Real Election Reform

[Freewheeling]

I assume that since the US isn't your "native land" and you've never become
a naturalized citizen that you don't plan to apply for retirement benefits
in the US. As for Washington State, I thought that was the King County
Board of Elections, admitting voters from the other side of the grave, who
staked that claim.

--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> ...
>> But a sure cure for Mr. Sherman would be for him to go to any Muslim
>> country and to live there for the rest of his life. At the end of that
>> very miserable life, he would weep tears to gaze upon the American flag
>> and would kiss the soil of his native land. He is truly a man without a
>> country. Exile is what he deserves.
>
> I have some connections in Malaysia (a primarily Muslim nation), but both
> the weather and the food are a bit hot for my taste.
>
> Since James Polk did not follow up on his campaign slogan "Fifty-four
> forty or fight", but settled for "Forty-nine" [1] instead, the US is not
> my "native land".
>
>> If he does not have the stomach for a Muslim nation, than France would
>> suit him. They are a all a bunch of treasonous bastards to the values of
>> Western Civilization and would take Mr. Sherman right in and honor him.
>> There Mr. Sherman could sip drinks at the caf? on the Champs Elysee in
>> Paris and discourse with other malcontents on the evils of America. As
>> you can see, I only have the future happiness of Mr. Sherman at heart.
>
> The French (and most other European nations) do not accept immigrants
> readily. Since my ancestors last lived in France about the time ***** was
> invading England, the French government is unlikely to grant me
> citizenship and pay for me to attend French language school. Too bad,
> since the food is generally much better in France than the US, they know
> how to have more fun protesting, they have a much shorter work week and
> retirement age, and a lot of good cycling roads.
>
> [1] George W. Bush played a part in staking the US claim for what is now
> Washington State.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
>

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> I assume that since the US isn't your "native land" and you've never become
> a naturalized citizen that you don't plan to apply for retirement benefits
> in the US. As for Washington State, I thought that was the King County
> Board of Elections, admitting voters from the other side of the grave, who
> staked that claim.

I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
to parents who are US citizens.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

 

[Freewheeling]

"I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
to parents who are US citizens."

I'm sorry, but if your point isn't about the nation to which you owe
allegiance then just exactly what is your point? Or are you just being
generically snarky because that's what you do? Whether or not those kids
were born in the US or not, they'd still be considered "native born
Americans," for instance for the purpose of the citizenship constraint on
Presidential candidates. And I'd just guess that their allegiance would be
toward the US rather than the country where they were born. But in either
case their allegiance would belong to *some* country, and most of their
"rights" would be determined by that country's legal system (assuming it had
one).

A gather you're saying that you don't owe this country allegiance, but I
don't really know whether you're saying that or not... because your intent
seems to be obscured by a darkening cloud. So, what *are* you saying,
exactly? Or is that too personal?

--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> I assume that since the US isn't your "native land" and you've never
>> become a naturalized citizen that you don't plan to apply for retirement
>> benefits in the US. As for Washington State, I thought that was the King
>> County Board of Elections, admitting voters from the other side of the
>> grave, who staked that claim.
>
> I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
> to parents who are US citizens.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
>

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
> to parents who are US citizens."
>
> I'm sorry, but if your point isn't about the nation to which you owe
> allegiance then just exactly what is your point? Or are you just being
> generically snarky because that's what you do? Whether or not those kids
> were born in the US or not, they'd still be considered "native born
> Americans," for instance for the purpose of the citizenship constraint on
> Presidential candidates. And I'd just guess that their allegiance would be
> toward the US rather than the country where they were born. But in either
> case their allegiance would belong to *some* country, and most of their
> "rights" would be determined by that country's legal system (assuming it had
> one).
>
> A gather you're saying that you don't owe this country allegiance, but I
> don't really know whether you're saying that or not... because your intent
> seems to be obscured by a darkening cloud. So, what *are* you saying,
> exactly? Or is that too personal?

I was arguing a point of fact.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> If he does not have the stomach for a Muslim nation, than France would
>> suit him. They are a all a bunch of treasonous bastards to the values of
>> Western Civilization and would take Mr. Sherman right in and honor him.
>> There Mr. Sherman could sip drinks at the cafes on the Champs Elysee in
>> Paris and discourse with other malcontents on the evils of America. As
>> you can see, I only have the future happiness of Mr. Sherman at heart.
>
> The French (and most other European nations) do not accept immigrants
> readily. Since my ancestors last lived in France about the time ***** was
> invading England, the French government is unlikely to grant me
> citizenship and pay for me to attend French language school. Too bad,
> since the food is generally much better in France than the US, they know
> how to have more fun protesting, they have a much shorter work week and
> retirement age, and a lot of good cycling roads.

France and all of Europe are being over run by Muslims from North Africa and
the Middle East (especially Turkey). Do these immigrants continue to live
in Europe without becoming citizens? I doubt it. Why Muslims come to Europe
is very mysterious since they hate and despise Christians. I guess it must
be because they want more material advantage in their lives, something that
only the Christian West can supply.

When you are settled in France, you can learn the language on your own. Yes,
it will be hard to make some of the necessary adjustments, but that is ever
the lot of an immigrant. The most important thing is that you will be in
tune politically with others of your kind. You can hate America to your
heart's content and love France and the French, ever a nation of whores.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Mr. Sherman wrote:

> "I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
> to parents who are US citizens."

Freewheeling wrote:

> I'm sorry, but if your point isn't about the nation to which you owe
> allegiance then just exactly what is your point? Or are you just being
> generically snarky because that's what you do? Whether or not those kids
> were born in the US or not, they'd still be considered "native born
> Americans," for instance for the purpose of the citizenship constraint on
> Presidential candidates. And I'd just guess that their allegiance would
> be toward the US rather than the country where they were born. But in
> either case their allegiance would belong to *some* country, and most of
> their "rights" would be determined by that country's legal system
> (assuming it had one).
>
> A gather you're saying that you don't owe this country allegiance, but I
> don't really know whether you're saying that or not... because your intent
> seems to be obscured by a darkening cloud. So, what *are* you saying,
> exactly? Or is that too personal?

Mr. Sherman no longer confronts an issue head on anymore. He is only into
side stepping these days. Unfortunately for him, this group is too
intelligent to be bamboozled by such childish tactics. And then there is
always you and me to bring him up short. He had best get with the program or
retire to strictly talking about tire sizes and other such sundry and
essentially trivial matters.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota



> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>> I assume that since the US isn't your "native land" and you've never
>>> become a naturalized citizen that you don't plan to apply for retirement
>>> benefits in the US. As for Washington State, I thought that was the
>>> King County Board of Elections, admitting voters from the other side of
>>> the grave, who staked that claim.
>>
>> I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
>> to parents who are US citizens.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
>>
>
>

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "I expect there are quite a few people born outside the borders of the US
>> to parents who are US citizens."
>>
>> I'm sorry, but if your point isn't about the nation to which you owe
>> allegiance then just exactly what is your point? Or are you just being
>> generically snarky because that's what you do? Whether or not those kids
>> were born in the US or not, they'd still be considered "native born
>> Americans," for instance for the purpose of the citizenship constraint on
>> Presidential candidates. And I'd just guess that their allegiance would
>> be toward the US rather than the country where they were born. But in
>> either case their allegiance would belong to *some* country, and most of
>> their "rights" would be determined by that country's legal system
>> (assuming it had one).
>>
>> A gather you're saying that you don't owe this country allegiance, but I
>> don't really know whether you're saying that or not... because your
>> intent seems to be obscured by a darkening cloud. So, what *are* you
>> saying, exactly? Or is that too personal?
>
> I was arguing a point of fact.

Yes, a trivial fact that had no bearing on the substance of the post. But
that is typical of you lately. Moreover, one hardly even knows what you are
talking about anymore because your allusions are so elliptical. No one here
is going to struggle to understand you because no one here is worth that
kind of effort. Finally, what good does it do to see a tree if you can't see
the forest. Forget the trivial fact **** and try to get up to speed, why
don't you.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> ...Moreover, one hardly even knows what you are
> talking about anymore because your allusions are so elliptical....

Do not criticize the ellipse. Without its discovery, my life's work
would have been for naught.

Johannes Kepler

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> The French (and most other European nations) do not accept immigrants
> readily. Since my ancestors last lived in France about the time ***** was
> invading England, the French government is unlikely to grant me
> citizenship and pay for me to attend French language school. Too bad,
> since the food is generally much better in France than the US, they know
> how to have more fun protesting, they have a much shorter work week and
> retirement age, and a lot of good cycling roads.

Where to begin? The French do not have better food than do we here in the
good old USA. They have very inferior food, but they have perfected sauces
and flavorings to make it taste better than it should. We do not have to
bother with such artifices because our food is naturally good and wholesome.

The French perfected the art of crowd control a couple of centuries ago by
randomly shooting protesters in the street. Rioting in the streets was
anything but fun back then, but who knows what the French are capable of
today.

There is no one in the world who is more in favor of a shorter work week
than myself. However, whether or not the French will be able to maintain
their present work schedule is highly debatable. We are now living in a
very competitive global economy. Those darn Chinese will put all of us out
of a job if we aren't careful.

As to good cycling roads, I will have to take your word on that. Perry
Butler has traveled extensively in Europe by bicycle, so maybe he could
advise us if the roads in France are any good for cycling. I do recall that
when I was in France a half century ago I do not believe I ever saw any
paved shoulders on the roads there.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.

--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> ...Moreover, one hardly even knows what you are talking about anymore
>> because your allusions are so elliptical....
>
> Do not criticize the ellipse. Without its discovery, my life's work would
> have been for naught.
>
> Johannes Kepler
>

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.

Get a clue. No one from any right wing think tank is reading
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, so you can stop auditioning for a job.

By the way, just because you declare you have won an argument, does not
make it so, pace Karl Rove.

Would you like to finish the discussion that we had a couple of years
ago about whether there were significant quantities of functional
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Why not take your discussions to the appropriate newsgroup?

Disclaimer: Yes, I have participated in off-topic political discussions
in the past. However, I have never started any, and only participated
because the constant stream of right-wing remarks was annoying me. Mr.
Talkington, on the other hand, has a history of looking to initiate
off-topic discussions.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
> > Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.
>
> Get a clue. No one from any right wing think tank is reading
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, so you can stop auditioning for a job.
>
> By the way, just because you declare you have won an argument, does not
> make it so, pace Karl Rove.
>
> Would you like to finish the discussion that we had a couple of years
> ago about whether there were significant quantities of functional
> weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
>
> Why not take your discussions to the appropriate newsgroup?
>
> Disclaimer: Yes, I have participated in off-topic political discussions
> in the past. However, I have never started any, and only participated
> because the constant stream of right-wing remarks was annoying me. Mr.
> Talkington, on the other hand, has a history of looking to initiate
> off-topic discussions.
>

If you don't respond to it then it dies

 

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Leuck wrote:

> If you don't respond to it [off-topic posts] then it dies

I wish this were so.

If NO ONE responds to an off-topic troll it dies. If I do not respond
but others do, it lives.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

I just joined an off topic thread, making the occasional on topic remark.
And I never raised a topic within the thread, but just responded to claims
made by others... mostly with plain old common sense. After which I was
called a blood thirsty war monger and a sociopath. Personally I don't think
anything I said has had an effect on you. The most devasting experience the
left has had was when Bin Laden and other terrorists started repeating their
arguments. And the impact wasn't obvious or immediate either, but subtle
and profound. Well, it impacted everyone but Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer,
apparently. But they've always been well insulated from reality. I really
wish we were living in that world where threats were minimal and where the
only thing any of us really had to be concerned with was how far and how
fast we mere going to pedal, and who we were going to do it with. I'd give
damn near anything to get that world back, and I really wish I were better
at temporary amnesia, so that I could forget this one once in awhile (or
just figure it's a matter of getting rid of this or that pol).

I think we're taking the shortest possible route back to that world, or no
one at least as good.

--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.
>
> Get a clue. No one from any right wing think tank is reading
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, so you can stop auditioning for a job.
>
> By the way, just because you declare you have won an argument, does not
> make it so, pace Karl Rove.
>
> Would you like to finish the discussion that we had a couple of years ago
> about whether there were significant quantities of functional weapons of
> mass destruction in Iraq?
>
> Why not take your discussions to the appropriate newsgroup?
>
> Disclaimer: Yes, I have participated in off-topic political discussions in
> the past. However, I have never started any, and only participated because
> the constant stream of right-wing remarks was annoying me. Mr. Talkington,
> on the other hand, has a history of looking to initiate off-topic
> discussions.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth
>

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Leuck wrote:
>
> > If you don't respond to it [off-topic posts] then it dies
>
> I wish this were so.
>
> If NO ONE responds to an off-topic troll it dies. If I do not respond
> but others do, it lives.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth

It appears he doesn't like YOU tho

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.
>
> Get a clue. No one from any right wing think tank is reading
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, so you can stop auditioning for a job.

Scott has often struck me as being somewhat liberal. I just can't believe
how accommodating he is to your nutty views from time to time. He has on
several occasions more than met you half way and made mediating remarks, but
you are a confounded liberal pig headed scoundrel and you never give an inch
on anything. Scott is a scholar and genteel; I am a gutter fighter the same
as you. That is why you deserve me and no one else.

> By the way, just because you declare you have won an argument, does not
> make it so, pace Karl Rove.

Anyone who can read can decide for themselves who has won an argument. We do
not need you to tell us that you think you have won. Karl Rove is a near
genius for having figured out how to win the election for Bush despite all
the major media being for Kerry. You are stuck with Michael Moore, a big fat
white man who is a treasonous *******, has no brain and is as ugly as a pig
to boot.

> Would you like to finish the discussion that we had a couple of years ago
> about whether there were significant quantities of functional weapons of
> mass destruction in Iraq?

Iraq was intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction. What else is there
to know about it. What a dunce you are!

> Why not take your discussions to the appropriate newsgroup?
>
> Disclaimer: Yes, I have participated in off-topic political discussions in
> the past. However, I have never started any, and only participated because
> the constant stream of right-wing remarks was annoying me. Mr. Talkington,
> on the other hand, has a history of looking to initiate off-topic
> discussions.

Well Hells Bells! Me neither! But that does not stop others from posting
whatever they want to this newsgroup. I can assure you that I will be here
as long as you are here to refute your every argument on behalf of the
treasonous America haters known as the far left, of which you are a charter
member.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom:
>
> I just joined an off topic thread, making the occasional on topic remark.
> And I never raised a topic within the thread, but just responded to claims
> made by others... mostly with plain old common sense. After which I was
> called a blood thirsty war monger and a sociopath.

Scott does not take an issue and run with it. I do that and Mr. Sherman does
it too. We both know what we are doing as we not poor little lambs who have
lost our way on the big bad world of Usenet. But Mr. Sherman is constantly
crying foul when the tables are turned on him. I do not do that because I
take responsibility for what I say. I will raise whatever topics I think
need to be raised in the course of a discussion, but then I stand by to
defend those topics I have raised. I do not run and hide and cry foul when
others take me to task.

Personally I don't think
> anything I said has had an effect on you. The most devasting experience
> the left has had was when Bin Laden and other terrorists started repeating
> their arguments. And the impact wasn't obvious or immediate either, but
> subtle and profound. Well, it impacted everyone but Ted Kennedy and
> Barbara Boxer, apparently. But they've always been well insulated from
> reality. I really wish we were living in that world where threats were
> minimal and where the only thing any of us really had to be concerned with
> was how far and how fast we mere going to pedal, and who we were going to
> do it with. I'd give damn near anything to get that world back, and I
> really wish I were better at temporary amnesia, so that I could forget
> this one once in awhile (or just figure it's a matter of getting rid of
> this or that pol).
>
> I think we're taking the shortest possible route back to that world, or no
> one at least as good.

Amen to all of the above!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota


> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>> Again Tom, this is the second-smartest thing you can do. Heh.
>>
>> Get a clue. No one from any right wing think tank is reading
>> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, so you can stop auditioning for a job.
>>
>> By the way, just because you declare you have won an argument, does not
>> make it so, pace Karl Rove.
>>
>> Would you like to finish the discussion that we had a couple of years ago
>> about whether there were significant quantities of functional weapons of
>> mass destruction in Iraq?
>>
>> Why not take your discussions to the appropriate newsgroup?
>>
>> Disclaimer: Yes, I have participated in off-topic political discussions
>> in the past. However, I have never started any, and only participated
>> because the constant stream of right-wing remarks was annoying me. Mr.
>> Talkington, on the other hand, has a history of looking to initiate
>> off-topic discussions.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
> Tom:
>
> I just joined an off topic thread, making the occasional on topic remark.
> And I never raised a topic within the thread, but just responded to claims
> made by others... mostly with plain old common sense. After which I was
> called a blood thirsty war monger and a sociopath. Personally I don't think
> anything I said has had an effect on you. The most devasting experience the
> left has had was when Bin Laden and other terrorists started repeating their
> arguments. And the impact wasn't obvious or immediate either, but subtle
> and profound. Well, it impacted everyone but Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer,
> apparently. But they've always been well insulated from reality. I really
> wish we were living in that world where threats were minimal and where the
> only thing any of us really had to be concerned with was how far and how
> fast we mere going to pedal, and who we were going to do it with. I'd give
> damn near anything to get that world back, and I really wish I were better
> at temporary amnesia, so that I could forget this one once in awhile (or
> just figure it's a matter of getting rid of this or that pol).
>
> I think we're taking the shortest possible route back to that world, or no
> one at least as good.

I see that someone can not resist posting his political views.

I am keeping an open mind about Usama bin Laden, as he has yet to state
his preference for highracers or lowracers.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>> Tom:
>>
>> I just joined an off topic thread, making the occasional on topic remark.
>> And I never raised a topic within the thread, but just responded to
>> claims made by others... mostly with plain old common sense. After which
>> I was called a blood thirsty war monger and a sociopath. Personally I
>> don't think anything I said has had an effect on you. The most devasting
>> experience the left has had was when Bin Laden and other terrorists
>> started repeating their arguments. And the impact wasn't obvious or
>> immediate either, but subtle and profound. Well, it impacted everyone
>> but Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, apparently. But they've always been
>> well insulated from reality. I really wish we were living in that world
>> where threats were minimal and where the only thing any of us really had
>> to be concerned with was how far and how fast we mere going to pedal, and
>> who we were going to do it with. I'd give damn near anything to get that
>> world back, and I really wish I were better at temporary amnesia, so that
>> I could forget this one once in awhile (or just figure it's a matter of
>> getting rid of this or that pol).
>>
>> I think we're taking the shortest possible route back to that world, or
>> no one at least as good.
>
> I see that someone can not resist posting his political views.
>
> I am keeping an open mind about Usama bin Laden, as he has yet to state
> his preference for highracers or lowracers.

Yup, I have got it right. Mr. Sheman is no longer up to these off topic
political discussions. Therefore, he should bow out and leave the field to
those of us who are. Most ARBR's know their limitations and behave
accordingly. We will be looking forward to your future postings on tire
sizes and other sundry and trivial matters.

> Tom Sherman - Earth

Here is a very confused man who does not know where he belongs. I have
already advised him on multiple occasions that "Rock Island - Illinois" is
the only possible signature for him. The only reason he does not take my
advice is to spite me.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

"I am keeping an open mind about Usama bin Laden, as he has yet to state
his preference for highracers or lowracers."

Sorry I treated you like an adult. My mistake.

--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>> Tom:
>>
>> I just joined an off topic thread, making the occasional on topic remark.
>> And I never raised a topic within the thread, but just responded to
>> claims made by others... mostly with plain old common sense. After which
>> I was called a blood thirsty war monger and a sociopath. Personally I
>> don't think anything I said has had an effect on you. The most devasting
>> experience the left has had was when Bin Laden and other terrorists
>> started repeating their arguments. And the impact wasn't obvious or
>> immediate either, but subtle and profound. Well, it impacted everyone
>> but Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, apparently. But they've always been
>> well insulated from reality. I really wish we were living in that world
>> where threats were minimal and where the only thing any of us really had
>> to be concerned with was how far and how fast we mere going to pedal, and
>> who we were going to do it with. I'd give damn near anything to get that
>> world back, and I really wish I were better at temporary amnesia, so that
>> I could forget this one once in awhile (or just figure it's a matter of
>> getting rid of this or that pol).
>>
>> I think we're taking the shortest possible route back to that world, or
>> no one at least as good.
>
> I see that someone can not resist posting his political views.
>
> I am keeping an open mind about Usama bin Laden, as he has yet to state
> his preference for highracers or lowracers.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth
>