Discussion:
Democrats lose another one
(too old to reply)
Travel A
2011-01-13 04:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
BillB
2011-01-13 05:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
Necron99
2011-01-13 05:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_polit...
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
You don't see how it's possible that the attack wasn't politically
motivated?
How dim are you? He was a loon, maybe he just wanted to kill someone
famous and she was nearest.
There are a myriad of motivations, maybe his dog told him to do it or
an evil clown. Maybe he spoke to skillz.
Irish Mike
2011-01-13 05:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
Post by BillB
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
Or, the guy is a total fucking nut case and may have targeted her because
he knew she held easily accessible out door meetings, or because she
reminded him of his mommy or because he wanted attention. He was a total
lunatic Bill, so give your political spin machine a rest.

"Racism only comes in one color and that color is white!" - BillB

Irish Mike

The longest running war in American history is the war on poverty.
Between 1965 and today, the working "rich" people in America have
transferred more than $11 trillion dollars to the non-working "poor"
people in America.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Jerry Sturdivant
2011-01-13 14:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
Post by BillB
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
Or, the guy is a total fucking nut case and may have targeted her because
he knew she held easily accessible out door meetings, or because she
reminded him of his mommy or because he wanted attention.
Oh quit grasping at straws. It was political. He went to her meetings. The
FBI found where he has stated he disagreed with her politics.

One of his friends, says he never watched TV or never watched the news? More
BS for you go try to hang you hat on. His girlfriend says, "Overall he was
good." Yea, right; then she say he scared her and it's the reason she left
him.

Try some logic. How did he even know about the congresswoman; her politics
and where to go to her meetings. You've been lied to again. Quit grabbing
phony lies and alibis. He was just another right wing nut, egged on by right
wing media.


Jerry 'n Vegas














He was a total
Post by Travel A
lunatic Bill, so give your political spin machine a rest.
"Racism only comes in one color and that color is white!" - BillB
Irish Mike
The longest running war in American history is the war on poverty.
Between 1965 and today, the working "rich" people in America have
transferred more than $11 trillion dollars to the non-working "poor"
people in America.
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Travel A
2011-01-13 07:27:41 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics



BillB blithered:
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not
opinion.


I wrote:
That's code for: "it's the conservatives fault."
You keep telling yourself that. It doesn't look as if the vast majority
is agreeing with your pathetic vitriol.

The poll demonstrates that the people aren't buying this absured,
fabricated smear attack on conservatives. That's a fact, not opinion.


BillB blithered:
"He has no personal relationship with his target, so I don't see how
anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It clearly was,
one way or the other."


I wrote:
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.

If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.

It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.
BillB
2011-01-13 07:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.
Uh, if you kill a politician because you have a "thing" about authority,
that is a political motivation.
Post by Travel A
If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.
Could be. Still politically motivated.
Post by Travel A
It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.
Did anyone say it did?
Travel A
2011-01-14 03:48:36 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.


BillB blithered:
Uh, if you kill a politician because you have a "thing" about authority,
that is a political motivation.

I wrote:
No, not at all. The police picked him up or questioned him for petty
drug and various other violations about ten times. He also had all kinds
of trouble with school authorities. The school had to put a security
guard outside the classrooms due to his nuttiness.

So that's two major examples of the probable source of his resentment
for authority. Neither of which has do with politics.

I wrote:
If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.


BillB bithered:
Could be. Still politically motivated.

I wrote:
You have no proof of that, yet you blither it, anyway.

I wrote:
It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.

BillB
Did anyone say it did?

I wrote:
Uh, you've heard of the left-wing, mainstream media? And you're
obviously saying the same by implication.
Steam
2011-01-17 02:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.
Uh, if you kill a politician because you have a "thing" about authority,
that is a political motivation.
Post by Travel A
If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.
Could be. Still politically motivated.
Post by Travel A
It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.
Did anyone say it did?
It was obviously politically motivated. Assuming nut-by didnt know her
personally, tehn the only way it would not be politicallyh motivated was
if he had no idea who she was or that she was a politician and he just
decided to shoot someobody randomly who happened to be stainding on a
stage, but if his motivation was to shoot someone, or several people
randomly at a political rally, that is politically motivated.

That in itself is completely neutral as to whether he was inspired by
Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, it is only simple logic

________________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
susan
2011-01-17 11:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steam
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.
Uh, if you kill a politician because you have a "thing" about authority,
that is a political motivation.
Post by Travel A
If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.
Could be. Still politically motivated.
Post by Travel A
It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.
Did anyone say it did?
It was obviously politically motivated. Assuming nut-by didnt know her
personally, tehn the only way it would not be politicallyh motivated was
if he had no idea who she was or that she was a politician and he just
decided to shoot someobody randomly who happened to be stainding on a
stage, but if his motivation was to shoot someone, or several people
randomly at a political rally, that is politically motivated.
That in itself is completely neutral as to whether he was inspired by
Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, it is only simple logic
guess you didn't watch 60 min. last night?
Steam
2011-01-17 16:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
Post by Steam
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Giffords is the congresswoman in his district, you goof. She's in the
local news where he lives. He could have a psycho's "thing" about
authority and he went for the most convenient and most present in mind.
Uh, if you kill a politician because you have a "thing" about authority,
that is a political motivation.
Post by Travel A
If one picked up on your idiocy, one could claim that Loughner was
left-wing, followed the Daily Kos, and Rep Giffords wasn't "left enough"
for him (she's tough on illegal immigration, anti-gun control and
anti-taxes); the uber-left Daily Kos smeared Joe Lieberman over his
support for Bush's Iraq policies, for example. Etc. Etc.
Could be. Still politically motivated.
Post by Travel A
It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You're sucking
wind.
Did anyone say it did?
It was obviously politically motivated. Assuming nut-by didnt know her
personally, tehn the only way it would not be politicallyh motivated was
if he had no idea who she was or that she was a politician and he just
decided to shoot someobody randomly who happened to be stainding on a
stage, but if his motivation was to shoot someone, or several people
randomly at a political rally, that is politically motivated.
That in itself is completely neutral as to whether he was inspired by
Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, it is only simple logic
guess you didn't watch 60 min. last night?
That would be correct, I did not.

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
susan
2011-01-17 21:43:38 UTC
Permalink
"Steam"


Interesting report

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7253008n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
Travel A
2011-01-18 03:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Steam blithered:
"It was obviously politically motivated."


I wrote:
All the facts prove that it wasn't politically motivated: as defined by
the shooter being persuaded by conservative, political rhetoric.

For example, with regard to Sarah Palin, Loughner had a nutty "thing"
for Giffords going back to 2007, long before Sarah Palin was even chosen
by McCain to be a presidential running mate.

The only political motivation was from the left wing media: as the New
York Post's headline Sarah Palin with "blood on her hands," etc.

Unfortunately for you, you're "logic" is predicated on idiocy and an
obvious, shamelessly biased agenda.
Steam
2011-01-18 04:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
"It was obviously politically motivated."
All the facts prove that it wasn't politically motivated: as defined by
the shooter being persuaded by conservative, political rhetoric.
Who was defining that as politically motivated? I have made no such claim
that it was anything to do with being persuaded by conservative political
rehtoric, or by anyones rehtoric at all.

------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Steam
2011-01-18 04:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steam
Post by Travel A
"It was obviously politically motivated."
All the facts prove that it wasn't politically motivated: as defined by
the shooter being persuaded by conservative, political rhetoric.
Who was defining that as politically motivated? I have made no such claim
that it was anything to do with being persuaded by conservative political
rehtoric, or by anyones rehtoric at all.
I make no claim that he was even a right winger or any kind of political
statement at all regarding this idiot. ONly that he mayb have had a
grudge against her since several years ago, but he didnt have any kind of
persnal relationship, and he did shoot a poloitican (and some bystanders)
at a political rally, that sounds like de facto politically motovation.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Travel A
2011-01-18 09:35:39 UTC
Permalink
No, the facts include (even as reported by the left wing media) that
he's basically apolitical.
Steam
2011-01-18 17:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
No, the facts include (even as reported by the left wing media) that
he's basically apolitical.
That may be, but shooting a politician and a bunch of here supporters at a
political rally is still a political act, even if he is just expressing
his nihilism, that is a political motivation. HIs politics may have no
affiliation with any known group of people, I won't dispute that. So
maybe we are just arguing about semantics and definitions.

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Travel A
2011-01-19 04:44:03 UTC
Permalink
If that's the case, then you've reduced it to a, virtually, pointless
discusssion.
Steam
2011-01-19 05:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
If that's the case, then you've reduced it to a, virtually, pointless
discusssion.
It is a pointless discussion, I couldnt agree more. I'm not the one who
brought it up (and neither are you)

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Larry Gable
2011-01-13 11:23:12 UTC
Permalink
"I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated"
The shooter's friend Bryce Tierney doesn't seem to think it was.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/10/bryce-tierney-a-friend-of-loughner-opens-up-about-the-alleged-shooter/


"....Tierney remembers Loughner complaining about Giffords years
before the shooting. In 2007, Loughner met the congresswoman at a
rally. “He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he
asked a question,” Tierney said. “The question was, ‘What is
government if words have no meaning?’”

“Loughner said, ‘Can you believe it, they wouldn’t answer my
question,’ and I told him, ‘Dude, no one’s going to answer that,’”
Tierney continued. “Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had
something against her.”

Tierney said, "Ever since that (incident), he had something against
her."

He felt hurt & rejected [and probably embarrassed after getting
snubbed in front of a bunch of people]. So far it sounds personal, not
political....plus he's crazy as a loon.
Bob T.
2011-01-13 14:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Gable
"I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated"
The shooter's friend Bryce Tierney doesn't seem to think it was.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/10/bryce-tierney-a-friend-of-loughner-...
"....Tierney remembers Loughner complaining about Giffords years
before the shooting. In 2007, Loughner met the congresswoman at a
rally. “He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he
asked a question,” Tierney said. “The question was, ‘What is
government if words have no meaning?’”
“Loughner said, ‘Can you believe it, they wouldn’t answer my
question,’ and I told him, ‘Dude, no one’s going to answer that,’”
Tierney continued. “Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had
something against her.”
Tierney said, "Ever since that (incident), he had something against
her."
He felt hurt & rejected [and probably embarrassed after getting
snubbed in front of a bunch of people]. So far it sounds personal, not
political....plus  he's crazy as a loon.
My own pet theory is that he fixated on her because she's so
attractive, particularly after he felt personally rejected.

- Bob T
Dave the Clueless
2011-01-13 13:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
Post by BillB
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Reptillian
2011-01-13 14:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by BillB
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
He could have read it if he hadnt already asserted his knowitallness.

Now, forget it.

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
BillB
2011-01-13 16:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
Reptillian
2011-01-13 16:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
All

every always them us


moron, only you believe you.

You believe you fool people. lol.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Dave the Clueless
2011-01-13 16:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
Yes, there was. I'm not giving you a link. You really should to just a
tiny bit of research.

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Jerry Sturdivant
2011-01-13 18:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by BillB
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
Yes, there was. I'm not giving you a link.
Because you can't.















You really should to just a
Post by Dave the Clueless
tiny bit of research.
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Dave the Clueless
2011-01-13 19:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Sturdivant
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by BillB
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
Yes, there was. I'm not giving you a link.
Because you can't.
You really should to just a
Post by Dave the Clueless
tiny bit of research.
------ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Necron99
2011-01-13 20:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
I bet it's personal now.
Pepe Papon
2011-01-14 09:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
No, he didn't. All he was to her is another anonymous constituent. There was
no personal relationship.
He's trying to change the definition of "personal relationship".
FL Turbo
2011-01-13 19:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Travel A
Post by BillB
Post by Travel A
Maybe if the Democrats stopped lying, they'd be a happier party.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_voters_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics
Post by BillB
First of all, what a poll says has nothing to do with whether the attack
was, in fact, politically motivated. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Second, it has been established that the gunman specifically targeted
Congresswoman Giffords. He has no personal relationship with his target, so
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?

I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
BillB
2011-01-13 19:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any stretch
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.

They are just making shit up again, like they always do.

He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
FL Turbo
2011-01-13 20:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any stretch
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)

I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
Post by BillB
They are just making shit up again, like they always do.
He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
Yeah, well, whatever.
BillB
2011-01-13 21:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)
I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
You misunderstood yet again. It was fairly obvious I wasn't talking about
you. I was talking about the people who actually asserted a "personal
relationship." Why was that so hard to grasp?

A good rule of thumb in any excercise in reading comprehension (and
statutory interpretation, for that matter) is to look for the interpretation
*that actually makes sense*.
FL Turbo
2011-01-14 17:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)
I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
You misunderstood yet again. It was fairly obvious I wasn't talking about
you. I was talking about the people who actually asserted a "personal
relationship." Why was that so hard to grasp?
You addressed your post to me.
It's been immortalized on RPG.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by BillB
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by FL Turbo
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any
stretch
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.

They are just making shit up again, like they always do.

He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack
was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence
whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go
with
the overwhelming odds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a dumb conservative, so it looked just like you were talking to me
and about me.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Post by BillB
A good rule of thumb in any excercise in reading comprehension (and
statutory interpretation, for that matter) is to look for the interpretation
*that actually makes sense*.
A good rule of thumb in RGP is to address the post to the person you
are actually snarking.

It can avoid so many misunderstandings.
BillB
2011-01-14 17:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
You misunderstood yet again. It was fairly obvious I wasn't talking about
you. I was talking about the people who actually asserted a "personal
relationship." Why was that so hard to grasp?
You addressed your post to me.
It's been immortalized on RPG.
Correct. I was talking to you about the person(s) who asserted a "personal
relationship."

Allow me to repeat myself:

A good rule of thumb in any excercise in reading comprehension (and
statutory interpretation, for that matter) is to look for the interpretation
*that actually makes sense*.
FL Turbo
2011-01-14 18:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
You misunderstood yet again. It was fairly obvious I wasn't talking about
you. I was talking about the people who actually asserted a "personal
relationship." Why was that so hard to grasp?
You addressed your post to me.
It's been immortalized on RPG.
Correct. I was talking to you about the person(s) who asserted a "personal
relationship."
That was quite rude of you.
I was raised with the admonition that if you had something to say
about a person, to say it to their face and not talk behind their
back.
(Just so you understand "behind their back" is kinda like a metaphor
or simile or something, and not quite applicable to the Inet.)

It's just common courtesy.
Post by BillB
A good rule of thumb in any excercise in reading comprehension (and
statutory interpretation, for that matter) is to look for the interpretation
*that actually makes sense*.
Hah.
This coming from a lawyer?

Your job as a lawyer is to convince a jury that your particular
interpretation "makes sense", whether it does or not.

The job of the opposition lawyer is convince the jury of the opposite.

-----------------------------------------
-- I am not a real lawyer - I only play one on the Internet --
------------------------- F L(ee) Turbo ----------------------------
Dave the Clueless
2011-01-14 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any stretch
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)
I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
Post by BillB
They are just making shit up again, like they always do.
He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
Yeah, well, whatever.
Really, 99 times out of 100? How large is your sample size? Out of all the
US politicians who have been shot, how many were clearly politically
motivated and how many were not?

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2011-01-14 17:18:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:36:33 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any
stretch
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)
I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
Post by BillB
They are just making shit up again, like they always do.
He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
Yeah, well, whatever.
Really, 99 times out of 100? How large is your sample size? Out of all the
US politicians who have been shot, how many were clearly politically
motivated and how many were not?
Why did you address this post to me?

The quote you are replying to was written by BillB.
I was the "Yeah, well, whatever".

BTW,
As I've found out later, you are also the one he was calling a "dumb
conservative".
Well, that is unless I misunderstood him.
Dave the Clueless
2011-01-14 18:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:36:33 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose
not
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by Dave the Clueless
to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship by any
stretch
Post by FL Turbo
Post by BillB
of even a dumb conservative's imagination.
Read it again, Sam.
I didn't say that I considered it a "personal relationship"
I speculated that a schizo might consider it to be so.
(I am presuming that the aforementioned "dumb conservative" would be
me, and not the schizo.)
I misunderstand you so often that I had to make sure.
Post by BillB
They are just making shit up again, like they always do.
He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
Yeah, well, whatever.
Really, 99 times out of 100? How large is your sample size? Out of all the
US politicians who have been shot, how many were clearly politically
motivated and how many were not?
Why did you address this post to me?
Because I am clueless. Sorry.
Post by FL Turbo
The quote you are replying to was written by BillB.
I was the "Yeah, well, whatever".
BTW,
As I've found out later, you are also the one he was calling a "dumb
conservative".
Well, that is unless I misunderstood him.
I hope it was me, the contempt of the contemptible is an honor.

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Jerry Sturdivant
2011-01-13 20:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by FL Turbo
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:54:50 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
Post by Dave the Clueless
He had a 'personal relationship'. Can you not read or do you choose not to?
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
I spose that would qualify as "personal" to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Asking someone a question once is not a personal relationship
by any stretch of even a dumb conservative's imagination.
Well, not so fast. How many conservative, religious folks are now claiming
they have a "personal relationship" with their god?

Although, when I ask them what they talk about, they don't really claim
having a 'personal' conversation. Especially when I ask if god's voice
sounds old, or if he has an accent.
Post by BillB
They are just making shit up again, like they always do.
Heh.


Jerry (getting personal) 'n Vegas
Post by BillB
He targeted a politician, which 99 times out of 100 means the attack was
political in some form or another. Since there is no evidence whatsoever
that he did it to impress Jodie Foster or Pamela Anderson, I will go with
the overwhelming odds.
Abbey Johnsson
2011-01-13 20:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
of course, the question was probably not nonsensical to him. perhaps it
was in fact a perfectly sensible question but he phrased it badly. if she
treated his question in a curt manner or ignored him (even causing a few
people to chuckle) and he felt embarrassed because if the public setting,
he may indeed have harbored a growing resentment toward her. i say this
from personal experience. a similar thing happened to me 20 yrs ago i
still think about it once in a while.

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2011-01-13 21:27:27 UTC
Permalink
"Abbey Johnsson"
Post by Abbey Johnsson
Post by FL Turbo
Are you thinking of the 2007 incident, where he asked her a
nonsensical question and she ignored it?
of course, the question was probably not nonsensical to him. perhaps it
was in fact a perfectly sensible question but he phrased it badly. if she
treated his question in a curt manner or ignored him (even causing a few
people to chuckle) and he felt embarrassed because if the public setting,
he may indeed have harbored a growing resentment toward her. i say this
from personal experience. a similar thing happened to me 20 yrs ago i
still think about it once in a while.
Have you built a shrine?
Reptillian
2011-01-13 14:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
I don't see how anyone can say the attack wasn't politically motivated. It
clearly was, one way or the other.
You have an insulting way of asserting your beliefs and lack of
imagination as truth.

I dont mind because pretty much anyone who reads your crap sees through
it. Thats quite a feat, transparent shit.

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...