From: Stuffed Crust on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
> god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.

If they're socialists, they're damn incompetent ones -- real socalists
would have given us universal, single-payer health care.

> answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
> exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this

Well, I have no reason to mail her, she's not my rep in congress.
Instead, I have Bill "Birther" Posey (R), who isn't likely to be
re-elected, and doesn't even bother to send me the "loookee what I"ve
done for you!" mailers.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
From: tony cooper on
On 17 Apr 2010 02:51:10 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org>
wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
>> god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.
>
>If they're socialists, they're damn incompetent ones -- real socalists
>would have given us universal, single-payer health care.
>
>> answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
>> exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this
>
>Well, I have no reason to mail her, she's not my rep in congress.
>Instead, I have Bill "Birther" Posey (R), who isn't likely to be
>re-elected, and doesn't even bother to send me the "loookee what I"ve
>done for you!" mailers.
>
> - Solomon

Well, I have John "That's not roadkill, it's my toupee" Mica as mine.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>Yes, Stephanie, I have come to ignore most of your posts

And that is how Harrington convinces himself that he's right - he
simply ignores any fact which he doens't like.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: stephe_k on
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-04-16 13:27:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:

>>
>> More projection. You'll have to do a lot more twisting and turning
>> than that
>> to get all that egg off your face.
>
> It was not my face which got splattered in this exchange.
>
> Your initial attempt at ridicule is what did not quite work out. Just
> because you find the term "homophobia" inapprotiate, does not make it
> invalid.
>

I wonder if Neil has noticed NO ONE has backed him up on anything he has
said here, yet he still believes 99% of the world thinks like he does...

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hq8rd5$otd$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks
>>>> they should be allowed to control how other people live.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>> I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I
>>> just don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be
>>> allowed to control how other people live." Only government and the
>>> law should have that kind of power, and even they should be subject
>>> to the restraints of the constitution. If there are no one else's
>>> rights involved, then someone should be able to do whatever he/she
>>> damn well pleases.
>>
>>
>> I have to agree with that. As long as what they do doesn't have a
>> negative impact on my life (like stealing from me or burning down my
>> house etc) or violate -my- rights, they should be allowed to do
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> Right. And, it's the job of the courts to decide when exercising your
> rights infringes on someone else's rights and shouldn't be
> allowed....there are always conflicts in this realm, and the courts are
> kept busy as a result......Now, please tell me why the bartender in Palo
> Alto shouldn't be allowed to put a sign on his entrance door saying,
> "This is a smoking bar. If you come in here, you will be subjected to
> second hand smoke. There are lots of non-smoking bars in town....Please
> go to one of them if you don't like second hand smoke." Whose rights are
> being violated by that sign, and are the violations bad enough to
> overshadow the right of the bar owner to operate a smoking bar?


I've got NO real problem with that. I honestly have to say though, I am
VERY glad they made smoking illegal in public buildings where I live.
I've had too many nice meals ruined by a smoker at the next table who
seemed to be waiting for my food to arrive to fire up a smoke and blow
it at me while I was trying to eat. Then after he finished his smoke,
ruining my meal, he would leave. Why couldn't he leave and then smoke?
Or at least notice someone was eating. Notice the smoker would always
put out their smoke when THEIR food arrived..

I can see in a bar why people would like to smoke while they drink
though. But as in the above, if smokers had used just a tiny bit of
common courtesy, this probably wouldn't have been outlawed.

Stephanie