The politics of nature

wrote...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:47:08 -0700, Warren wrote:

wrote...
No, it's something else: ultra-rights are not
capable of taking responsibility for their
own behavior, and this character is no exception.

Ultra-lefts aren't much better FWIW.


There isn't much difference between them.

Then why did you need to differentiate them with a "-rights"? Why
not go with just "ultras"? ;-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Warren wrote:

Then why did you need to differentiate them with a "-rights"? Why
not go with just "ultras"? ;-)

Because he was talking about Strider, dumbass.

(Sorry, greg.)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote...
Because he was talking about Strider, dumbass.

And I was talking about Greg, you ****ing idiot.

(Sorry, greg.)

Me too. g
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:22:06 -0800, Hayduke wrote:

You're not annoying. Your downright hillarious! Folks like you
validate everything folks think about the redneck wing of the
republican party.

Keep on, keeping on, my man!

Peace

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:20:07 GMT, Strider wrote:

Glad to be annoying.

Strider

and you are a shining example of why liberals have become the dinosaur
of American politics.

You gotta worry when someone claims that those with opposing views are the
'dinosaur' of a two-party system. If liberals are the dinosaur, then exactly
what do you propose is the modern model?

--riverman

Strider referring to Reid:
You can feel
secure that the US military, mostly good Conservatives, will watch
over you, even though you are a leftwing loon.

.......yup, case closed. We have a complete
clueless buffoon in Strider. Entertainment value: 4 1/2 stars.
Tom

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:41:52 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:


"Strider" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:22:06 -0800, Hayduke wrote:

You're not annoying. Your downright hillarious! Folks like you
validate everything folks think about the redneck wing of the
republican party.

Keep on, keeping on, my man!

Peace

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:20:07 GMT, Strider wrote:

Glad to be annoying.

Strider

and you are a shining example of why liberals have become the dinosaur
of American politics.

You gotta worry when someone claims that those with opposing views are the
'dinosaur' of a two-party system. If liberals are the dinosaur, then exactly
what do you propose is the modern model?

--riverman

You are assuming that liberals are a political party.

Strider

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:22:38 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:07:23 -0700, rw
wrote:

That's what I get for using socialist spell checkers.

Right you are -- nonstop ridicule. It's a vast left-wing conspiracy.


No, it's something else: ultra-rights are not
capable of taking responsibility for their
own behavior, and this character is no exception.

"I did not have relations with that woman."

Strider

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:41:52 +0100, "riverman"
You gotta worry when someone claims that those with opposing views are
the
'dinosaur' of a two-party system. If liberals are the dinosaur, then
exactly
what do you propose is the modern model?

--riverman

You are assuming that liberals are a political party.



Yes and no.

Yes, I usually assume that when someone is bashing liberalism, they are also
bashing Democrats. I don't think I ever have heard anyone but a Republican
bash liberalism, so I assume that, to most folks, Liberal and Democrat are
synonymous.

And no, it doesn't necessarily have to be synonymous with Democrat. The
essence of our political process is that we need people with disagreeing
points of view to debate issues. When one side starts villianizing the other
merely for existing, they dangerously invalidate the process. If you want to
invalidate liberalism by claiming it is an outdated dinosaur, then exactly
what do you propose for a modern, improved model? That everyone is
conservative and in agreement? That sounds like exactly the type of system
that democracy was long ago designed to replace. Talk about dinosaurs...

--riverman

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:29:51 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:

I don't think I ever have heard anyone but a Republican
bash liberalism, so I assume that, to most folks, Liberal and Democrat are
synonymous.

One of Newt's most successful strategies was to get folks to equate
liberal with bad, and democrat with liberal.
--
Charlie...

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:29:51 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:


"Strider" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:41:52 +0100, "riverman"
You gotta worry when someone claims that those with opposing views are
the
'dinosaur' of a two-party system. If liberals are the dinosaur, then
exactly
what do you propose is the modern model?

--riverman

You are assuming that liberals are a political party.



Yes and no.

Yes, I usually assume that when someone is bashing liberalism, they are also
bashing Democrats. I don't think I ever have heard anyone but a Republican
bash liberalism, so I assume that, to most folks, Liberal and Democrat are
synonymous.

About half the Dem party are self described liberals if the polls are
to be believed.

And no, it doesn't necessarily have to be synonymous with Democrat. The
essence of our political process is that we need people with disagreeing
points of view to debate issues. When one side starts villianizing the other
merely for existing, they dangerously invalidate the process. If you want to
invalidate liberalism by claiming it is an outdated dinosaur, then exactly
what do you propose for a modern, improved model? That everyone is
conservative and in agreement? That sounds like exactly the type of system
that democracy was long ago designed to replace. Talk about dinosaurs...

--riverman


I'd prefer at least three viable parties.

Strider