The politics of nature

Strider wrote:

The Constitution would work just fine if it weren't for a bunch of
tofu sucking Liberals trying to "redefine" it every other week.


ok, finally, it appears i have found someone who can provide details...
i think i understand the tofu-sucking part... i've not ever seen tofu to
my knowledge, nor seen anyone suck it, but i suspect it would be
something i could recognize. anyway, what's the definition you believe
accurately identifies a "liberal"?... and can you identify those *******
"liberals" you claim are engaged in redefining the Constitution? thanks!!

jeff (poltically struggling with all such stuff ever since atomic-based
Coordinated Universal Time was implemented in 1972, superseding the
astronomically determined Greenwich Mean Time.)

"Strider" wrote in message
...

Chris, your problem is you don't love love the Constitution.
Dave

The Constitution would work just fine if it weren't for a bunch of
tofu sucking Liberals trying to "redefine" it every other week.
Strider

See, there you go again, mistaking a body part for food. Get it right fella:
Most people like sex and food, out in the open. But many Dittoheads like
hillbilly heroin and closet sex with their sisters or anonymous partners
they pick up in the park.

No **** "Strider," why is it that the wussy faction of wingnut
chickenhawkdom just loves these masculine nicknames, then when you meet them
they more frequently than not want to suck on the ol meat biscuit? I don't
want to point fingers but everyone Ive heard use the "tofu sucking" gambit
has been a deviate. Just a hint. Give up this fixation on "tofu," pray for
the President's soul, and try to follow a "straight" path if you know what I
mean.

Dave
Trying to be helpful

"Strider" wrote in message
...

The Constitution would work just fine if it weren't for a bunch of
tofu sucking Liberals trying to "redefine" it every other week.

Strider

You might want to check and see what good 'ol Ronnie Reagan did and what
your buddy Georgie Jr is doin' to it.

Op --death to the fascists--

"David Snedeker" wrote
"Chris HIll" wrote
Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe
political

SNIPPED typical lying from the jackoff, child-molesting, nun-raping, idiot
electing, ill-numerate, snot swallowing, bugger picking, pig marrying,
slime
sucking, communist peckerwood biting, seat peeing, whiners of the bed
wetting, dog kicking, Nazi purse snatching, drug addict right wing, 90
pound
weakling, Rush dittohead faction of sewer rat, lay about, ****ants.

Chris, your problem is you don't love love the Constitution.

Isn't that a parchment under glass in the Smithsonian that most everybody
ignores these days?
The constitution renders itself invalid in the very first sentence.

"Sportsmen Against Bush" wrote

I consider myself very moderate and have voted in one election or another
for members of both major parties, two minor ones, and an "independant"

That said, I find "the current administration" to be THE biggest threat to
America, as I was taught to believe in it, at nearly all levels, since the
late 60s, early 70's

However, I'd suggest that to be more effective you drop the "against Bush"
and instead take a "for Something" approach .... everytime you say the man's
name you unconsciously give him air time, for one thing. They have
available, and are expert at using, a huge negative, fear, to
jerk the strings of "knee jerk" voters. Finding stronger negatives would
be difficult, so beating them at the negative game is unlikely.

The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk" segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho

Larry L wrote:
...
The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk" segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho

Well said, Larry.

Of those people of voting age in the US, 20% will always vote Dem,
20% will always vote Repub, and 50% won't vote at all. The remaining
10% of the voting age people are the so-called "swing voters" and
they drift in and out of the non-voting demographic.

Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, dumb**** rednecks, who the hell knows what
the "swing voter" will be this time around. I hope the "swing voter"
cares about the environment, outdoor issues, the growing gap between
the mega-rich and the working poor, the huge bill we're handing our
grandkids to pay for the economic folly of the smirking chimp, and
knows that Saddam Hussein didn't mastermind 9/11.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:

...
The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk"
segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho


Well said, Larry.

Of those people of voting age in the US, 20% will always vote Dem,
20% will always vote Repub, and 50% won't vote at all. The remaining
10% of the voting age people are the so-called "swing voters" and
they drift in and out of the non-voting demographic.

And a small percentage will vote Green, in a futile, dumb**** "protest"
that hands victory to the party they LEAST want to see in power.

Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, dumb**** rednecks, who the hell knows what
the "swing voter" will be this time around. I hope the "swing voter"
cares about the environment, outdoor issues, the growing gap between
the mega-rich and the working poor, the huge bill we're handing our
grandkids to pay for the economic folly of the smirking chimp, and
knows that Saddam Hussein didn't mastermind 9/11.

... and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.

When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.

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

"rw" wrote

.. and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.

When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


good point ... my votes for "oddballs" have all been in local offices ....
but still wasted in that sense

although I think "getting people thinking" depends on focusing them on what
the want, not fear, I nonetheless feel that in a choice of evils.... the
current evil is far too evil ...... and we must vote for a lesser one, a
lesser one with hope of winning

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote

.. and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.

When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


good point ... my votes for "oddballs" have all been in local offices ....
but still wasted in that sense

If you feel, now, that you wasted a vote, then, I suggest that you just quit
votin'. Maybe then you'll feel better about yourself!

although I think "getting people thinking" depends on focusing them on
what
the want, not fear, I nonetheless feel that in a choice of evils.... the
current evil is far too evil ...... and we must vote for a lesser one, a
lesser one with hope of winning

Your vote doesn't have to count for ****, if it satisfies your conscience.

Op

rw wrote in
m:


When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


There's noone to blame for the last election except the Gore team and the
Democratic Party. Alternatives are what maked elections in this country
great. It's not a weakness.

Scott