-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

 DD>* A pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism
 DD>* has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

 TR> Since when does verbally and strongly disagreeing with a president,
 TR> become `pathological hatred'?

 DD>It doesn't - and no one in the article quoted said it did.

 TR> Then....as those are *your* initials in front of that statement, are we
 TR> to believe that it is *you* who said it did?

Show me the quote where is says "verbally and strongly disagreeing with a
president" equates to a "pathological hatred". You are
seeing tings that are
not there - again. 
 
 DD>However, the
 DD>Stalinist wing of the Repugs certainly accused those who verbally and
 DD>strongly disagreed with the puppet president, George III of having a
 DD>"pathological hatred" of not only that administration, but
America itself.

 TR> *The Stalinist wing*? Are you even on the same planet we are? *Repugs*?
 TR> You begin to sound a lot like Otto Sauer. Hmmmmm

I beg to doubt that Ross' daddy sounds anything like that. But, hey, if it
talks like a Stalinist, walks like a Stalinist, parrots the party line like a
Stalinist - who am I to deny it the proper label? I have called that part of
the RINOs the Repugnant Republicans for years. Repugs is just a contraction of
their true nomenclature.
 
 DD>* 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall)
 DD>believe that Obama is a socialist.

 TR> Much of the healthcare bill foisted on America by this president is for
 TR> the `have nots' at the expense of the `haves'. Thats socialism.

You wouldn't know a true socialist if one bit you on the sinister cheek of your
gluteus maximus. America has ALWAYS been about taking care of the have-nots.
From the "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish ... " that starts off the
US Constitution to the present day.

When we kicked the Brit's arses out of here we were all have nots - have not
Liberty, have not Justice, needing general welfare, have not the blessings of
liberty, nor a more perfect Union. And we're still working on the "more perfect
union" part - especially since the "party of NO" doesn't
want to he'p out.

 DD>That's compassion, more like. And healthcare is, IMO, a legitimate
 DD>function of gummint.

 TR> `Compassion'? Really? What would you know about compassion?

A lot more than most on the far right. Or the far left.

 TR> Being compassionate to those in need is fine, as long as you're doing
 TR> it with your own money. But getting the government to take other
 TR> people's money away from them, to use to show *your* compassion is
 TR> stealing, not charity.

In your misguided opinion. Reference the income tax, etc.

 DD>* 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama
 DD>is a Muslim

 TR> This president's religion has nothing to do with leading the country
 TR> down to ruin.

 DD>I agree. Why, then, do the wing-nuts make such a big deal of it? ... as
 DD>they did in past with Jack Kennedy's Catholicism.

 TR> Talk to the `wing-nuts' about that. Know any?

There are a number of them in here. I know them as well as I care to.
 
 DD>* 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the
 DD>Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United
 DD>States and so is not eligible to be president"

 TR> There has never been a `bonified' birth cedrtificate produced, showing
 TR> that this president was born in the place it is claimed he was born.

Yeah, there was. Certified so, just to shut up the critics, by the REPUBLICAN
Governor of Hawaii. Didn't work though. Wing nuts don't believe plain evidence,
it seems.

 DD>Nor has there needed to be.

 TR> Yes....there has. Ever since he first started campaigning. That point
 TR> is very clear.

Your hat may cover that point. It's a done deal, dood. Give it a rest.

 TR> Article II

 TR> Section 5.

 TR> "No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United
 TR> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
 TR> eligible to the office of President; ......"

So, what's your point? Not the one that your John Deere cap covers, that is.
 
 TR> It is not for us to prove he *wasn't*......it is for him to prove that
 TR> he *was*! So far.......he has not given any positive proof whatever
 TR> that he is in compliance with Section 5, Article II.

Yes, he has. Proof has been presented. If you think it's phony then sue for
redress in the courts - Quick now, before he appoints a bunch of libruls to
slant the judiciary. 

 DD>Don't you think that if someone had even a
 DD>shred of evidence that the current occupant of the oval office was NOT
 DD>able to claim native-born status that they would have come forward, long
 DD>since.

 TR> Don't you think that if there were in fact *absolute proof positive* he
 TR> is in compliance with Article II, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution,
 TR> it would have been brought forward long since, and put this issue to
 TR> rest? So far, that has not happened.

Presented and corroborated - where the fuck were you? Out for a short beer with
your militia? 

 DD>Of course they would have. And Lardbutt, Beck & Call, and Tiny
 DD>Willy O'Reilly would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops and all
 DD>over Faux "News".

 TR> Otherwise, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and the whole leftist media
 TR> would have been trumpheting it from the rooftops and all over MSNBC!

That as well. Since I haven't had my glass teat even turned on in the past two
and a half months I might have missed that shit storm.
 
 DD>* 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say
 DD>that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"

 TR> Hitler lead the people along with vast promises of `hope and change' as
 TR> well.

 DD>Well, he certainly got change. And the overall outcome was (eventually)
 DD>good for the German people.

 TR> We're getting change, too. We're getting bankrupt along with it.

Stick around - it gets better. First we have to pay off the bills that George
III ran up.
 
 DD>Although, the process was painful. Much more painful than anything that
 DD>Obama has done - so far.

 DD>* Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall)
 DD>say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

 TR> I doubt it.

I doubt that there was a Christ as has been painted by the religious right. My
personal take on the historical figure Joshua ben Joseph is that he was a
radical liberal rabbi and political agitator. And apocalyptist ... 
 
 DD>I didn't pay much attention to that not being a religious-nut any more
 DD>than I am a wing-nut.

 TR> No.....you misunderstand. I don't mean I doubt he's the Antichrist
 TR> (which I do), I meant that I doubt your figures.

They ain't my figures. Didn't you notice - I was quoting figures from a poll.
Not one that I either took or answered.

 DD>These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll, inspired in part by a
 DD>new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and
 DD>hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the
 DD>past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president
 DD>and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for
 DD>ratings is bad for the country.

 DD>The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the
 DD>health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier
 DD>to extremism.

 TR> I just happen to notice something. Your `poll' surveyed 2,230 people?

Not my poll, slick. Harris' poll. 

 TR> The disapproval of citizens in the country for this bill was well over
 TR> the top. Had it been put on a national ballot it would have been voted
 TR> down.

Among those with whom you hang out. 

 TR> One does not, of course, need a `college' education to be qualified to
 TR> like or dislike a president and their policies. Those who did not
 TR> attend colleges as they are now in America, are far less likely to have
 TR> a left-leaning bias to their thinking. They are far less likely to have
 TR> the `revisionist' slant that seems to be taught in our colleges and
 TR> universities, now-a-days.

 DD>Even those who go to Bob Jones University? Or Oral Roberts University? Or
 DD>any of the service academies - they are colleges/universities, you know.

 TR> I don't know about that.

Well, you wouldn't, would you. Being as those places give the lie to your
statement about "revisionist slant (to the left implied) that seems to be 
taught in our colleges".
 
 TR> In an America where violent radicals such as Bill Aires and Bernadine
 TR> Dohrn, instead of inhabiting prison cells for the domestic terrorism
 TR> they engaged in and encouraged, are esconced in teaching positions in
 TR> one of our universities, what is the exact value of a `college'
 TR> education? Just how complete, and wide -viewed an education could be
 TR> expected?

 DD>Bill Ayers (correct spelling) and Bernadine Dohrn and even Angela Davis
 DD>are hardly the mainstream of American Higher Education.

 TR> Bill Ayers (correct spelling be damned), Dohrn, and Angela Davis
 TR> shouldn't even be teaching `higher education'; they all ought to still
 TR> be in prison.

Ayers was not convicted of anything - for whatever reasons. Note - I do not
claim that he was not guilty. Just that he was not convicted. Hell, O. J. was
not convicted of doing his ol' lady and her jocker, either. Although he
probably did the deed.

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49