|
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:13 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Ah, JHC. Could one of you (Bob or Jon) start trimming at least the: R, Tom Q. Hey...I filtered him a couple of hours ago. That didn't fix it? Surely he's not still talking to himself...is he? |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: snip Tom Quackenbush wrote: OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most important English philosophers and political thinkers of his age. He is noted as one of the leading proponents of utilitarianism. snip Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill. R, Tom Q. Here's his introduction to "On Liberty". http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from "self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal. Here is a synopsis of his life and work. http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection, population control and women's rights. If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: snip Tom Quackenbush wrote: OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most important English philosophers and political thinkers of his age. He is noted as one of the leading proponents of utilitarianism. snip Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill. R, Tom Q. Here's his introduction to "On Liberty". http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from "self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal. Here is a synopsis of his life and work. http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection, population control and women's rights. If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: snip Tom Quackenbush wrote: OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most important English philosophers and political thinkers of his age. He is noted as one of the leading proponents of utilitarianism. snip Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill. R, Tom Q. Here's his introduction to "On Liberty". http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from "self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal. Here is a synopsis of his life and work. http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection, population control and women's rights. If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: snip Tom Quackenbush wrote: OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most important English philosophers and political thinkers of his age. He is noted as one of the leading proponents of utilitarianism. snip Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill. R, Tom Q. Here's his introduction to "On Liberty". http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from "self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal. Here is a synopsis of his life and work. http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection, population control and women's rights. If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In rec.backcountry Rico X. Partay wrote:
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Quote from John Nash's Nobel prize biography on his recovery from schizophrenia: "Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort" |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutbag! Get any offers from Ringling Bros yet? -paggers paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: Rico X. Partay wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and you're probably too contaminated by notions of political correctness ever to learn. "Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about his politics; there's nothing concealed. By this chap's comical worldview, two-thirds of the population of India are lefties, Nope. Indians are not generally "vegan". You don't know your ass from your face. [...] You have next to no evidence that any of those people, historical and contemporary, are "vegan". I suppose quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Try to say what little you have to say in far fewer words next time, windbag. -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
I suppose quite a few of them were or are
vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters. GW |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65521 rec.gardens:259274 misc.survivalism:500742 misc.rural:115277 rec.backcountry:172192
paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: In article , "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. You know, I just about stopped reading that thread at that point, as some things are just so ignorant I lose interest in players whose thinking is SO poor that their perspective ceases to be worth weighing at all -- as even if I strongly disagree with someone, there should be some core worth at least passing consideration, & it's less fun to argue about it if the other side is just nose-pickin' with shit in his shorts gibbering random nonsense. I've heard some dumbass stuff for why my own vegetarianism is going to kill me, though I'm healthier than any of 'em after 25+ years of meatlessness. But the old it's-a-lefty-commy-pinko-conspiracy argument has never before been on the list of demented reasons for nutritional facts not being facts; makes as much sense as invoking butt-probing "greys" from outer space, who do indeed figure into many leftophobics' unusual beliefs. I retract what I said earlier about your writing ability being pretty good. You write shit, and you also are far too verbose in spreading your shit. I've seen you off and on for a few years now, and what always shines through brightly and with clarity is your monstrous ego. You are so taken with yourself and with your "take" that you can't rein yourself in. Look: less is more. A perfect example of how someone utterly devoid of reason No; not an example of that all. can at least call his betters names! No names called; no betters in evidence. Face it: your writing is lousy. You use far too many words to say...well, to say not much of anything at all. You mistake your logorrhea for wit. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 Message-ID: . net Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:21:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.165.17.130 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1071724916 68.165.17.130 (Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:21:56 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:21:56 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newshosting.com !news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!n ewsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthl ink.net!newsread2.news.pa s.earthlink.net.POSTED!ee405dca!not-for-mail Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65522 rec.gardens:259275 misc.survivalism:500744 misc.rural:115278 rec.backcountry:172193 Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:13 -0500, Tom Quackenbush wrote: Ah, JHC. Could one of you (Bob or Jon) start trimming at least the: R, Tom Q. Hey...I filtered him a couple of hours ago. You continued to respond to me after claiming to have killfiled me, liar. |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutbag! No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and on and on and... paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: Rico X. Partay wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and you're probably too contaminated by notions of political correctness ever to learn. "Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about his politics; there's nothing concealed. By this chap's comical worldview, two-thirds of the population of India are lefties, Nope. Indians are not generally "vegan". You don't know your ass from your face. [...] You have next to no evidence that any of those people, historical and contemporary, are "vegan". I suppose quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Try to say what little you have to say in far fewer words next time, windbag. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Tell them veggies exhibit fear if you hook one up to a polygraph and
start dicing up his friends. That should make them stop eating altogether. GW |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. So, why do you keep replying little puppet? |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. So, why do you keep replying little puppet? ================ To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a corner. BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close. Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65541 rec.gardens:259305 misc.survivalism:500893 misc.rural:115324 rec.backcountry:172220
Don wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a corner. Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my contention, because he is a reflexive defender of Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on talk.politics.animals and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a "vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products in his diet entirely for health reasons. BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close. It's spot on. Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:24:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. So, why do you keep replying little puppet? ================ To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support. Oh come on....surely I can get one more post out of you. You know you have to do it, if for no other reason, it makes you feel somehow superiour. Your turn. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? No, you flunked miserably: you didn't explain your answers, and your statement that you're not a "vegan" is inadequate if not an outright lie: As a vegetarian household we're making among other things baked "nut balls" for which the main ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut, filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices, mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together. We're additionally making some little tiny ones so that while we have our pasta & nutball course the ratties can be running about with their own little nutballs. http://tinyurl.com/333cb You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she can't follow basic instructions can't get away with much of anything. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? No, you flunked miserably: you didn't explain your answers, and your statement that you're not a "vegan" is inadequate if not an outright lie: As a vegetarian household we're making among other things baked "nut balls" for which the main ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut, filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices, mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together. We're additionally making some little tiny ones so that while we have our pasta & nutball course the ratties can be running about with their own little nutballs. http://tinyurl.com/333cb You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she can't follow basic instructions can't get away with much of anything. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutsack! Any offers from Ringling Bros? No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and on and on and... Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article , the moke monster
wrote: Tell them veggies exhibit fear if you hook one up to a polygraph and start dicing up his friends. That should make them stop eating altogether. GW On the pseudoscientific urban legend of telepathic plants: http://www.paghat.com/telepathic.html The short of it is -- this is science of sort that exists only in the minds of theosophists & sasquatch hunters. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutsack! Any offers from Ringling Bros? No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and on and on and... Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, Nope. maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. For a self absorbed windbag, you don't even flame worth a shit, either. Just out of curiosity...do you correspond with 'Swan', the fetal alcohol syndrome worse half of 'Rat & Swan'? You write very much like that garrulous lump of human wreckage. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote: I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) Everyone under the age of 50 is too young to have been up for the draft. Does that mean that in your imaginary world every American under 50 is a lefty or a commy pinko because of the abolition of the draft? But on the other hand, all Israeli Jews must be rightwingers cuz they have no choice but to serve in the Israeli armed forces? Thanks so much for clarifying how you think! 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. True conservatives believe the government should indeed keep its ass out entertainment & the press; & true liberals believe these liberties should be darned close to absolute. So a "yes" here means the respondent is EITHER a righty or a lefty. Unless you're paranoid, then it means what you "knew" it meant long before anyone answers. 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. I see, Goldwater was a lefty. Actual conservatives want government out of peoples' private personal lives & deeply value privacy protection; actual progressives agree with conservatives on this. If you thought otherwise, then you're not talking about left vs right, but sane vs. crazy. 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. Yes, William F. Buckley believe the War On Drugs is the abject failure that has done more harm than good. No, Buckley is not a vegatarian or a liberal, nor are Ederkin, Greenspan, . The issue of decriminalization vs legality are themselves completely separate issues, & the FACT of existing laws' harmfulness is distinct from the QUESTION whether effective & constructive laws are possible. So you've raised for distinct issues for which you want a single yes or no -- this works only in simple minds. The war on drugs is a failure, period, unless the goal was to disenfranchise black america while letting the vastly larger drug problem in white america pass unprosecuted. THINKING Conservatives & liberals alike can agree a completely different legal attitude toward drug abuse is required. Only a few fringies (as many fringy conservatives such as the libertarians as far-out-man retro hippy liberals) want harmful laws supplanted with drug anarchy. Well, as point of fact Greenspan & Buckley seem to outright legalization over harmful laws, but a greater number of conservatives favor decriminalization. The REAL distinction between right & left on this issue is the right generally wouldn't fund medical treatment of addicts once imprisonment ceases to be the ineffective response. 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. The actual progressive stance is that people should not have fewer rights than corporations. A growing percentage of conservative politicians, soon as all the corporations in their voting districts move across a border, are saying the same thing. 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. Once again you ask two distinct questions at once that for a great many require two different answers, but in your scaled down simpleminded world no two questions have two answers. Commonly (by no means universally) progressives don't support corporate welfare, but do support small farm assistance. Conservatives don't support either one when speaking philosophically; but when they become Elected conservatives they keep whittling away farm subsidies for the small farmer in order to give bigger & bigger tax breaks to oil company chums & agribusinesses like Monsanto. 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. Strangely a so-called "liberal" president pushed through that particular conservative agenda to give corporations more rights than individuals. One frequently finds conservatives & liberals in agreement that tarrifs are bad, free trade is good, but disagreements arise only when issues of protecting the environment or unionization are expected to be included. So the "left vs right" query here should've been either "Free trade is so important that all workers should be scabs" or "Free trade is so important toxic waste dumps across the border should stay legal." But if you're really positing that either the left or the right prefers a tariff system, that is considered a poor bandaid by both sides, though in fact tarrifs have been resorted to more often by right-leaning presidents including our current far-right unelected one. 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. The crankier libertarian ideas are rarely supported by either conservatives or liberals, as both sides would answer that one NOT with a yes or no, but with a "what the **** are you on, bub?" One COULD however easily identify a STATISTICAL difference between left-of-center vs right-leaning presidents: Democrats have historically spent less than Republican presidents & attempted to cover it with existing taxes; Republicans have cut taxes & increased spending in order to indebt the next generation. Reagan was the biggest spender of all time until Bush arrived on the scene. But out here in the real world most us, left or right, just want the government to live within its means & not tax us to death. Apart from the crazier liberatarians who regard themselves as purist conservatives, nobody advocates a world in which the fire department only stops fires for citizens who can afford to pay for the service & police only answer calls from subscribers. The way you phrase these questions tag you as an amazing loon to even think these are issues. 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. Appears you've either mistaken the fringiest conservatives such as libertarians for conservatives, or more likely you just don't understand even Politics 101 and have this series of crazy mixed up ideas so fungally rooted in your mind that you can't form rational yes/no queries. There may be (in principle, rarely in execution however) different ideas between left & right as to what foreign aid should consist of, but only crazies propose isolationism. THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VEGAN & VEGETARIAN: All vegans are vegetarians, not all vegetarians are vegans. Vegans don't eat meat, fish, eggs or cheese or meat; vegetarians don't eat AT LEAST red meat, & vary as to whether their vegetarianism includes chicken, fish, eggs, or milk products; the airlines like the distinction Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian and Vegetarian, the latter they assume to be vegans. Reasons for these choices range from sentimentality toward animals, to health concerns (you'd be surprised how many men, right or left, are vegans within a week of open heart surgery), to ancient religious ideologies. Many moslems traveling in the west become vegans until they get back to their home countries, because they know meat is not killed cleanly & sacredly here, unless it's kosher, but in that case a Jew touched it, yuk -- most of these vegan Muslims seem to be pretty damned rightwing sad to say. A fringier group may be concerned with parity of equal rights between chickens & people but these are such a minority that I've only actually met one or two in a quarter-century of vegetarian activism -- not counting the newsgroup wackos who're probably chomping on cheeseburger even as they post what a jerk you are for exploiting your yorkshire terrier as a companion animal instead of letting it run wild with the wolves. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
Jonathan Ball, a forger. Amazing. I thought you were just fantastically
stupid & I was even a little impressed you knew how to type, being that retarded. Now i see you are actually a morally reprehensible criminal who fakes IDs. If I were to be like you, I'd answer "your" post thus: Do you sit at your computer with a big plastic penis stuck up your ass? Jonathan's Balls answered: I sure do! It's the only time I'm happy! But thanks for at least making it clear you really don't have honest questions OR honest arguments for anything. -paghat the ratgirl In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she can't follow basic instructions can't get away with much of anything. -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat the lying carpet-muncher dissembled:
In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat the lying carpet-muncher dissembled: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? I didn't notice when I replied before that you sleazily and unethically edited out your comment in which you identified yourself as a vegetarian: As a vegetarian household we're making among other things baked "nut balls" for which the main ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut, filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices, mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together. We're additionally making some little tiny ones so that while we have our pasta & nutball course the ratties can be running about with their own little nutballs. http://tinyurl.com/333cb The statement is yours, lying slag. You posted it. Here's a link to another post from when you were using that posting e-mail address ): http://tinyurl.com/38n4q It has exactly the same overly precious, LONGWINDED, self-absorbed style. Yep: it's you, logorrheaic as ever. There was no forgery, you lying carpet-munching slag. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:21:05 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Frogleg wrote: Lurking behind EVERY "vegan's" - not vegetarian's - dietary choices is some kind of belief in animal "rights". An interesting point to focus on. The obverse, I suppose, must be that rightists believe the earth is here for people to exploit. We're not a part of the world; we're the reason for it. In that dichotomy, I confess I become a vegan (though I still eat cheese and, occasionally, eggs). Just because someone wrote a book once that says it's true don't make it so. K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:39:31 GMT, the moke monster
wrote: I suppose quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters. GW Yeah, I saw that bumper sticker, too. REALLY funny! K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote: Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't you? K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65582 rec.gardens:259356 misc.survivalism:501075 misc.rural:115429 rec.backcountry:172281
Babberney wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800, (paghat) wrote: Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't you? She isn't smart at all, just wordy. You shouldn't be confused so easily. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Greylock wrote:
Good science is apolitical. Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. No, you've omitted an important first step. Junk science first starts with a conclusion, usually one beloved for ideological reasons. Then a bogus theory is formulated that - quelle surprise! - predicts that conclusion, and the rest is as you laid out. See any of the (pseudo) scientific crapola posted in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. by the irrational Irish blowjob artist Lesley, posting recently under the pseudonym 'pearl'. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, blah blah blah... [snip remainder of tedious, WINDY anti-market rant] So...I just KNEW we'd get a frank admission of your ardent leftist belief out in the open sooner or later. You didn't need to write several hundred words in order to do it, though. |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article , (George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one. It would. It's completely dogmatic, UNSCIENTIFIC leftist tripe doing a shitty job of masquerading as analysis. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter