203 posts and counting

Tom Ace said:

Bill Sornson said:

I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in
bike wrenching; just tighten the bejeezus out of it!

Should politicians be tied and soldered?

If they get their taper lubed in the Oval Office, certainly!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...
>
> I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching;
> just tighten the bejeezus out of it!
>
> HTH, BS

Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?

Ginsu on steroids?

You guys never ate in a diner?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Quoted message said:

There is nothing on the left (individual exceptions aside) that
remotely approaches the rhetoric of a Coulter (_ Treason: Liberal
Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism_) or Malkin ( _In
Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II
and the War on Terror_) or Sean Hannity (_Deliver Us From Evil:
Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism_). A common element in
the rhetoric of the right-wing is elimination of the liberal opposition
which means that there would be NO opposition, for all practical
purposes, and the USA would cease to be a democracy (if that hasn't
happened already). I use the term fascist to describe a nationalist
movement with martial tendencies, melding corporate interests with
those of the state, and complete intolerance of dissent.

That pretty well sums up the climate in the suburbs and surrounding
countryside near here.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, on the left, there is considerable debate over the issue of how
to reach out to the "red states", the populations of which are
relatively economically disadvantaged compared to the blue states, and
whose politics are driven by religious ideology but would have a lot to
gain from national adoption of a liberal/ Democratic agenda.

Yet they remain solidly in the Republican camp, and have been there
since about 1964, when a certain utterance in a speech at the
Republican convention caused a mass defection of the Southern (and
ideologically like-leaning) rural-attitude voters to the Republican
camp. They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise. They have gathered
under the politically-conservative-religious banner as a result of the
fact that it is an unassailable gathering point, unlike the lodges in
which they met in prior days. Their professed devoutness is belied by
their own actual behavior, however.

Quoted message said:

It might be a good start toward fence mending on a personal level if
_you_ wouldn't suggest that the best way to win your argument is by
blowing out the brains of people who disagree with you.

You incorrectly equate a recognition of the futility of verbal
persuasion with an active willingness to apply the described method.
The latter is characteristic (and a stated goal) of those with whom I
disagree; I would willingly debate the topics if there was any point
in doing so, but there isn't...precisely because *they* have made it
clear that they will resort to open warfare before they will give the
opposing point of view any credence.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:03:23 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

On 2 Nov 2005 10:19:40 -0800, "Scott Gordo" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>> About Libby and the Iraq war....Shows the division in the US...
>>
>> I've never seen the need for a torque wrench in bike wrenching;
>> just tighten the bejeezus out of it!
>>
>> HTH, BS
>
> Bah! Liberal Nancy! All you really need is a hammer and steak knife!

What kind of knife do you use on both a hammer and a steak?

Ginsu on steroids?

You guys never ate in a diner?

Any steak that can be used as a hammer was improperly prepared.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the bla cks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson>

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as [censored]:

<http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005>
Other relevant matters:
<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html>
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html>
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.

Quoted message said:

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Yeah right. g

You're bragging about off-topic political discussions in a bicycle TECH
group. Gosh, take your rants to a politcal group and see how well you do.

41 said:

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the bla cks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson>

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as [censored]:

<http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005>
Other relevant matters:
<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html>
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html>
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.

Quoted message said:

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Yeah right. g

On 11/3/05 2:01 AM, in article [email hidden],

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

It is you who have those pesky facts wrong. Yes they WERE Democrats,
Southern Democrats, now they are Republicans; and they have been Republicans
for the past 30+ years. They were Republicans long before Clinton was
elected.
Chuck

Scott said:

There are no "blue" states. Only "red" states that have huge liberal
concentrations in one or two major cities that allowed for the combined
liberal voting block of those cities to override the vote of the rest
of the state.

[censored]. When we give the vote to chickens, that map will mean
something; in the meantime, it's people that vote. The design of the
electoral college already gives a bigger vote to people living in the
countryside, so quit complaining.

BTW, it's the people in those cities that pay the taxes that allow the
farm subsidies for all those people living in the countryside. The
urban areas of the US, contrary to the popular rightwing rhetoric, are
the economic engine of the country. If Werehatrack's revolution ever
takes place and the US breaks up, the red states will get a big dose of
reality about just who gets the welfare in this country.

Werehatrack said:

You incorrectly equate a recognition of the futility of verbal
persuasion with an active willingness to apply the described method.

No. I _correlate_ rhetoric that includes threats of physical violence
with active willingness to apply the described method. But, regradless,
I also oppose that type of rhetoric on the grounds that even if you
don't intend to resort to it, it may reinforce the idea that it is
acceptable among people who already have tendencies toward it.

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the blacks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Key word: WERE. After 1964, they swapped sides in droves. That's a
pesky fact as well. The numbers of the Dems in the South (and
elsewhere) dwindled as they left, following the drumbeat of that
infamous pronouncement I mentioned. I still have to mix with too many
of them on a regular basis; their full nature is entirely too
familiar. And back in the early '60s, I had too much exposure to the
power structure of the Democratic party at the local level in Florida;
I heard the mumbling of the brass as they bemoaned the loss of those
votes to the Republicans, mixed with the slightly proud and ultimately
mistaken assertions that the Republicans wouldn't gain much and it was
good riddance anyway.

The same large, despicable and manipulable group that the Dems carried
from the Reconstruction era (and, paradoxically, whose interests even
now are better served by the Dems than the Republicans) is now dancing
to a tune called by a different drummer, but the words they're singing
are the same as they always were; hate, hate, hate. Only their party
affiliation has changed. Oh, at the top it's still the same Party of
Greed that it's been for a century, but at the bottom it's the Party
of Hate. The two attitudes are not strange bedfellows.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

You incorrectly equate a recognition of the futility of verbal
persuasion with an active willingness to apply the described method.

No. I _correlate_ rhetoric that includes threats of physical violence
with active willingness to apply the described method. But, regradless,
I also oppose that type of rhetoric on the grounds that even if you
don't intend to resort to it, it may reinforce the idea that it is
acceptable among people who already have tendencies toward it.

Take that particular bit of rhetoric to the Republicans and see what
it will get you. Yes, the majority of the party (as a national
average, but certainly not as a local one in many areas) is still
composed of law-abiding people who are in many cases not happy with
everything their party is doing...but those are not the ones who I am
concerned about. The ones who are the problem aren't listening, they
don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of their intentions, and
they're getting closer every day to going back to the discussed
tactics (which, after all, they openly used in the '30s and prior),
emboldened by their perception of the surrender of the opposition due
to their own perceived overwhelming victory in the past few elections.

And no one in the leadership of the Republican party is doing anything
at all to curb this trend; to do so would risk losing that vital
support, after all.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

41 said:

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the bla
cks, and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists,
opponents of civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK
members were DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white
males than Bush BY FAR; and far fewer women and minorities.)

SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it
up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson>

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as [censored]:

<http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005>
Other relevant matters:
<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html>
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html>
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.

Quoted message said:

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Yeah right. g

Say what you want, but of the last two national party conventions, which one
had more "diversity" -- on stage AND in the seats? Why do you think the
Dems desperately try to slur practically EVERY conservative minority Repub?
Guess who /really/ owns the plantation nowadays? (Think: Louisiana.)

Bill Sornson said:

Say what you want, but of the last two national party conventions, which one
had more "diversity" -- on stage AND in the seats?

That's a lie. There were 875 African American delegates to the
Democratic National Convention, only 167 to the GOP.

Quoted message said:

Why do you think the
Dems desperately try to slur practically EVERY conservative minority Repub?

First of all no one is trying "desperately to slur practically EVERY
conservative minority Repub". However, I think the GOP is in general
quite corrupt, both ideologically and in practice. Therefore, it is
highly probably that minority members of the GOP will get their share
of criticism.

WTF are you talking about, chickens??? where are you going with that?
Besides, I'm not complaining. And, who said anything about tax
subsidies for farmers?

Obfuscate if you must, but the majority of this country's population,
for better or worse, is NOT supportive of the left-wing liberal agenda.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Say what you want, but of the last two national party conventions,
which one had more "diversity" -- on stage AND in the seats?

That's a lie.

It was a question.

Quoted message said:

There were 875 African American delegates to the
Democratic National Convention, only 167 to the GOP.

So "diversity" to you is just black/white. Hmm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think the
Dems desperately try to slur practically EVERY conservative minority
Repub?

First of all no one is trying "desperately to slur practically EVERY
conservative minority Repub". However, I think the GOP is in general
quite corrupt, both ideologically and in practice. Therefore, it is
highly probably that minority members of the GOP will get their share
of criticism.

Called Uncle Tom and having Oreo cookies thrown at them?

How refined.

yoohoo.fr sending bullsnit like this? PLONK @$$h0!e

"41" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Werehatrack said:

... They *say* that they are there because of the "moral issues"
argument, but the reality is that they're Republican because it's
anathema to them to be in the same party with the [censored], the bla cks,
and the rest of the "minorities" they despise.

Historically, most of the politicians who were segregationists, opponents
of
civil rights legislation, and, hell, let's face it, KKK members were
DEMOCRATS. (And Clinton appointed more lily white males than Bush BY
FAR;
and far fewer women and minorities.)

SLIIIIICK bit of disinformation. "Historically", without mentioning
that it was 40 years ago when they all jumped ship to join the
Republicans, thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists and make
them the core of the new Republican Party; or that, when the democrats
passed the Civil Rights Act, as Lyndon Johnson accurately summed it up:

"We have just lost the South for a generation."
-To an aide, upon having signed the Civil Rights Act.
More prescient quotes from Johnson at:
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson>

Then, try to slur the modern Democrats by conjoining "history" with a
shot at Clinton, without any supporting reference- no doubt because
it's easy to expose as [censored]:

<http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020005>
Other relevant matters:
<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/43/kennedy-r.html>
(An article nevertheless very critical of Clinton)
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_135311_2000.html>
Don't forget that Clinton wanted to appoint far more, but was stymied
by the racist Republican bigwigs who blocked their confirmation, such
as JESSE HELMS as described in the Prospect article above.

Quoted message said:

Bill "those pesky facts again" S.

Yeah right. g

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Say what you want, but of the last two national party conventions,
which one had more "diversity" -- on stage AND in the seats?

That's a lie.

It was a question.

Quoted message said:

There were 875 African American delegates to the
Democratic National Convention, only 167 to the GOP.

So "diversity" to you is just black/white. Hmm.

Hardly. It's an example. if you'd like to put up some data that
supports your lie, I'll take a look at it. Otherwise, STFU with your
insinuations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think the
Dems desperately try to slur practically EVERY conservative minority
Repub?

First of all no one is trying "desperately to slur practically EVERY
conservative minority Repub". However, I think the GOP is in general
quite corrupt, both ideologically and in practice. Therefore, it is
highly probably that minority members of the GOP will get their share
of criticism.

Called Uncle Tom and having Oreo cookies thrown at them?

I'm not sure what you are referring to but presumably it is a specific
incident, if it happened at all. It is another lie to take a single
incident and protray it as common behavior.

I think most Democrats believe very strongly that the GOP is determined
to chip away at minorities' rights in our society. Although I wouldn't
use the term myself, "Uncle Tom" has a specific meaning in that
context. There are plenty of people in the Bush administration who have
shown an eagerness to sell out the public good for their own private
benefit. The term for an African American who does this is "Uncle Tom".
Yes, it is derogatory, but it is means that the person using that term
considers someone to be a traitor to their race, and that is a
legitimate charge that cannot be dismissed simply by claiming the term
is merely pejorative.

41 said:

...thanks to Goldwater and to Nixon's "Southern Strategy",
the explicit, determined strategy to pick up those racists

Yep, the Democrats sure know how to win friends and influence people.
The south is full of racists, huh? Throwing that in their face oughta
bring 'em back to the fold in short order. LOL

Why, did you hear how those racists acted in Maryland, throwing Oreo
cookies at a black polititian and making racist comments about him?
Shameful.

Or wait... Maryland isn't IN the south.

And oops, the ones doing the cookie-tossing and making the racist
comments were black.

I guess it's all just a matter of perspective, huh?

Mark "all racists suck" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Say what you want, but of the last two national party conventions, which one
had more "diversity" -- on stage AND in the seats?

That's a lie. There were 875 African American delegates to the
Democratic National Convention, only 167 to the GOP.

Since the Dems got 90%* of the black vote in the last two national
elections, if the delegates were representative of their voters, I'd
say the Republicans did a better job balancing their delegates.

*a statistic I gleaned from an interview contained on the following
site:http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Mar/03-484995.html

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame