For all *&^%*&%$&^% Repubs --

[GROUCHO MARX]

MarkC, this guy was trolling. He's from Texas, so he's had more of Dubya than the rest of us. I just wish he would rant on his own, not some cut and paste effort I've seen many times before.

I appreciate your point, you God fearing treehugger.

 

[mikep]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moribundman:
Anyone who's not a staunch Republican is a pinko commie. ;-)

---

Yea, I haven't heard that term since I was a kid. Pretty funny stuff. Almost as funny as djones...not quite but pretty close.

 

[Matt_S]

Sprintman, in less technical terms, pinko is a word that originated during the McCarthy years when the government was going out of their way to persecute people who were perceived to have any "communist" tendencies. These people were basically American, and so weren't "Red" communists, but because of these percieved communist sympathies, they were labeled "pink" or "pinkos".

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

I regards to the original post... Terry McAuliffe, is that YOU???

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by djones75901:
Mr. Jones, because you are new on the board I will ignore the title of your post which I modified. President Bush is the correct way to address our Commander-In-Chief.

---

Hahahaha..Mr. Jones=Owned by the "Commander-in-Chief of the Oil Board

 

[chas3]

and guess what? still better than al "l...o...c...k... b...o...x..." gore.

 

[Pick]

Would like to see a post, showing a past president or future candidate with a squeaky clean, pristine, Christ like resume.

Those who do have squeaky clean pasts are probably not qualified to be President, or are only 5 years old.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:
I regards to the original post... Terry McAuliffe, is that YOU???

---

Here is the functioning bsmeter

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkC:
Just so you'll know, I consider myself an environmentalist

---

I like to make environmentally sound decisions, such as improving energy efficiency of my house and reducing my gas and electricity usage.

I really think that if more people took an active role to reduce the amount of energy they use as opposed to expecting the government to pass laws to do it for them, we all might be better off.

(Yes, I know, the culture of governmental dependency has so pervaded our country that the very idea seems alien, doesn't it?)

By the way, the ScanGauge said I got 30MPG on the way to work today. Not bad given that the EPA highway rating of that car is 29MPG.

 

[snoboy]

Reply to MarkC & Brian703,
Let me say that I too am Christian and extremely enviromentally conscious. If you felt yourself in my statement then I'm torn between apologizing or telling you to get out more often. I'll opt for the apology.
If you've ever attended a land closure hearing then you would not have taken any offense to my statement. You are not one of these people. And I doubt you've ever seen one in action.
As a Christian you worship Jesus Christ the Creator, you dont worship what he created. The evironazis' .. scratch that, enviroterrorists worship mommy earth as their diety. I've met these people and debated them in public forum at a few land use gatherings. They dont believe in compromise its their way or no way.
MarkC, I have come to learn that the term enviromentalist is not synonymous with being enviromentally conscious. I'm not talking about the bird watchers and nature seekers. If and when you ever meet an environazi it wont be at your local congregation. No, to find these people you dont head for the woods, you'll never find them there actually enjoying God's creation. Go to either your state capital or Washington DC. You'll find them there, highly funded, well networked and lobbying hard. Believe me they do not have the public's best interest in mind! God bless...snoboy

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mormit:

And yes, I stand by my statement that they take years to plan and execute their attacks on the US. I do not know how much time went into the Madrid attack ....

---

Actually, you didn't make the original statement specifically about "attacks in the US". The context was not explicit but it's a legitimate clarification and could have been your original intent.

The real point is that if we assume that Al-Qaeda will follow past attack patterns, we are idiots. Madrid has already shown the stupidity of that.