In alt.religion.christian RHF wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:23*pm, wrote:
In alt.religion.christian RHF wrote:

But they all will be crying "Give President Barack
Hussein Obama a Chance to Do Good" and will level
Instant Charges of RACISM against any US Citizen
who dares to say something bad or negative about
'their' wonderful Liberal Democrat US President
Barack Hussein Obama.

That's just silly. *Are you trying to imply that any charge of racism is
misguided, by manufacturing a sraw man charge of racism?


Disrespecting "The Office of US President" [CIC] :

Why are you responding to a question which was not asked?

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

SNIP

Final clue for you:

SNIP

You are as clueless as they come.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:44:17 -0500, Billy Burpelson
wrote:

Bob Dobbs wrote in news:491f1cab.6022859
@chupacabra:
The presidency was besmirched by the presence of Bush who held all
American principles in disregard, from the constitution we all live
under to the cleanliness of the air and sky we all live under.
Jim Alder wrote:

Re-mouthing the same hatemongering lies about Bush won't prove your point.
It just proves ours.
Huh? Lies? What lies?

As a matter of *public record*, Bush is/was the most
anti-environmentalist President ever. And we DID lose more civil rights
under the 'Patriot Act' than any time in our history. Bush *sneered* at
our Constitution. ("Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush
screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!")

§tarkiller© wrote:

You jerks keep saying that yet not one single time has anyone provided
any case where anyone has actually proven that their rights had been
violated. And you still haven't.

You've obviously not read or understood the implications of the 'Patriot
Act' nor been in tune with the brouhaha about wire tapping of all citizens.

Anti environmental? Oh yeah when he promoted alternative fuels like
ethanol or hydrogen you all bitched and moaned perpetually.

As a former oil man, he promoted alternative fuels only very late in his
second term and under the duress of $4 a gallon gas.

Most likely due to him not being a democrat.

Most likely due to him being the very best friend Big Business ever had.

Why have pollution levels decreased in the last 8 years if he is so
out to destroy the earth?

Because they haven't decreased. How could they? Bush fostered/promoted
legislation that let coal fired power plant operators off the hook for
additional pollution controls. They got a free pass.

If, and at this point seems unlikely, Obama acts as immaturely naive and
reckless as has Bush, he too will earn similar odium.
Liar. Just as Clinton was revered and protected - porking interns was his
'private life' and not to be spoke of,
Again, huh? His private life WAS 'spoke of'. They tried to impeach him
for it. What planet were you on when that happened? (Clue for you: they
could not have have tried impeachment -unless- people 'spoke of' his
private life).

Idiot. Jim is referring to the main stream press not the congress.
Try to pay better attention.

Further clue: Most people in this country (you obviously excepted), do
think that Clinton lying about his blow job was bad -- but *not nearly*
as bad as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz lying us into a bogus war that cost tens
of thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. Compared to that, lying
about a garden variety blow job seems pretty harmless.

Yeah lying to congress and the grand jury is no big deal is it.

Didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said above it -was- bad. (Please pay
attention). However, as a citizen, I would rather the President lie
about a blow job than lie us into a bogus war. Easy choice for most of
us. Too bad you don't get it.

Final clue for you:

People weren't voting -for- Obama, they were voting -against- Bush and
what he stood for.

I know you're not happy about the Republican party getting its biggest
spanking in history, but try and take it like a man. The Repubs earned
it, fair and square.

Voting against someone is not wise in any stretch of the term.

On this we agree. Unfortunately, it came down to being the only choice
we had (short of throwing away a write-in vote for Ron Paul).

Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob Dobbs wrote:

The presidency was besmirched by the presence of Bush who held all
American principles in disregard, from the constitution we all live
under to the cleanliness of the air and sky we all live under.

Jim Alder wrote:

Re-mouthing the same hatemongering lies about Bush won't prove your
point.
It just proves ours.

Huh? Lies? What lies?

I'll be happy to enumerate a few;

One:
As a matter of *public record*, Bush is/was the most
anti-environmentalist President ever.

Feel free to cite your "Public Record".

Two:
And we DID lose more civil rights
under the 'Patriot Act' than any time in our history.

Three:
Bush *sneered* at
our Constitution.

Four:
("Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush
screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!")

If, and at this point seems unlikely, Obama acts as immaturely naive and
reckless as has Bush, he too will earn similar odium.

Liar. Just as Clinton was revered and protected - porking interns was
his
'private life' and not to be spoke of,

Again, huh? His private life WAS 'spoke of'. They tried to impeach him
for it.

Again, huh? They impeached him for lying about it. All the while his
acolytes (like you) insisted it was his private life and not to be spoke of.

What planet were you on when that happened? (Clue for you: they
could not have have tried impeachment -unless- people 'spoke of' his
private life).

What language do you speak? We are talking about the double standard of
what the Left THINKS should happen, not about what DID happen. Your kneejerk
defense, so fast you didn't even have time to read with comprehension, is a
splendid demonstration.

Further clue: Most people in this country (you obviously excepted), do
think that Clinton lying about his blow job was bad -- but *not nearly*
as bad as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz lying us into a bogus war that cost tens
of thousands of lives and a trillion dollars.

Actually I WOULD agree to that hypothetical question. Except I know
Clinton DID lie, while I don't think Bush did.

Compared to that, lying
about a garden variety blow job seems pretty harmless.

Again, we aren't talking about what is, but the double standard that is
Leftwing self-righteous indignation.

Final clue for you:

Since your supply of clues was zero when you started....

People weren't voting -for- Obama, they were voting -against- Bush and
what he stood for.

Bush wasn't running.

I know you're not happy about the Republican party getting its biggest
spanking in history, but try and take it like a man.

Try to keep your perverted analogies to a minimum. And your pathetic
knowledge of 'history' to yourself.

The Repubs earned it, fair and square.

I will agree the Republican party had a hand in their own loss, but then
that's always true of any political loss.

--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

RHF wrote:

Jim Alder wrote:
Bob Dobbs wrote:
RHF wrote:

oops - but then the liberals and democrats who
trashed the 'office of us President' when it was
'bush' are now demanding r-e-s-p-e-c-t for that
very same 'office of us President' now that it is 'obama' once again
the two faces of 'liberals' and democrats ~ RHF

Your displayed confusion is pathetically amusing.

* *Your pompous contempt for your fellow man is sadly typical.

The presidency was besmirched by the presence of Bush who held all
American principles in disregard, from the constitution we all live
under to the cleanliness of the air and sky we all live under.

- Re-mouthing the same hatemongering lies
- about Bush won't prove your point.

Examples :
* Will the Bush 'Regime' soon become
the Obama 'Regime' ?
* Will the Bush 'Crime Family' soon become
the Obama 'Chicago' Crime Family ?
* Will the 'Corrupt' Bush Administration soon
become the 'Corrupt' Obama Administration ?

-?- Ask Yourself within a year will
there be Chanting-in-the-Streets :
"Hey Hey Hey O-Bomb-Mi-Na - How Many American
Boys Have You Killed Today ?"

No. That would be racist.

It just proves ours.

If, and at this point seems unlikely, Obama acts as immaturely naive and
reckless as has Bush, he too will earn similar odium.

* *Liar. Just as Clinton was revered and protected - porking interns was
his
'private life' and not to be spoke of, and he didn't really lie because he
used a lawyer's definition of "sexual relations" and "is" -

- while Bush falling off his mountain bike was
- a source of days of derision and laughter,

Obama's "57 States" would have cause Bush to be
call an IDIOT by every major Media Outlet -but-
Media just let it slide-a-way . . .

Probably because there are 57 states of Islam, and they didn't want anyone
to get the wrong idea.

will be wrapped in a cocoon of protection. He will do no wrong, say no
wrong.

- Anyone who says otherwise is a racist.
- Racism will take on a whole new definition
- for the next four years;

As Bill Clinton -said- They {Obama} Players
the Race Card On Me.

He did? What did that mean, exactly? (there's a typo in there somewhere,
I'm just not sure where)

1st - Any Charge of Racism -wrt- to President Obama
could soon be considered Violent Hate Speech and
an Attack Against the Presidency and the Government.

2nd - Violent Hate Speech will be subject to Criminal
Law Prosecution; Psychiatric Evaluation; and Criminal
and/or Medical Confinement for the Duration of the
Obama Presidency.

That's hopefully hyperbole, but there are Democrats who will wish it to be
true.

Welcome to the ObamaNation© and the Freedom of . . .
Obama-No-Speak© : Thou Shall Say Nothing Against
THE OBAMA ! : "All Praise and Honor Be The Obama!"©

- "not believing that Obama is perfect."

Please Say It Isn't So.

We Believe In THE OBAMA !

The office of the president (CIC) should be one of respect, but in
reality is only held to the level of respect brought to it by whomever
occupies it at the time.

- Not when one is a Democrat.

- Then, a Democrat is respected beyond reason,
- while a Republican is ridiculed 24/7.

* Yes 8-Years of 24/7 Preaching Hate for {President} Bush
Attacking and Diminishing 'The Office of US President.

* Yes 8-Years of 24/7 Ridiculing {President} Bush
Attacking and Diminishing 'The Office of US President.

* Yes 8-Years of 24/7 Blaming {President} Bush
Attacking and Diminishing 'The Office of US President.

NOW The Time Has Come To Reap What You Have Sowed
For 8-Long-Years : Hating, Ridiculing and Blaming.

I hope we on the Right can be less petty than that, and call attention to
the shortcomings of this new administration for the good of the country and
not just to 'get even' like so many Leftwingers said was their motive.

NOW American Talk Radio {Old Angry White Men}
ARE UNITED AGAINST OBAMA {That President}
Bring-On The Dogs of Hate, Ridicule and Blame !

I'm not against Obama now that he has been elected. I have misgivings
about his, given his penchant for lying in the campaign. Let's hope that was
just politics. Don't wash the country down the drain just to "get even" for
eight years of leftwing harrassment.

Again Remember the Golden Rule :
It Applies to US Presidents Too :
1st - Do Unto The Other Party's President
While He Is In Office :
2nd - As You Would Like The Other Party To Do
Unto Your President When He Is In Office.
3rd - Now It Shall Be Done Unto You !

It is often said that : Pay Back Is a B-i-t-c-h
-and- Often Politics Is All About P-a-y-B-a-c-k
-and- Now It Is Pay Back Time !

as with live - in politics what . . .
comes around goes around ~ RHF
-and- it's going to go around - big time

--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

... quite a bit of interest

You still don't get it, do you?

Oh, he gets it.

Obama (and his supporters almost unanimously) proved that the highest
office can be attained by taking, and staying on, the high road. He
never once personally attacked his opponent. He never got mean-spirited
and nasty, and therefore his term will not have that taint of original sin.

If only that were true. I proved several deliberate, meanspirited lies he
told about McCain. His supporters weren't interested.

You, conversely, continue to wallow in the ugliest psychotic muck of
old-school A****er dirty tricks personal politics, not only demeaning
yourself, but the Republic itself.

I don't see any such 'muck' in his post. Perhaps you could be more
specific?

--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

On Nov 16, 8:28*am, Tartarus wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:16*pm, RHF wrote:

The Liberals, Democrats and Media have spent 8 Years
making a "Tar-Baby" out of President George "W" Bush
and there-by Attacking 'The Office of the US Presidency'.

Your misunderstanding or intentional misstatement of fact is amusing.
Anyone can tell the difference between attacking the man and attacking
the office. Are you really unable to tell the difference, or do you
think the rest of us are so stupid we won't notice?

Tartarus

Tartarus,

Reality Check :
One Mans Free Speech -maybe- Another Mans Trash Talk
Actions : What Your 'Say' Matters To You :
Re-Actions : What I Think You 'Said' Matters to Me.
[The "Why" of Why I Think You 'Said' It Matters Too]
-translation- My 'What' and 'Why' Are About Me*
and Not About You.
* American Individualism : The Triumph of the
Un-Common Man coupled with Common Sense :
Over the Elitist and Great and Wonder Sounding
Theoretical "ISMs".

FWIW - To Many Americans Who Love Their Country :
Attack US President George "W" Bush was an
Attack On 'The Office of the US President was an
Attack On The USA and Americanism [.]
= Weaken and Destroy the Man
= Weaken and Destroy the Office
= Weaken and Destroy the Nation

The Coming Perfect Storm of Words :
101 Talk Radio Hosts Will Be Baracking©
[Trash-Talking] of President Obama each
and every day starting 20 Jan 2009.

On Nov 16, 11:30*am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:34 am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
BCBlazysusan wrote:
I wished the internet had a rule that you couldn't post on
usenet unless you used your real name...
Do you mean to say your birth certificate says "BCBLazysusan"?

If it doesn't, isn't that just a -little- bit hypocritical of you? Or is
it the old "do as you say, not do as you do" routine? * :-)
BCBlazysusan wrote:
Huh? I've used my name before. I thought BCBLazysusan would be
appropriate for this group. ColdSteelGregg for a knives newsgroup etc.
I have used my name for years, I've actually said my name was Gregg in
here before. I suppose you missed it maybe? Now why would I post what
I did before if I hadn't used my name, knowing that someone would call
me on it. You can apologize to me later. ;-)

Gregg? Well, that really narrows it down. Gregg Smith or Gregg Jones?
With 10 or 20 million 'Greggs' in the country, that's just about as
anonymous as "BCBLazysusan".

So, to summarize, when you said "I wished the internet had a rule that
you couldn't post on usenet unless you used your real name", I took that
to mean your -entire- name, not just 'Joe' or 'Fred'...or 'Gregg'. If
you just meant first name, your entire point would be meaningless.

You can apologize to me later. ;-)

No. Again. I have used my entire name on usenet before (I don't make a
habit of it). I don't understand what you don't understand. Just
because I didn't use my last name in this 'exact' post means nothing.
I said I wished EVERYONE had to but alas not everyone has to- so why
would I?

On Nov 16, 11:30 am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:34 am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
BCBlazysusan wrote:
I wished the internet had a rule that you couldn't post on
usenet unless you used your real name...
Do you mean to say your birth certificate says "BCBLazysusan"?
If it doesn't, isn't that just a -little- bit hypocritical of you? Or is
it the old "do as you say, not do as you do" routine? :-)
BCBlazysusan wrote:
Huh? I've used my name before. I thought BCBLazysusan would be
appropriate for this group. ColdSteelGregg for a knives newsgroup etc.
I have used my name for years, I've actually said my name was Gregg in
here before. I suppose you missed it maybe? Now why would I post what
I did before if I hadn't used my name, knowing that someone would call
me on it. You can apologize to me later. ;-)
Gregg? Well, that really narrows it down. Gregg Smith or Gregg Jones?
With 10 or 20 million 'Greggs' in the country, that's just about as
anonymous as "BCBLazysusan".

So, to summarize, when you said "I wished the internet had a rule that
you couldn't post on usenet unless you used your real name", I took that
to mean your -entire- name, not just 'Joe' or 'Fred'...or 'Gregg'. If
you just meant first name, your entire point would be meaningless.

You can apologize to me later. ;-)

BCBlazysusan wrote:

No. Again. I have used my entire name on usenet before (I don't make a
habit of it).

Well, excuuuuuse me...I seem to have missed some occasional, random
postings on newsgroups I do not subscribe to.

I don't understand what you don't understand. Just
because I didn't use my last name in this 'exact' post means nothing.
I said I wished EVERYONE had to but alas not everyone has to- so why
would I?

Why would you? That's an easy one to answer:

You claim you've posted your entire name in the past, so once the cat is
out of the bag, why don't you keep doing it?

Lead by example.

Practice what you preach.

Jim Alder wrote:

I proved several deliberate, meanspirited lies he
told about McCain.

Oh?

Like the mean spirited lies Karl Rove told about McCain in the 2000
election? ;-)