>>> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>> stephenJ wrote, On 11/4/09 3:43 PM:
>>>>>  > Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>>>>> When St. Peter lets you know that you're going to hell,
>>>>>> remember that you called the leader of the free world
>>>>>> in WWII a fascist. I remember a time when a guy could
>>>>>> get his ass kicked at the American Legion hall for
>>>>>> spouting shit like that.
>>>>> .. or sent to a concentration camp. and heck you didn't even have to
>>>>> call the president a fascist - all you had to be was of japanese ancestry.
>>>> As immoral as that was, comparing FDR to Mussolini is an
>>>> ass-kicking-worthy thing.
>>>       Yes, it was amazing how FDR somehow managed to run roughshod
>>> over the huge storms of protest from the Repubublican Party and the
>>> military commanders over Japanese internment.  That FDR sure was a
>>> rogue fascist!@!1!  *guffaw*
>> Interesting POV.   A leader who puts people in concentration camps
>> can't be a fascist unless those who stood against his policies did so
>> with a certain level of zeal?  Wow.

>> -Tom Enright

>>> Huck

> I'm absolutely convinced that you would have agreed with FDR at the
> time, unless you wanted some stronger measure taken.

>> > > I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big loss
>> > > for
>  the
>> > > teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.

>> > The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
>> > takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
>> > conservatism movement.

>> LOL

> 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
> conservatives."
> 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
> "social conservativism."

> > On Nov 5, 5:28 am, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 5:00 pm, Huck Kennedy <tempeh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> stephenJ wrote, On 11/4/09 3:43 PM:
> >>>>>  > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >>>>>> When St. Peter lets you know that you're going to hell,
> >>>>>> remember that you called the leader of the free world
> >>>>>> in WWII a fascist. I remember a time when a guy could
> >>>>>> get his ass kicked at the American Legion hall for
> >>>>>> spouting shit like that.
> >>>>> .. or sent to a concentration camp. and heck you didn't even have to
> >>>>> call the president a fascist - all you had to be was of japanese ancestry.
> >>>> As immoral as that was, comparing FDR to Mussolini is an
> >>>> ass-kicking-worthy thing.
> >>>       Yes, it was amazing how FDR somehow managed to run roughshod
> >>> over the huge storms of protest from the Repubublican Party and the
> >>> military commanders over Japanese internment.  That FDR sure was a
> >>> rogue fascist!@!1!  *guffaw*
> >> Interesting POV.   A leader who puts people in concentration camps
> >> can't be a fascist unless those who stood against his policies did so
> >> with a certain level of zeal?  Wow.

> >> -Tom Enright

> >>> Huck

> > I'm absolutely convinced that you would have agreed with FDR at the
> > time, unless you wanted some stronger measure taken.

> I'm not convinced he would have supported the declaration
> of war, actually.

> cb

> > cb
> probably true, but once we were at war I'm sure he would have
> supported internment.

> > On Nov 5, 9:04 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 3:35 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >> > > I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big loss
> >> > > for
> >  the
> >> > > teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.

> >> > The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
> >> > takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
> >> > conservatism movement.

> >> LOL
> > 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
> > conservatives."
> > 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
> > "social conservativism."
> I'd bet that majority is about 85%.

>> > On Nov 5, 9:04 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 4, 3:35 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> >> > > I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big
>> >> > > loss for
>> >  the
>> >> > > teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.

>> >> > The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
>> >> > takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
>> >> > conservatism movement.

>> >> LOL

>> > 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
>> > conservatives."
>> > 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
>> > "social conservativism."

>> I'd bet that majority is about 85%.

> I bet it is lower, however, point #2 is more important.

> > On Nov 5, 1:28 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
> >> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:3bff1f20-246d-44e4-b2a9
> > -703d037bc...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> >> > On Nov 5, 9:04 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 4, 3:35 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >> >> > > I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big
> >> >> > > loss for
> >> >  the
> >> >> > > teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.

> >> >> > The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
> >> >> > takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
> >> >> > conservatism movement.

> >> >> LOL

> >> > 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
> >> > conservatives."
> >> > 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
> >> > "social conservativism."

> >> I'd bet that majority is about 85%.

> > I bet it is lower, however, point #2 is more important.

> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
> too socially liberal"

> --
> Aaron

>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
>>> increases a seat.

>>> cb

>> It's like the blue Senator from Alaska.  It will be corrected ASAP. To
>> hop on this, you must be sensing the coming doom.

>Yeah, why else would I laugh out loud at the GOP's mouthbreather
>caucus fumbling away a sure seat for them?

>cb

> > On Nov 5, 1:28 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
> >> TomEnright<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:3bff1f20-246d-44e4-b2a9
> > -703d037bc...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> >> > On Nov 5, 9:04 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 4, 3:35 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >> >> > > I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big
> >> >> > > loss for
> >> >  the
> >> >> > > teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.

> >> >> > The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
> >> >> > takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
> >> >> > conservatism movement.

> >> >> LOL

> >> > 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
> >> > conservatives."
> >> > 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
> >> > "social conservativism."

> >> I'd bet that majority is about 85%.

> > I bet it is lower, however, point #2 is more important.

> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
> too socially liberal"

>>> On Nov 5, 1:28 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>>>> TomEnright<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> innews:3bff1f20-246d-44e4-b2a9
>>> -703d037bc...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:04 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:35 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big
>>>>>>>> loss for
>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>> teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.
>>>>>>> The teabag movement is an anti-big-government, antiicorporate
>>>>>>> takeover, anti-blowing-up-the-debt movement.  Not a social
>>>>>>> conservatism movement.
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>> 1.  I bet the majority of the Tea Party folks are "social
>>>>> conservatives."
>>>>> 2.  I know its founding and continuation has nothing to do with
>>>>> "social conservativism."
>>>> I'd bet that majority is about 85%.
>>> I bet it is lower, however, point #2 is more important.
>> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
>> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
>> too socially liberal"

> Examples?

> > Examples?
> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.

>>>> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
>>>> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
>>>> too socially liberal"
>>> Examples?

>> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.

> Those aren't examples.  One is a NY congressional district and the
> other is a person's name.

> >>>> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
> >>>> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
> >>>> too socially liberal"
> >>> Examples?
> >> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.
> > Those aren't examples.  One is a NY congressional district and the
> > other is a person's name.
> Yes, they are cases where Republicans were RINOed for
> being insufficiently hardline against abortion.

> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/6/09 11:04 AM:
>>> On Nov 6, 11:50 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/6/09 7:20 AM:

>>>>>> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
>>>>>> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
>>>>>> too socially liberal"

>>>>> Examples?

>>>> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.

>>> Those aren't examples.  One is a NY congressional district and the
>>> other is a person's name.

>> Yes, they are cases where Republicans were RINOed for
>> being insufficiently hardline against abortion.

> 1.   They are both RINOs on more than just abortion.....
> 2.  But that doesn't matter anyway, because we aren't refering to
> "Republicans" but "Tea Partiers."

> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/6/09 11:04 AM:
> >>> On Nov 6, 11:50 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/6/09 7:20 AM:

> >>>>>> No, the actions of the teabagger contigent matters a whole lot more than
> >>>>>> their stated purposes... and their actions say "we'll RINO you for being
> >>>>>> too socially liberal"

> >>>>> Examples?

> >>>> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.

> >>> Those aren't examples.  One is a NY congressional district and the
> >>> other is a person's name.

> >> Yes, they are cases where Republicans were RINOed for
> >> being insufficiently hardline against abortion.
> > 1.   They are both RINOs on more than just abortion.....
> > 2.  But that doesn't matter anyway, because we aren't refering to
> > "Republicans" but "Tea Partiers."
> Who do you think RINOed them out? Does the name "Dick Armey" ring
> a bell?

> NY 23. Arlen Specter. Etc.

>And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
>increases a seat.

>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats
>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.

>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
>> increases a seat.

> Of course, the fact that the idiot Republicans nominated someone to
> the LEFT of the Dem nominee had nothing to do with it.

> Do you really think the Dem was going to lose to that wacky bitch the
> idiot Repubs nominated?

> Hey, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>... keep the change, you filthy
> animal.

> >New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats
> >for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.

> >And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
> >increases a seat.

> Of course, the fact that the idiot Republicans nominated someone to
> the LEFT of the Dem nominee had nothing to do with it.

> Do you really think the Dem was going to lose to that wacky bitch the
> idiot Repubs nominated?

> John M. Rogers
> AU Class of 1985
> The Al Del Greco of Atlanta

>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats
>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.

>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
>>> increases a seat.

>> Of course, the fact that the idiot Republicans nominated someone to
>> the LEFT of the Dem nominee had nothing to do with it.

>> Do you really think the Dem was going to lose to that wacky bitch the
>> idiot Repubs nominated?

>Yes. By 15 points at least.

>>New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats
>>for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.

>>And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually
>>increases a seat.

> Of course, the fact that the idiot Republicans nominated someone to
> the LEFT of the Dem nominee had nothing to do with it.

> Do you really think the Dem was going to lose to that wacky bitch the
> idiot Repubs nominated?