From: Fred K. Gringioni on 10 Apr 2010 12:40 "kenpitts" <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f1dcdd30-a2e7-48da-9f02-136704676e73(a)r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > I've lost 50 lbs since September Randy. I'm doing something about it. Congratulations (seriously).
From: Fred K. Gringioni on 10 Apr 2010 12:47 "kenpitts" <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4d3be88a-dee9-417b-8988- > find the current crop of far left Democrats every bit as distasteful > as you find these people. But, when elected, they have every right to > chase after this radical agenda as we see them doing. They will pay a > price in November. They'll pay a price in November, but not for the reason you state. The reasons why they'll take a beating are: 1) the party which occupies the executive branch traditionally takes a beating during midterm elections 2) the economy sucks and the party in power also traditionally takes a beating when the economy sucks The Democrats took a gigantic beating in 1994 and right wing ideologues like yourself would like to claim that it was because of Clinton's liberal agenda. That's not what it was. The economy sucked, the Dems were the party in power so they lost control of both houses of Congress, but the economy turned around by 1996 and Clinton go re-elected. It's all about the economy.
From: Carbon on 10 Apr 2010 13:24 On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:04:00 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > On Apr 10, 10:28 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:08:10 -0700, kenpitts wrote: >>> On Apr 10, 9:10 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >>>> In article <2010041010002379981-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, >>>> none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com says... >>>>> On 2010-04-08 18:45:17 -0400, kenpitts said: >>>>> >>>>>> Fred, Watson and Mickleson at the top of the leader board, with >>>>>> Tiger on the ourside looking in. Could we just take this to the >>>>>> back nine Sunday? I would take any of the three as winner right >>>>>> now. >>>>> >>>>> Your dream come true at Augusta would be for them to replace the >>>>> Green Jacket with a White Sheet. >>>> >>>> Why don't you give them yours, if you can part with it for any >>>> lenght of time. >>> >>> Brown is one of these bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden, urban, white >>> liberals. He can be sympathetic for radical causes like the rabble >>> that invade global economic summits but he would never (rightly so) >>> show anything but disdain for the Klan. His problem is that >>> conservatives like me and Laville must be marginalized and explained >>> away as members of the Klan or worse. Please refer to Saul Alinsky >>> here. >>> >>> I wonder how, with his Democratic alliances, he works it out that >>> Southern Democrats were the ones who stood in the school house doors >>> and tried to block he passage of the Civil Rights Act. Rockefeller >>> Republicans pushed that over the top. Also, his head probably >>> explodes when he thinks about Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Democratic >>> senator from West Virginia. >> >> Type "southern strategy" into the Google. The Republicans actively >> recruited Southern racists years ago, and they moved pretty much en >> masse to the Republican party. You surely know this already... > > Was what I said about what happened in the 60's not true? Byrd is still > a member of the Senate in spite of the fact that he was a member of the > Klan, an officer in fact. > > You make it sound like conservatives in the South should somehow go > without representation, be disenfranchised. Like it or not, they are > still citizens. > > I find the current crop of far left Democrats every bit as distasteful > as you find these people. But, when elected, they have every right to > chase after this radical agenda as we see them doing. They will pay a > price in November. Southern racists were predominately Democrat, then fairly quickly they were predominately Republican. For almost my entire lifetime, racists have overwhelmingly voted Republican. What's next? The Civil War?
From: R&B on 10 Apr 2010 13:35 On 2010-04-10 11:08:10 -0400, kenpitts said: > On Apr 10, 9:10�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> In article <2010041010002379981-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, >> none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com says... >> >> >> >>> On 2010-04-08 18:45:17 -0400, kenpitts said: >> >>>> Fred, Watson and Mickleson at the top of the leader board, with Tiger >>>> on the ourside looking in. Could we just take this to the back nine >>>> Sunday? I would take any of the three as winner right now. >> >>>> Ken >> >>> Your dream come true at Augusta would be for them to replace the Green >>> Jacket with a White Sheet. >> >>> Randy >> >> Why don't you give them yours, if you can part with it for any lenght of >> time. > > Brown is one of these bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden, urban, white > liberals. He can be sympathetic for radical causes like the rabble > that invade global economic summits but he would never (rightly so) > show anything but disdain for the Klan. His problem is that > conservatives like me and Laville must be marginalized and explained > away as members of the Klan or worse. Please refer to Saul Alinsky > here. No, actually, I don't believe I've ever said anything to indicate whether I believe David is a racist. I have no reason to believe he is. You, on the other hand, have made statements here in RSG that give a pretty clear indication, starting with your 1996 diatribes about the desirability of keeping blacks out of private country clubs and your remarks about how Tiger Woods has only invited "the ghetto element" into golf. One needn't dig too deep to find such remarks from you. > I wonder how, with his Democratic alliances, he works it out that > Southern Democrats were the ones who stood in the school house doors > and tried to block he passage of the Civil Rights Act. George Wallace? I don't think you'll find many Democrats who would claim him. Plus, it was the Republicans who turned to the "Southern Strategy" in '68. Plus, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president in the very town where civil rights workers were killed. It is Republicans who have opposed every "equal employment" initiative in the modern era. And it was the Republican National Convention in 2008 that looked like a white supremacist rally. You had to look pretty closely to spot even one person of color on the convention hall floor. > Rockefeller > Republicans pushed that over the top. Oh, really? And who was the president who had to make back room deals to get it through? That would be *Democratic* President LBJ. Besides, Nelson Rockefeller would be run out of the Republican Party today, and you know it. Hell, even Barry Goldwater would be considered a flaming liberal by the standards of today's radical Republican party. Hell, Goldwater's own descendents...and Republican President Eisenhower's descendents -- they're all Democrats now. Why? Because they've seen the Republican Party become a regional, racist, reactionary, radicalized party of a diminishing number of people. Randy
From: R&B on 10 Apr 2010 13:42
On 2010-04-10 12:47:07 -0400, Fred K. Gringioni said: > "kenpitts" <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4d3be88a-dee9-417b-8988- > > >> find the current crop of far left Democrats every bit as distasteful >> as you find these people. But, when elected, they have every right to >> chase after this radical agenda as we see them doing. They will pay a >> price in November. > > > > They'll pay a price in November, but not for the reason you state. > > The reasons why they'll take a beating are: > > 1) the party which occupies the executive branch traditionally takes a > beating during midterm elections > > 2) the economy sucks and the party in power also traditionally takes a > beating when the economy sucks > > The Democrats took a gigantic beating in 1994 and right wing ideologues > like yourself would like to claim that it was because of Clinton's > liberal agenda. That's not what it was. The economy sucked, the Dems > were the party in power so they lost control of both houses of > Congress, but the economy turned around by 1996 and Clinton go > re-elected. > > It's all about the economy. You are, of course, correct. However, to assume that things won't be looking up by the time the November elections roll around is a little premature. Nobody's predicting that the turnaround will be complete by then. But there are improving signs even now. There's no issue that more unifies Americans of both parties than the issue of Wall Street and Banking regulation. The vast majority of Americans hate the bail-outs, and most of all, they hate that the Wall Street douchebags keep failing and still walking away with taxpayer-funded golden parachutes as their reward for failing. Republicans will likely continue to be the Grand Obstructionist Party when the Obama Administration pushes for increased regulation and oversight on the banking industry and Wall Street. Republicans are so married to being the Party of No that they will likely allow their momentum to carry them forward with a similar strategy in the fight over banking regulation. This could prove politically suicidal, given the overwhelmingly negative perception the people have toward the banking industry and Wall Street. Don't think for a minute that won't be played up in the campaign this fall. And remember, in the Health Care vote, every Republican voted in favor allowing 45,000 Americans to die each year due to having no health insurance. Now that reform has passed and the world as we know it hasn't ended, all the Republican lies in the lead-up to the health care vote will finally come to light and folks will realize that reform actually helped them. The Republicans surely won't benefit from the truth getting out there. Randy |