Re: Liberal Motto: Stay Out Of My Bedroom and quit spending into deficit oblivion!

"Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "JoettaB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "JoettaB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "Marie A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavil Natanovich) wrote in message
> > > > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Purple notes the same thing I have long noticed.  How often does
> > > > > > something have to be repeated before it assumes a truth of its
> own?
> > > > > > "The 'promotion' of gay marriage has 'devestating'
consequences."
> I
> > > > > > have heard numerous conservatives link homosexuality with
> > pedophilia.
> > > > > > It is done unconsciously (as most conservative thinking is
> > > > > > unconcious).
> > > > >
> > > > > You state, "How often does something have to be repeated before it
> > > > > assumes a truth of its own?" Well, since every question can be
> > > > > re-framed, what if I cast it in this manner: How often does
> something
> > > > > have to be denied before the denial
> > > > > assumes credibility? Well, in the case of denying a link between
> > > > > homosexuality and pedophilia, you can deny it until the sun winks
> out
> > > > > but it won't change the truth of the observation that a link
indeed
> > > > > exists. Now, of course one can get around this by redefining
things,
> > > > > as in the case of redefining pedophilia to include a broad class
of
> > > > > homosexual priests who assaulted young boys, but that dog won't
> hunt.
> > > > > You can count on one hand the girls molested by these priests, and
> > > > > that behavior simply doesn't fit the profile of pedophilia as
> commonly
> > > > > understood.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > should be superceded by community interests.  This again is
> completely
> > > > > backwards
> > > > > > from what one might hope to expect.  When I think
"conservative,"
> I
> > > > > > tend to think of individual rights NOT being trampled by
> government
> > > > > > authority.  Why is it then so-called liberal organizations like
> the
> > > > > > ACLU are the ones most staunchly defending individual rights,
> while
> > > > > > right-wing zealots seek to tear them down?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sir, what you may or may not "tend to think" about anything has
> about
> > > > > as much bearing on reality as your last dream. Just as many of us
> > > > > "tend to think" quite the opposite, that totalitarianism and
> > > > > authoritarian thinking invariably arises from the left, from a
> > > > > socialist mindset which is the hallmark of liberal thinking. When
> > > > > liberals decry government interference in our lives, their
concerns
> > > > > invariably center around sexual matters and licentious behaviors.
> > > > > However, in almost any other area you care to name, the sky's the
> > > > > limit with your gang where tolerance of the state in our personal
> > > > > affairs is concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest to you that no greater damage can be done to a
> people
> > > > > than through the taxing and regulatory mechanisms of the state,
yet
> I
> > > > > have never met a liberal who didn't instantly fall in love with a
> tax,
> > > > > any tax. It's not conservatives pushing for ever higher taxes and
> ever
> > > > > more punishing regulations. No, it's your crowd doing this, and if
> any
> > > > > government has it in its power to utterly destroy us, it's through
> > > > > extortionist taxes and draconian regulations which effectively
> > > > > determine what we can do, where we can do it and how we do it. But
> > > > > none of this seems to worry your crowd.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given my druthers, I would far prefer life under a government
which
> > > > > peeks it's nose into my bedroom from time to time than one which
> aims
> > > > > to steal my home AND bedroom because liberals like you would
rather
> > > > > tax me into the poorhouse by way of redistributing my money as you
> see
> > > > > fit. The former I can live with, while the latter will reduce me
to
> > > > > pushing a shopping cart. There's a hierarchy to freedoms, the
theft
> of
> > > > > certain ones rendering others problematic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cordially, Marie
> > > >
> > > > I should have know that Marie A. was in on this type of drivel. But,
> not
> > > > only to the democrats want you out of our bedrooms, but we want Bush
> to
> > > > quit spending like tomorrow will never come all to the benefit of
his
> > > > billionaire pals.
> > >
> > > For example?
> > >
> >
> > Can you say "Haliburton"?
>
> "Spending like tomorrow will never come" translates to precisely how much
> money, and what makes Halliburton Bush's pal?
>
You are nitpicking and you know it. Let's just face it, you buddy Bush is
not for the US citizens as he claims he is. He's out for himself and his big
oil baron pals. That's all there is to it. You continued baiting questions
only show your arrogance.