >>
> >> So no matter how hard they try, the liberal Democrats keep
> >> losing the elections. It's like they want to lose, like
> >> criminal psychologists say about the really bad criminals who,
> >> unconsciously, really do "want to get caught." And that's
> >> exactly what happens. The criminals do stupid things to get
> >> caught. That's like what the liberal Democrats do. They
> >> unconsciously "want" to lose the big elections. And that's
> >> exactly what happens. The liberal Democrats lose the big
> >> elections.
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> >> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> >> is unverified.
> >>
> >>
> >The only thing we hate is Republicans. With good and
> >sufficient cause, I might add.
> >
> One thing is for sure, the liberal Democrats hate winning
> elections, as their abysmal record shows.
>
> Liberal Democrats do stupid things in order to lose, like the
> insane criminals who do stupid things in order to get caught, to
> be stopped from doing whatever it is they're doing that is so
> bad, like murder and such.
>
> Liberal Democrats keep doing stupid things, in order to keep
> losing elections. Unconsciously, they must want to be stopped
> from doing all the bad things they are doing, like "hate America
> first," "hate Christians," "hate Republicans," and all that.
>
> That's why the liberal Democrats will lose again this November,
> because, unconsciously, they want to lose. They want to be
> stopped. So that is what has happened. They are being stopped.
>
Being stopped by illegal means.
Why are you lying little boy? Do you like to be humiliated in public?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:12:03
From: AM
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
Kate wrote:
>
> Being stopped by illegal means.
What illegal means please ?
What laws are being broken ?
And can you show proof thereof ?
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:59:30
From: Kate
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
liberal democrats wrote:
> In article <4532F76F.10017DCE@yahoo.com>,
> David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >liberal democrats wrote:
> >
> >> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
> >>
> >
> >Because they have no original ideas.
> >
> >Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
> >
> And they hate God. And they seem to hate winning elections, because
> they keep losing the elections at the last minute.
>
> I wonder what their clownish excuses will be this November eighth?
>
Probably the same as before. When the corrupt party has control of the
vote counts, it's not unusual for the other party to amazingly lose by
a small amount even though the polls said they were in a strong lead.
That you weren't amazed before speaks volumes for your lack of
integrity.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 00:15:40
From: liberal democrats
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
In article <1161032370.842763.85880@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com > wrote:
>liberal democrats wrote:
>> In article <4532F76F.10017DCE@yahoo.com>,
>> David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >liberal democrats wrote:
>> >
>> >> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Because they have no original ideas.
>> >
>> >Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
>> >
>> And they hate God. And they seem to hate winning elections, because
>> they keep losing the elections at the last minute.
>>
>> I wonder what their clownish excuses will be this November eighth?
>>
>
>Probably the same as before. When the corrupt party has control of the
>vote counts, it's not unusual for the other party to amazingly lose by
>a small amount even though the polls said they were in a strong lead.
>
>That you weren't amazed before speaks volumes for your lack of
>integrity.
So you're saying that the liberal Democrats should have won the
elections according to media poll numbers, instead of by votes?
There are no excuses for failure. Liberal Democrats must want to
lose. There is no other explanation. Otherwise, why do liberal
Democrats keep saying and doing such stupid things, like with
their tabloid "green alien space baby" conspiracy theories?
There are actually liberal Democrats who believe that hurricane
Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans was caused by the Bush
administration. Many of them also believe that 9/11 was caused
by the Bush administration. The liberal Democrats lose the
elections and blame in on "stolen votes." Do they even realize
how completely insane that sounds to the average American voters?
The liberal Democrats say, vote for us, because we are completely
off our rockers. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a
duck, odds are pretty good it's a duck.
We can always tell who the liberal Democrats are around here.
They get really upset when others talk about why the liberals
keep losing the elections. Not by rising and falling "poll
numbers," which don't count for beans, but by votes.
That was my original question, why are the liberal Democrats so
darned good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, by
throwing away their opportunities to win elections at the drop
of a hat? They must unconsciously want to lose.
I am talking about votes. Liberal Democrats can only talk about
poll numbers and desperate conspiracy theories. No wonder they
keep losing elections. Because deep down inside, they want to
lose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:26:03
From: Kate
Subject: Re: Question: why are the liberal Democrats
|
On 17 2006 00:15:40 -0000, liberal democrats
<liberal.democrats@lose.elections > wrote:
>In article <1161032370.842763.85880@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote:
>>liberal democrats wrote:
>>> In article <4532F76F.10017DCE@yahoo.com>,
>>> David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >liberal democrats wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> so bloody good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Because they have no original ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Except for hatred of Republicans, they have nothing to offer America.
>>> >
>>> And they hate God. And they seem to hate winning elections, because
>>> they keep losing the elections at the last minute.
>>>
>>> I wonder what their clownish excuses will be this November eighth?
>>>
>>
>>Probably the same as before. When the corrupt party has control of the
>>vote counts, it's not unusual for the other party to amazingly lose by
>>a small amount even though the polls said they were in a strong lead.
>>
>>That you weren't amazed before speaks volumes for your lack of
>>integrity.
>
>So you're saying that the liberal Democrats should have won the
>elections according to media poll numbers, instead of by votes?
>There are no excuses for failure. Liberal Democrats must want to
>lose. There is no other explanation. Otherwise, why do liberal
>Democrats keep saying and doing such stupid things, like with
>their tabloid "green alien space baby" conspiracy theories?
>
>There are actually liberal Democrats who believe that hurricane
>Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans was caused by the Bush
>administration. Many of them also believe that 9/11 was caused
>by the Bush administration. The liberal Democrats lose the
>elections and blame in on "stolen votes." Do they even realize
>how completely insane that sounds to the average American voters?
>The liberal Democrats say, vote for us, because we are completely
>off our rockers. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a
>duck, odds are pretty good it's a duck.
>
>We can always tell who the liberal Democrats are around here.
>They get really upset when others talk about why the liberals
>keep losing the elections. Not by rising and falling "poll
>numbers," which don't count for beans, but by votes.
>
>That was my original question, why are the liberal Democrats so
>darned good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, by
>throwing away their opportunities to win elections at the drop
>of a hat? They must unconsciously want to lose.
>
>I am talking about votes. Liberal Democrats can only talk about
>poll numbers and desperate conspiracy theories. No wonder they
>keep losing elections. Because deep down inside, they want to
>lose.
>
Honey, I'm a programmer. The electronic voting processes set up by
the republicans are completely wide open to fraud. I know the vendor
who set many of them up - they are well known slime balls. They were
kicked out of California for trying to change programming and let back
in by the new republican sec of state completely against the rules and
with no explanation.
That you are an idiot who doesn't want to face the fact that most of
the current crop of republicans are corrupt and are going to jail one
by one, is really your problem.
Now run along little neo con. You are wasting our time. You don't
want to face the truth.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:30:58
From: Asshole Lee Perkoff
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT JEFF SPELLED RONG
|
John Baker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 2006 11:26:34 -0400, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> >news:ak77j2pi2fq0plngpq0ukpfl03l6na7jcf@4ax.com...
> >
> >>>> So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
> >>>
> >>>Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me one
> >>>instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
> >>
> >> Now he'll cite this one and claim it proves his accusations.
> >
> >See the thread: "(Original Video) Me Dressed As Pee Wee Herman"
> >(chronologically just after this one).
> >
> >His display name changed from Perkoff Kruger to Peewee Perkoff...obviously
> >the same loser. Watch the video in that thread to see the juvenile mind in
> >action.
>
> I plonked any and all variations on 'Perkoff' months ago. <G>
>
Are you one of those guys who makes "plonk" announcements when you
plonk someone? Oh yeah, you just made one on me, so are you lying
about plonking me months ago? If so why did you just directly reply to
me to say "Plonk" besides being a lame lying loser, got any reasons?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:28:56
From: Asshole Lee Perkoff
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT JEFF SPELLED RONG
|
Geoff wrote:
> "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> news:ak77j2pi2fq0plngpq0ukpfl03l6na7jcf@4ax.com...
>
> >>> So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
> >>
> >>Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me one
> >>instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
> >
> > Now he'll cite this one and claim it proves his accusations.
>
> See the thread: "(Original Video) Me Dressed As Pee Wee Herman"
> (chronologically just after this one).
>
> His display name changed from Perkoff Kruger to Peewee Perkoff...obviously
> the same loser. Watch the video in that thread to see the juvenile mind in
> action.
Say you're sorry for your previous asshole post and this asshole post.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:33:15
From: Geoff
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT JEFF SPELLED RONG
|
"Asshole Lee Perkoff" <donotmindme@mindless.com > wrote in message
news:1161030536.063974.287340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Geoff wrote:
>> "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>> news:ak77j2pi2fq0plngpq0ukpfl03l6na7jcf@4ax.com...
>>
>> >>> So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
>> >>
>> >>Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me
>> >>one
>> >>instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
>> >
>> > Now he'll cite this one and claim it proves his accusations.
>>
>> See the thread: "(Original Video) Me Dressed As Pee Wee Herman"
>> (chronologically just after this one).
>>
>> His display name changed from Perkoff Kruger to Peewee
>> Perkoff...obviously
>> the same loser. Watch the video in that thread to see the juvenile mind
>> in
>> action.
>
> Say you're sorry for your previous asshole post and this asshole post.
lol...if you're going to troll you can't be so sensitive...didn't you get
the FAQ?
*plonk*
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:27:55
From: Asshole Lee Perkoff
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT JEFF SPELLED RONG
|
Geoff wrote:
> "Do Not Mind Me" <domindme@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:1160970303.264180.177050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This guy "Jeff" who spells his name wrong is nothing but a usenet
> > troll. He has gone out of his way to troll me in the past. I'm here
> > to advice people he is a troll. I think I'm going to try to reply to
> > every single post he makes and inform people he is a troll until he
> > tells me he will leave me the fuck alone and not reply to me for the
> > sole purpose of being a fucking asshole.
> >
> > Please just say you're sorry and that you'll leave me alone, I really
> > don't want to have to follow you around usenet and let everyone know
> > about you being a lame troll, I just want your lame troll ass to stay
> > away from me?
> >
> > So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
>
> Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me one
> instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
Say you're sorry.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:34:04
From: Geoff
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT JEFF SPELLED RONG
|
"Asshole Lee Perkoff" <donotmindme@mindless.com > wrote in message
news:1161030475.620028.69260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Geoff wrote:
>> "Do Not Mind Me" <domindme@mindless.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160970303.264180.177050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > This guy "Jeff" who spells his name wrong is nothing but a usenet
>> > troll. He has gone out of his way to troll me in the past. I'm here
>> > to advice people he is a troll. I think I'm going to try to reply to
>> > every single post he makes and inform people he is a troll until he
>> > tells me he will leave me the fuck alone and not reply to me for the
>> > sole purpose of being a fucking asshole.
>> >
>> > Please just say you're sorry and that you'll leave me alone, I really
>> > don't want to have to follow you around usenet and let everyone know
>> > about you being a lame troll, I just want your lame troll ass to stay
>> > away from me?
>> >
>> > So you gonna say you're sorry or what?
>>
>> Who the fuck are you? I've never heard of you before. Can you give me one
>> instance where I replied to even one of your posts?
>
> Say you're sorry.
I have NO idea what you're talking about. Get a life.
Howzabout I say this...*plonk*
|
|
