Ed, define "Liberal"

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 21 Jan 2006 03:08:45
From:
Subject: Ed, define "Liberal"

Ed,

I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
politics and voting record.

Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?

And Ed, feel free to pontificate!

Enjoy,

Perry B

PS, sorry I top-posted!

Date: 17 Mar 2006 02:22:35
From: jeffgrip
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Perry,

I think you are correct and I'd withdraw my earlier message were that
possible. I keep looking for the civil way out of this and there almost
certainly isn't one.

I think I had something to say in that post but I don't think I said it
well. It is entirely possible that I was talking to myself and not to
you. I accept the "pot calling the kettle black" analogy.

I will always seek the peaceful path but when someone is hitting you
with a stick, that is perhaps not the best time to be preaching.

Regards,
Jeff

perryb67@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>
> > This is way over the top. (Whoever thought I be in the position of defending
> > Ed Dolan?).
> >
> > To toss insults back and forth with E.D. is pointless (kind of like a Middle
> > East conflict).
> >
> > 1. It doesn't make any impact over there.
> > 2. You become what you don't like (or at least someone you don't want to
> > be).
> > 3. You just keep it going and going and going.
> > 4. You can't win and even if you could, there's no prize worth winning.
> >
> > When you are insulted or slandered you should speak up once but after that,
> > the continued repitition only makes the person doing it look foolish.
> >
> > I don't bother responding to the charges of being a "smy baby-killing New
> > York Jew" anymore because there is nothing I could retort with that makes
> > him look as bad as what he said in the first place. Nobody likes being
> > insulted in public and I realize that "he started it" but you have the inner
> > strength to stop it. He's the most prolific poster. Those of us who haven't
> > kill filed him and still read what he posts know who he is.
> >
> > Relax.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > PS
> >
> > I don't mean to be "preachy" but you are a better person then this posting
> > would reflect.
>
> Jeff,
>
> I also know that "you are a better person then this posting would
> reflect." However, in this case I see the pot calling the kettle
> black.
>
> Over the top? I don't think so. I think it was quite accurate. On
> one hand I have nothing to hide, on the other, Ed does. Plesase don't
> defend Ed, it lowers my opinion of you.
>
> Define "over the top." What's over the top for one person is still
> climbing for another. This is the first time I have seen something be
> over the top for Ed, however. Sometimes the truth hurts.
>
> If Ed, yourself, and others can't handle this expos'e on Ed then you
> shouldn't be reading Ed's/other's OT posts. You certainly know that.
> One thing you apparently forgot; I started this thread and it was OT
> from the beginning.
>
> Notice in Ed's reply to my ch 5 post that Ed finally had nothing of
> value to reply. Why? Because it is a dead-on, accurate profile of Ed.
> It forces Ed to look in the mirror. People don't like the truth,
> apparently you included. This branch will end not because of you
> asking me to, but because, for the first time, Ed finally had nothing
> to say. Again, the truth hurts.
>
> A couple of years ago Ed Dolan and Tom Sherman and others ruined ARBR
> as far as recumbent talk was concerned. If you want recumbent talk
> you'll find that over on BROL. This place is now another Usenet
> cesspool used by people such as Eddie, Tommy, you and myself.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Perry B

Date: 12 Mar 2006 06:46:08
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Jeff Grippe wrote:

> This is way over the top. (Whoever thought I be in the position of defending
> Ed Dolan?).
>
> To toss insults back and forth with E.D. is pointless (kind of like a Middle
> East conflict).
>
> 1. It doesn't make any impact over there.
> 2. You become what you don't like (or at least someone you don't want to
> be).
> 3. You just keep it going and going and going.
> 4. You can't win and even if you could, there's no prize worth winning.
>
> When you are insulted or slandered you should speak up once but after that,
> the continued repitition only makes the person doing it look foolish.
>
> I don't bother responding to the charges of being a "smy baby-killing New
> York Jew" anymore because there is nothing I could retort with that makes
> him look as bad as what he said in the first place. Nobody likes being
> insulted in public and I realize that "he started it" but you have the inner
> strength to stop it. He's the most prolific poster. Those of us who haven't
> kill filed him and still read what he posts know who he is.
>
> Relax.
>
> Jeff
>
> PS
>
> I don't mean to be "preachy" but you are a better person then this posting
> would reflect.

Jeff,

I also know that "you are a better person then this posting would
reflect." However, in this case I see the pot calling the kettle
black.

Over the top? I don't think so. I think it was quite accurate. On
one hand I have nothing to hide, on the other, Ed does. Plesase don't
defend Ed, it lowers my opinion of you.

Define "over the top." What's over the top for one person is still
climbing for another. This is the first time I have seen something be
over the top for Ed, however. Sometimes the truth hurts.

If Ed, yourself, and others can't handle this expos'e on Ed then you
shouldn't be reading Ed's/other's OT posts. You certainly know that.
One thing you apparently forgot; I started this thread and it was OT
from the beginning.

Notice in Ed's reply to my ch 5 post that Ed finally had nothing of
value to reply. Why? Because it is a dead-on, accurate profile of Ed.
It forces Ed to look in the mirror. People don't like the truth,
apparently you included. This branch will end not because of you
asking me to, but because, for the first time, Ed finally had nothing
to say. Again, the truth hurts.

A couple of years ago Ed Dolan and Tom Sherman and others ruined ARBR
as far as recumbent talk was concerned. If you want recumbent talk
you'll find that over on BROL. This place is now another Usenet
cesspool used by people such as Eddie, Tommy, you and myself.

Enjoy,

Perry B

Date: 12 Mar 2006 18:58:38
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1142174768.155593.154150@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Over the top? I don't think so. I think it was quite accurate. On
> one hand I have nothing to hide, on the other, Ed does. Plesase don't
> defend Ed, it lowers my opinion of you.

What do I have to hide. I have repeatedly declared my Greatness and my
Holiness. I am not a fornicator and a defender of homos like Perry is. But
that is about par for the course with a Minnesota liberal like him.

> Define "over the top." What's over the top for one person is still
> climbing for another. This is the first time I have seen something be
> over the top for Ed, however. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Throwing baby tantrums like you do is "over the top". God, what an idiot!

> If Ed, yourself, and others can't handle this expos'e on Ed then you
> shouldn't be reading Ed's/other's OT posts. You certainly know that.
> One thing you apparently forgot; I started this thread and it was OT
> from the beginning.
>
> Notice in Ed's reply to my ch 5 post that Ed finally had nothing of
> value to reply. Why? Because it is a dead-on, accurate profile of Ed.
> It forces Ed to look in the mirror. People don't like the truth,
> apparently you included. This branch will end not because of you
> asking me to, but because, for the first time, Ed finally had nothing
> to say. Again, the truth hurts.

I do not know how to respond to baby tantrums, other than to throw cold
water over you.

> A couple of years ago Ed Dolan and Tom Sherman and others ruined ARBR
> as far as recumbent talk was concerned. If you want recumbent talk
> you'll find that over on BROL. This place is now another Usenet
> cesspool used by people such as Eddie, Tommy, you and myself.

Perry has not posted any recumbent information for eons now. Why is that? I
do not interfere with on-topic posts ever.

ARBR died and went to hell because of the depredations of just one person.
His name was Ed Gin. He was a criminal vandal troll. That Perry Butler would
not even mention him goes to show just how confoundedly blind he is.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 05 Mar 2006 15:38:52
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:

> >
> > Ed, do you have the intelligence to read for content? Doesn't appear
> > so! I compared you to Kennedy because you ARE just like Edward
> > Kennedy. Both of you are Irish, Ed's, raivng lunatics, elderly,
> > senile, never had to work, lived off mommy and daddys money, and are
> > sitting at 6 o'clock politically except looking in different
> > directions.
>
> No, Kennedy is a liberal and I am not. That is the difference and it is all
> the difference in the world.

I wasn't expecting you to see that you are just like Edward Kennedy,
after all you're both at the bottom of the politcal clock looking
different ways. Besides, as I said before both of you are Irish, Ed's,
raivng lunatics, elderly, senile, never had to work, and the only way
you got to where you are today is by living off mommy and daddy's money

>
> By the way, I have worked some, but I didn't like it much.
> Why go through life doing something that you don't like. I am
> way too st for that kind of dumbness, but maybe not you.

Ah, but the difference between me and you is I am doing something I
enjoy, as opposed to your inability to do anything involving the
success of others. People ask me when I'm going to quit teaching and my
answer is always, "When it's no fun anymore!"

You are just a leech on society. Point in fact, you ride your bike on
public roads but do nothing to contribute to the establishment and
maintenance of those roads. In other words, you are a leech to
society. You talk out of one side of your mouth and behave the
opposite. Just like Edward Kennedy! Wah! Wah! Wah! ! ! ! ! !

>
> >> >>Those who can ... do,
> >> >>those who can't ... teach.
> >> >
> >> > And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!
> >>
> >> Work is for servants and slaves like yourself.
> >
> > Christ Ed, again you didn't read for content did you! Try to
> > comprehend what was said before you respond. I teach and and enjoy
> > going every day. When my teaching becomes work then I will quit and
> > find another career, something you would know nothing about.
>
> But I don't believe you! Teachers are always saying how much they enjoy
> doing what they are doing and thinking they are making a contribution to
> society. It is all blarney. Even the damn kids don't appreciate what you do
> for them. You would have been better off if, like me, you had spent your
> life contemplating your navel.

Of course you don't believe me! You've never had a career and been
successful! You don't know the difference between work and a
successful career, because you have only worked. This is a concept that
is beyond the small mind of little Eddie Dolan. I would hate to be
scared to do nothing but contemplate my navel like you!

I wonder what embarrassment made you hole up in Worthington to hide
from society!
Was it work related?
Was it sexual?
Were you a momma's boy? (OK, we know the answer to that one!)
Are you impotent?
Are you a pervert and hiding in the sanctity of the Catholic Church
with your other friends?
Are you a homosexual in denial?

Aside from your personality, how ugly are you?

What makes little Eddie Dolan hole up?

>
> >> Nonsense, you know you are a failure, All men know that much at least.

I'll try to remember what a failure I am the next time a former student
comes up out of the blue and thanks me for giving her/him the tools to
think.

>
> >> Just
> >> ask your wife and kids. They will tell you how great a failure you have
> >> been
> >> if no one else will.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Actually, opposed to you, others are quite proud of me!
> >
> > Then again, at least I have somebody.
>
> Your wife and kids will never tell you the truth about yourself because they
> know it would destroy you. You have a very delicate ego which will not take
> any hard knocks. This is what comes of working around kids all your life.
> [...]

Yes Ed, I'll try to remember this the next time one of them hugs me!
When was the last time you had a hug? I doubt if even Jesus will hug
you.

>
> > But let's talk about "you." Again, the main point being, "Let's face
> > it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone
> > who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the definition used by
> > your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting
> > of you! "
> >
> > You still haven't commented on the above. You always avoid the issues.
> > That's why you're a loner.
>
> And I never will comment on the above because a newsgroup is no place to be
> discussing personal matters.

But YOU discuss other people's personal matters all the time.

You won't comment about yourself because YOU ARE A FAILURE ! ! ! ! ! !

.

Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

See you next Sunday!

Enjoy,

Perry B

Date: 07 Mar 2006 05:48:35
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1141601931.949025.298930@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Ed, do you have the intelligence to read for content? Doesn't appear
>> > so! I compared you to Kennedy because you ARE just like Edward
>> > Kennedy. Both of you are Irish, Ed's, raivng lunatics, elderly,
>> > senile, never had to work, lived off mommy and daddys money, and are
>> > sitting at 6 o'clock politically except looking in different
>> > directions.
>>
>> No, Kennedy is a liberal and I am not. That is the difference and it is
>> all
>> the difference in the world.
>
> I wasn't expecting you to see that you are just like Edward Kennedy,
> after all you're both at the bottom of the politcal clock looking
> different ways. Besides, as I said before both of you are Irish, Ed's,
> raivng lunatics, elderly, senile, never had to work, and the only way
> you got to where you are today is by living off mommy and daddy's money
>
>
>>
>> By the way, I have worked some, but I didn't like it much.
>> Why go through life doing something that you don't like. I am
>> way too st for that kind of dumbness, but maybe not you.
>
> Ah, but the difference between me and you is I am doing something I
> enjoy, as opposed to your inability to do anything involving the
> success of others. People ask me when I'm going to quit teaching and my
> answer is always, "When it's no fun anymore!"
>
> You are just a leech on society. Point in fact, you ride your bike on
> public roads but do nothing to contribute to the establishment and
> maintenance of those roads. In other words, you are a leech to
> society. You talk out of one side of your mouth and behave the
> opposite. Just like Edward Kennedy! Wah! Wah! Wah! ! ! ! ! !
>
>
>
>>
>> >> >>Those who can ... do,
>> >> >>those who can't ... teach.
>> >> >
>> >> > And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!
>> >>
>> >> Work is for servants and slaves like yourself.
>> >
>> > Christ Ed, again you didn't read for content did you! Try to
>> > comprehend what was said before you respond. I teach and and enjoy
>> > going every day. When my teaching becomes work then I will quit and
>> > find another career, something you would know nothing about.
>>
>> But I don't believe you! Teachers are always saying how much they enjoy
>> doing what they are doing and thinking they are making a contribution to
>> society. It is all blarney. Even the damn kids don't appreciate what you
>> do
>> for them. You would have been better off if, like me, you had spent your
>> life contemplating your navel.
>
>
> Of course you don't believe me! You've never had a career and been
> successful! You don't know the difference between work and a
> successful career, because you have only worked. This is a concept that
> is beyond the small mind of little Eddie Dolan. I would hate to be
> scared to do nothing but contemplate my navel like you!
>
> I wonder what embarrassment made you hole up in Worthington to hide
> from society!
> Was it work related?
> Was it sexual?
> Were you a momma's boy? (OK, we know the answer to that one!)
> Are you impotent?
> Are you a pervert and hiding in the sanctity of the Catholic Church
> with your other friends?
> Are you a homosexual in denial?
>
> Aside from your personality, how ugly are you?
>
> What makes little Eddie Dolan hole up?
>
>
>
>>
>> >> Nonsense, you know you are a failure, All men know that much at least.
>
> I'll try to remember what a failure I am the next time a former student
> comes up out of the blue and thanks me for giving her/him the tools to
> think.
>
>
>
>>
>> >> Just
>> >> ask your wife and kids. They will tell you how great a failure you
>> >> have
>> >> been
>> >> if no one else will.
>> >
>> > LOL
>> >
>> > Actually, opposed to you, others are quite proud of me!
>> >
>> > Then again, at least I have somebody.
>>
>> Your wife and kids will never tell you the truth about yourself because
>> they
>> know it would destroy you. You have a very delicate ego which will not
>> take
>> any hard knocks. This is what comes of working around kids all your life.
>> [...]
>
> Yes Ed, I'll try to remember this the next time one of them hugs me!
> When was the last time you had a hug? I doubt if even Jesus will hug
> you.
>
>
>
>>
>> > But let's talk about "you." Again, the main point being, "Let's face
>> > it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone
>> > who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the definition used by
>> > your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting
>> > of you! "
>> >
>> > You still haven't commented on the above. You always avoid the issues.
>> > That's why you're a loner.
>>
>> And I never will comment on the above because a newsgroup is no place to
>> be
>> discussing personal matters.
>
> But YOU discuss other people's personal matters all the time.
>
> You won't comment about yourself because YOU ARE A FAILURE ! ! ! ! ! !
>
>
> .
>
> Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
> shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
> can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
> Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "
>
> See you next Sunday!
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Perry B
>

Perry,

This is way over the top. (Whoever thought I be in the position of defending
Ed Dolan?).

To toss insults back and forth with E.D. is pointless (kind of like a Middle
East conflict).

1. It doesn't make any impact over there.
2. You become what you don't like (or at least someone you don't want to
be).
3. You just keep it going and going and going.
4. You can't win and even if you could, there's no prize worth winning.

When you are insulted or slandered you should speak up once but after that,
the continued repitition only makes the person doing it look foolish.

I don't bother responding to the charges of being a "smy baby-killing New
York Jew" anymore because there is nothing I could retort with that makes
him look as bad as what he said in the first place. Nobody likes being
insulted in public and I realize that "he started it" but you have the inner
strength to stop it. He's the most prolific poster. Those of us who haven't
kill filed him and still read what he posts know who he is.

Relax.

Jeff

PS

I don't mean to be "preachy" but you are a better person then this posting
would reflect.

Date: 07 Mar 2006 08:20:34
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:120qp7s855vuc54@news.supernews.com...
[...]
> This is way over the top. (Whoever thought I be in the position of
> defending Ed Dolan?).

Perry Butler is like an arrested adolescent in many ways.

> To toss insults back and forth with E.D. is pointless (kind of like a
> Middle East conflict).

The quality of the insults will indicate one's intelligence.

> 1. It doesn't make any impact over there.
> 2. You become what you don't like (or at least someone you don't want to
> be).
> 3. You just keep it going and going and going.
> 4. You can't win and even if you could, there's no prize worth winning.

It is his envy of me that keeps him going. It is a very bad vice to be stuck
with. It only makes you look inferior in the end.

> When you are insulted or slandered you should speak up once but after
> that, the continued repitition only makes the person doing it look
> foolish.

Repetition is the key to all learning.

> I don't bother responding to the charges of being a "smy baby-killing
> New York Jew" anymore because there is nothing I could retort with that
> makes him look as bad as what he said in the first place. Nobody likes
> being insulted in public and I realize that "he started it" but you have
> the inner strength to stop it. He's the most prolific poster. Those of us
> who haven't kill filed him and still read what he posts know who he is.

If you don't want to be called a "smy baby-killing New York Jew", then
don't be one. As long as you are one, I will continue to call you one until
kingdom come.
[...]

> I don't mean to be "preachy" but you [Perry Butler] are a better person
> then this posting would reflect.

Actually, Perry Butler has been corrupted by hanging around adolescents all
of his life (he is a public high school teacher) and he is simply not up to
conversing with adults. We all know the type well - the tin pot dictator in
the classroom who thinks he can carry it over to the wider world. There is
nothing wrong with Perry Butler that a little association with adults would
not quickly cure.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 05 Mar 2006 19:32:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Jeez, it must be Sunday since here is Perry Butler's pitiful lament yet once
again.

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1141601931.949025.298930@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Ed, do you have the intelligence to read for content? Doesn't appear
>> > so! I compared you to Kennedy because you ARE just like Edward
>> > Kennedy. Both of you are Irish, Ed's, raivng lunatics, elderly,
>> > senile, never had to work, lived off mommy and daddys money, and are
>> > sitting at 6 o'clock politically except looking in different
>> > directions.
>>
>> No, Kennedy is a liberal and I am not. That is the difference and it is
>> all
>> the difference in the world.
>
> I wasn't expecting you to see that you are just like Edward Kennedy,
> after all you're both at the bottom of the politcal clock looking
> different ways. Besides, as I said before both of you are Irish, Ed's,
> raivng lunatics, elderly, senile, never had to work, and the only way
> you got to where you are today is by living off mommy and daddy's money

Ted Kennedy has actually worked very hard all of his life being in politics.
If I had been him, I would never have lifted a finger to do anything. The
Kennedys do not know anything at all about being parasites. You have to come
to me for that.

I am getting elderly, no doubt about that, but who isn't. The only way to
avoid getting elderly is to arrange to die young. So far, I am not yet
senile, but who knows, that may lie in the future for me. I take great pride
in not having had to work like a servant and a slave all of my life. Of
course, I understand your jealousy. If I were you, I would be jealous of me
too.

>> By the way, I have worked some, but I didn't like it much.
>> Why go through life doing something that you don't like. I am
>> way too st for that kind of dumbness, but maybe not you.
>
> Ah, but the difference between me and you is I am doing something I
> enjoy, as opposed to your inability to do anything involving the
> success of others. People ask me when I'm going to quit teaching and my
> answer is always, "When it's no fun anymore!"

I do not care at all in the success of other people. Such a concept would
never even occur to me.

> You are just a leech on society. Point in fact, you ride your bike on
> public roads but do nothing to contribute to the establishment and
> maintenance of those roads. In other words, you are a leech to
> society. You talk out of one side of your mouth and behave the
> opposite. Just like Edward Kennedy! Wah! Wah! Wah! ! ! ! ! !

Yes, I can truly understand your jealousy of me. Hells Bells, if I were you
I would be jealous of me too.
[...]

>> But I don't believe you! Teachers are always saying how much they enjoy
>> doing what they are doing and thinking they are making a contribution to
>> society. It is all blarney. Even the damn kids don't appreciate what you
>> do
>> for them. You would have been better off if, like me, you had spent your
>> life contemplating your navel.
>
>
> Of course you don't believe me! You've never had a career and been
> successful! You don't know the difference between work and a
> successful career, because you have only worked. This is a concept that
> is beyond the small mind of little Eddie Dolan. I would hate to be
> scared to do nothing but contemplate my navel like you!

Contemplating one's navel is the most important thing you can do in life.
Running around like a crazy man thinking you are doing good in the world or
helping others is total insanity. The world is in the mess it is in because
of fools like you.

> I wonder what embarrassment made you hole up in Worthington to hide
> from society!
> Was it work related?
> Was it sexual?
> Were you a momma's boy? (OK, we know the answer to that one!)
> Are you impotent?
> Are you a pervert and hiding in the sanctity of the Catholic Church
> with your other friends?
> Are you a homosexual in denial?

Here we see Perry Butler in all his Alexandrine glory. I mean, just how
despicable can you get. Let this be a lesson to all of you that of all the
vices envy is the worst.

> Aside from your personality, how ugly are you?

Perry Butler, the teacher, embodies all the worst features of juvenility.
However, it is an occupational hazard. When you hang around kids all day,
you take on some of their characteristics. Poor Perry! I feel sorry for him.
He has been a hard working slob all of his life and, like Rodney
Dangerfield, he gets no respect.
[...]

>> Your wife and kids will never tell you the truth about yourself because
>> they
>> know it would destroy you. You have a very delicate ego which will not
>> take
>> any hard knocks. This is what comes of working around kids all your life.
>> [...]
>
> Yes Ed, I'll try to remember this the next time one of them hugs me!
> When was the last time you had a hug? I doubt if even Jesus will hug
> you.

You bet, just what I need, some good old fashion hugging!
[...]

> See you next Sunday!

Not necessarily. Either say something that the newsgroup will be interested
in reading or I will cut you off. I can only suffer fools up to a certain
point.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 26 Feb 2006 18:30:08
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
> The Kennedys are perhaps the most famous Irish family in America of our
> generation. Not only that, but they are Boston Irish. I mean, it doesn't get
> any worse than that!
>
> To compare me in any way with the Kennedys (other than the Irish thing)
> ks you as "Haven't a Clue" kind of guy. Are you sure you are over 14
> years old and have attained the age of reason? Kennedy has become a ranting
> raving liberal lunatic. He shames himself and the Irish every time he opens
> his big mouth.

Ed, do you have the intelligence to read for content? Doesn't appear
so! I compared you to Kennedy because you ARE just like Edward
Kennedy. Both of you are Irish, Ed's, raivng lunatics, elderly,
senile, never had to work, lived off mommy and daddys money, and are
sitting at 6 o'clock politically except looking in different
directions.

> No, it makes you a sane and sound person. The Catholic Church of course does
> not want pedophiles in its ranks, but how the hell to keep them out when
> almost all men are incapable of chastity and purity. Only Great Souls like
> myself can attain this state of nirvana. I should have been a Catholic
> priest myself. I would have been the scourge of God on this earth and, I
> assure you, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>I would know exactly what to do with pedophiles.

Yes, I'm sure you do ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

> > At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
> > lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!

You're following comeback on this one was pathetic!

>
> I am not into pride at all, just Greatness. Try to be more humble like me,
> why don't you?

> >>Those who can ... do,
> >>those who can't ... teach.
> >
> > And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!
>
> Work is for servants and slaves like yourself.

Christ Ed, again you didn't read for content did you! Try to
comprehend what was said before you respond. I teach and and enjoy
going every day. When my teaching becomes work then I will quit and
find another career, something you would know nothing about.

> >>But the more telling point is your concern with
> >> success and failure.
> >
> > Those who have had a career and have been a contributing member of
> > society ARE concerned with success and failure. Of course, a mommy and
> > daddy's boy, like yourself, never had to worry about success and
> > failure.
>
> Nonsense, you know you are a failure, All men know that much at least. Just
> ask your wife and kids. They will tell you how great a failure you have been
> if no one else will.

LOL

Actually, opposed to you, others are quite proud of me!

Then again, at least I have somebody.

>
> >>But the more telling point is your concern with
> >> success and failure. That ks you as basically insecure, something that
> >> no
> >> one has ever accused me of being. Please note my signature below.
> >
> >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> >
> > Sorry Eddie, the way you use this forum shows your insecurity!
> >
> > Your prolific number of posts shows your insecurity!
> >
> > Your having to always have the last word shows your insecurity!
> >
> > Your signature shows your insecurity!
> [...]
>
> Nope! All of the above shows just the opposite Very funny that you can't see
> it. Only the truly secure can make fun of themselves in public.

Ask my students if I ever make fun of myself. They will tell you,
"All the time."

However, in your case we make fun of the fool.

But let's talk about "you." Again, the main point being, "Let's face
it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone
who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the definition used by
your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting
of you! "

You still haven't commented on the above. You always avoid the issues.
That's why you're a loner.

See you next Sunday!

Enjoy,

Perry B

Date: 27 Feb 2006 06:06:35
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1141007408.815204.123450@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> The Kennedys are perhaps the most famous Irish family in America of our
>> generation. Not only that, but they are Boston Irish. I mean, it doesn't
>> get
>> any worse than that!
>>
>> To compare me in any way with the Kennedys (other than the Irish thing)
>> ks you as "Haven't a Clue" kind of guy. Are you sure you are over 14
>> years old and have attained the age of reason? Kennedy has become a
>> ranting
>> raving liberal lunatic. He shames himself and the Irish every time he
>> opens
>> his big mouth.
>
> Ed, do you have the intelligence to read for content? Doesn't appear
> so! I compared you to Kennedy because you ARE just like Edward
> Kennedy. Both of you are Irish, Ed's, raivng lunatics, elderly,
> senile, never had to work, lived off mommy and daddys money, and are
> sitting at 6 o'clock politically except looking in different
> directions.

No, Kennedy is a liberal and I am not. That is the difference and it is all
the difference in the world. By the way, I have worked some, but I didn't
like it much. Why go through life doing something that you don't like. I am
way too st for that kind of dumbness, but maybe not you.
[...]

>> >>Those who can ... do,
>> >>those who can't ... teach.
>> >
>> > And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!
>>
>> Work is for servants and slaves like yourself.
>
> Christ Ed, again you didn't read for content did you! Try to
> comprehend what was said before you respond. I teach and and enjoy
> going every day. When my teaching becomes work then I will quit and
> find another career, something you would know nothing about.

But I don't believe you! Teachers are always saying how much they enjoy
doing what they are doing and thinking they are making a contribution to
society. It is all blarney. Even the damn kids don't appreciate what you do
for them. You would have been better off if, like me, you had spent your
life contemplating your navel.
[...]

>> Nonsense, you know you are a failure, All men know that much at least.
>> Just
>> ask your wife and kids. They will tell you how great a failure you have
>> been
>> if no one else will.
>
> LOL
>
> Actually, opposed to you, others are quite proud of me!
>
> Then again, at least I have somebody.

Your wife and kids will never tell you the truth about yourself because they
know it would destroy you. You have a very delicate ego which will not take
any hard knocks. This is what comes of working around kids all your life.
[...]

> But let's talk about "you." Again, the main point being, "Let's face
> it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone
> who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the definition used by
> your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting
> of you! "
>
> You still haven't commented on the above. You always avoid the issues.
> That's why you're a loner.

And I never will comment on the above because a newsgroup is no place to be
discussing personal matters. I will always use any allusions to myself to
say something that I think will be of interest to the group. You should try
it sometime yourself. After all, no one, but no one, is interested in what I
think of you nor you me. Try to say something that will be of general
interest, why don't you?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 24 Feb 2006 20:26:19
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

$$$ the anonymous coward snipes:
>
> ...One of these days one of them will probably be Mr. Sherman's boss and have to deal
> with his workplace complaints and his liberal/welfare mindset.

Yep, lots of complaints about the days when I was the first person to
work and the last to leave. More complaints about how I have worked
more weekend days (on salary with no additional compensation, not on
overtime pay) than I have taken in vacation. Even more complaints when
I have canceled appointments and planned non-work activities to work on
unexpected rush projects.

I did get in trouble for working a 16-hour shift once when there was a
huge backlog of rejected bottles to grind at the factory I was working
at, since they had to pay me $6.90/hour [1] instead of $4.60/hour (when
minimum wage was $4.25/hour). Oh my God, $18.40 LESS PROFIT to the
multi-millionaire owner.

[1] With NO benefits.

--
Tom Sherman

Date: 24 Feb 2006 23:10:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140841579.185809.187180@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> $$$ the anonymous coward snipes:
>>
>> ...One of these days one of them will probably be Mr. Sherman's boss and
>> have to deal
>> with his workplace complaints and his liberal/welfare mindset.
>
> Yep, lots of complaints about the days when I was the first person to
> work and the last to leave. More complaints about how I have worked
> more weekend days (on salary with no additional compensation, not on
> overtime pay) than I have taken in vacation. Even more complaints when
> I have canceled appointments and planned non-work activities to work on
> unexpected rush projects.
>
> I did get in trouble for working a 16-hour shift once when there was a
> huge backlog of rejected bottles to grind at the factory I was working
> at, since they had to pay me $6.90/hour [1] instead of $4.60/hour (when
> minimum wage was $4.25/hour). Oh my God, $18.40 LESS PROFIT to the
> multi-millionaire owner.
>
> [1] With NO benefits.

Well, Good Grief! Stop working so hard! If you had spent 4 years in the Navy
like I did you would know enough never to work hard, not even for yourself.

We spent most of our days in the Navy thinking of how not to do any real
work. Of course, we had to look like we were doing something, but we really
were just loafing - and the world never knew the difference.

Most of the world of work is carried on by a few hard working slobs who
simply do not know any better. But now that I have told you the facts of
life, you no longer have any excuse for working hard. That is for the
suckers and the mugs (as Harry Lime would say). Sometimes it does pay off,
but mostly it does not.

Try to own something and then hire some young kids to do all the work. At
that point you will have discovered the secret to long life and happiness.
And the damn kids will go on to something else soon enough too, so you do
not need to feel sorry for them.

Bottom line - work is vastly overrated. Anyone who tells you how wonderful
it is is blathering nonsense. Work is god- awful and we should strive to
avoid it as much as possible. Try to emulate the grasshopper and not the
ant.

I should really be charging something for all the good advice I give to this
newsgroup.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 25 Feb 2006 19:02:00
From: $$$
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:qpydnRS6ZYROe2Le4p2dnA@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140841579.185809.187180@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> $$$ the anonymous coward snipes:
>>>
>>> ...One of these days one of them will probably be Mr. Sherman's boss and
>>> have to deal
>>> with his workplace complaints and his liberal/welfare mindset.
>>

Says Mr. Sherman:

>> Yep, lots of complaints about the days when I was the first person to
>> work and the last to leave. More complaints about how I have worked
>> more weekend days (on salary with no additional compensation, not on
>> overtime pay) than I have taken in vacation. Even more complaints when
>> I have canceled appointments and planned non-work activities to work on
>> unexpected rush projects.
>>
>> I did get in trouble for working a 16-hour shift once when there was a
>> huge backlog of rejected bottles to grind at the factory I was working
>> at, since they had to pay me $6.90/hour [1] instead of $4.60/hour (when
>> minimum wage was $4.25/hour). Oh my God, $18.40 LESS PROFIT to the
>> multi-millionaire owner.
>>
>> [1] With NO benefits.

To which the anonmous coward and sniper replied:

There you go again.

[...]
Then said Ed:

> Well, Good Grief! Stop working so hard! If you had spent 4 years in the
> Navy like I did you would know enough never to work hard, not even for
> yourself.
>
> We spent most of our days in the Navy thinking of how not to do any real
> work. Of course, we had to look like we were doing something, but we
> really were just loafing - and the world never knew the difference.

To which $$$ opined:

Nor did the world care. Seems to me this would be the most boring way
imaginable to spend four years of your life. They should have let you take
a few pot shots at a North Korean ship or something to break the monotony.

Ed continues:
>
> Try to own something and then hire some young kids to do all the work. At
> that point you will have discovered the secret to long life and happiness.
> And the damn kids will go on to something else soon enough too, so you do
> not need to feel sorry for them.
>

$$$ responds:

Sounds easy. but it's much more complicated than than you make it seem.
But, at least you could use you brain to figure it out how to make it work.
All in all you've got the right idea though.

> Bottom line - work is vastly overrated. Anyone who tells you how wonderful
> it is is blathering nonsense. Work is god- awful and we should strive to
> avoid it as much as possible. Try to emulate the grasshopper and not the
> ant.
>
> I should really be charging something for all the good advice I give to
> this newsgroup.
>

$$$ suggests:

You might want to look in to getting yourself a PayPal account to faciltiate
all those payments.

Date: 26 Feb 2006 04:28:23
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"$$$" <$$$@dollarbill.com > wrote in message
news:_t6dncT2Zp5kYJ3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:qpydnRS6ZYROe2Le4p2dnA@prairiewave.com...
[...]
>> Well, Good Grief! Stop working so hard! If you had spent 4 years in the
>> Navy like I did you would know enough never to work hard, not even for
>> yourself.
>>
>> We spent most of our days in the Navy thinking of how not to do any real
>> work. Of course, we had to look like we were doing something, but we
>> really were just loafing - and the world never knew the difference.
>
> To which $$$ opined:
>
> Nor did the world care. Seems to me this would be the most boring way
> imaginable to spend four years of your life. They should have let you
> take a few pot shots at a North Korean ship or something to break the
> monotony.

The peace time military that prevailed back in the late 50's was boring and
tiresome in the extreme. Most of us, whether drafted or volunteers, couldn't
wait to get out fast enough. I do not want this country to ever go back to a
conscripted military. A professional volunteer military is the only way to
go. The abolishment of the draft was due to the genius of President Nixon,
one of my favorite presidents.

> Ed continues:
>>
>> Try to own something and then hire some young kids to do all the work. At
>> that point you will have discovered the secret to long life and
>> happiness. And the damn kids will go on to something else soon enough
>> too, so you do not need to feel sorry for them.
>>
>
>
> $$$ responds:
>
> Sounds easy. but it's much more complicated than than you make it seem.
> But, at least you could use you brain to figure it out how to make it
> work. All in all you've got the right idea though.

I remember when I was in New York City working in the library there, half
the librarians wanted to open up a flower shop. They figured that was a
better way to make a living than slaving away in the bowels of a library.
But alas, we all lacked the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism.

>> Bottom line - work is vastly overrated. Anyone who tells you how
>> wonderful it is is blathering nonsense. Work is god-awful and we should
>> strive to avoid it as much as possible. Try to emulate the grasshopper
>> and not the ant.
>>
>> I should really be charging something for all the good advice I give to
>> this newsgroup.
>>
>
> $$$ suggests:
>
> You might want to look in to getting yourself a PayPal account to
> faciltiate all those payments.

I am probably one of the few people in this country who has never had a
credit card. Now it is a point of pride to go to my grave never having had
one. I also have never bought anything on time in my life. Hence, it seems I
have no credit at all. I am definitely living in the wrong century.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 24 Feb 2006 20:15:01
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

$$$ (who?) anonymously snipes:
>
> Oh, one more thing. The bottom 50% of Federal Income Tax payers pay only
> 3.5% of the total income taxes, yet some of them have the nerve to
> constantly mouth off about Bush's tax cuts to the "wealthiest Americans"
> (the top 1% pay over 33% of the total!). It's just amazing how some of the
> 3.5 percenters think they are entitled to the earnings of others and that
> it's just fine for themselves to pay next to nothing. I say these 3.5
> percenters need to step up and start contributing their fair share of the
> tax load.

Yet somehow the rich get richer in the US, while real wages for the
WORKING middle class continue to fall, even though their productivity
is increasing. How can that be, if the tax burden on the rich is so
onerous?

In the 19th Century US, work was respected, while those who lived off
unearned income were considered parasites to society. This has changed,
since the mass media (owned priily by those who have considerable
unearned income) and preachers who pander to the wealthy have been
brainwashing the populace with the heretical idea that riches are a
reward for moral character.

--
Tom Sherman

Date: 24 Feb 2006 22:48:45
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140840901.273835.81020@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> $$$ (who?) anonymously snipes:
>>
>> Oh, one more thing. The bottom 50% of Federal Income Tax payers pay only
>> 3.5% of the total income taxes, yet some of them have the nerve to
>> constantly mouth off about Bush's tax cuts to the "wealthiest Americans"
>> (the top 1% pay over 33% of the total!). It's just amazing how some of
>> the
>> 3.5 percenters think they are entitled to the earnings of others and that
>> it's just fine for themselves to pay next to nothing. I say these 3.5
>> percenters need to step up and start contributing their fair share of the
>> tax load.
>
> Yet somehow the rich get richer in the US, while real wages for the
> WORKING middle class continue to fall, even though their productivity
> is increasing. How can that be, if the tax burden on the rich is so
> onerous?

All real work is being sent overseas. All we are doing in this country is
taking in each other's wash. Nothing but services, services, services.

> In the 19th Century US, work was respected, while those who lived off
> unearned income were considered parasites to society. This has changed,
> since the mass media (owned priily by those who have considerable
> unearned income) and preachers who pander to the wealthy have been
> brainwashing the populace with the heretical idea that riches are a
> reward for moral character.

Well, even the parasites have to invest their money in productive
enterprises or they will lose it in the end. There is really no such thing
as unearned income. Someone had to earn it at one time or another and then
it gets invested or it withers away in a single generation usually.

Another thing that has changed greatly is that journalists and others
working in the mass media are now also rather well off. They continue to
espouse liberal views, but not with the ardor of old. They come across more
and more as the hypocrites that they are. But that is pretty much what has
happened to the entire Democratic Party. What the country needs is a grass
roots populism not connected to either party.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 24 Feb 2006 20:09:24
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

$$$ (who?) anonymously snipes:
> ...
> And we might add that Mr. Sherman would, with great certainly, also be
> opposed to an inheritance tax if he stood any chance at all of inheriting
> any real money from any one whether near or far....

Willing to put your real name behind your statements, Anonymous Coward?

[Start sarcasm]
I would be so heartbroken if I were to only inherit $60,000,000.00
dollars I DID NOT EARN, instead of $100,000,000.00 I DID NOT EARN due
to inheritance taxes.
[End sarcasm]

If I did not have student loans to pay, I would be materially content
living off of $2,000.00/month (2006 dollars) and I live in one of the
more expensive areas of the US.

The upper classes do not even spend most of their money. There lust for
more is because they need a reason to feel superior, or in many cases,
having great wealth allows them to indulge their desire for power over
others.

--
Tom Sherman

Date: 25 Feb 2006 17:22:52
From: nget
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Wrote:
> $$$ (who?) anonymously snipes:
> > ...
> > And we might add that Mr. Sherman would, with great certainly, als
> be
> > opposed to an inheritance tax if he stood any chance at all o
> inheriting
> > any real money from any one whether near or far....
>
>
>
>
> If I did not have student loans to pay, I would be materially content
> living off of $2,000.00/month (2006 dollars) and I live in one of the
> more expensive areas of the US.
>
> The upper classes do not even spend most of their money. There lus
> for
> more is because they need a reason to feel superior, or in many cases,
> having great wealth allows them to indulge their desire for power over
> others.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman
If you ever decide to sell one of your Sunsets at a garage sale t
make ends meet, could you let me know in advance so that I can be ther
early in the morning? TIA

--
nget

Date: 24 Feb 2006 23:27:30
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140840564.062114.57500@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> The upper classes do not even spend most of their money. There lust for
> more is because they need a reason to feel superior, or in many cases,
> having great wealth allows them to indulge their desire for power over
> others.

The above is spoken like a true working man who never has enough money. I
mean, what is money for if not to spend?

Moneygrubbers are only into money and not power, and that is what saves us
all. Who cares how they live and die. Mostly they only want to live the good
life as they see it. You know, yachts and other such trashy toys. Screw
them!

On the other hand, the intellectual class is the true villain in the plot.
They do not confine their activities to academe, but instead lust for the
power that they think is rightly theirs by virtue of their intellect. The
entire history of the 20th century with all its wars is witness to that.

Give me a robber baron any old day compared to a frustrated intellectual.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 20 Feb 2006 17:01:57
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
> ...
> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!

God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
affront to God.

The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
their poverty.

--
Tom Sherman

Date: 21 Feb 2006 16:03:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>> ...
>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!
>
> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
> affront to God.

Rich Dems oppose inheritance taxes as much as rich Repubs. In fact, the only
people who are in favor of them are poor people regardless of political
party. I can assure you that Mr. Sherman would be opposed to inheritance
taxes too if he had any real money.

> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
> their poverty.

I stopped thinking of myself as a child about 60 years ago. Apparently, some
on this forum never do. Well, they are welcome to their infantile tantrums
and in the meantime the great ship of state (that's me) moves on and leaves
them in my wake.

It is quite enough to be taxed once on your income. Any more than that is an
affront to the intelligence. An inheritance tax is nothing but a tax on
death. It is like adding an insult to an injury. Now you know once again why
I am so Great and why the rest of you are such dwarfs.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 21 Feb 2006 18:28:32
From: $$$
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:16edndg6bLXHE2benZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>>> ...
>>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
>>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!
>>
>> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
>> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
>> affront to God.
>
> Rich Dems oppose inheritance taxes as much as rich Repubs. In fact, the
> only people who are in favor of them are poor people regardless of
> political party. I can assure you that Mr. Sherman would be opposed to
> inheritance taxes too if he had any real money.

And we might add that Mr. Sherman would, with great certainly, also be
opposed to an inheritance tax if he stood any chance at all of inheriting
any real money from any one whether near or far.

The state lottery, I suspect, will be his best bet to riches.

>
>> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
>> their poverty.
>
> I stopped thinking of myself as a child about 60 years ago. Apparently,
> some on this forum never do. Well, they are welcome to their infantile
> tantrums and in the meantime the great ship of state (that's me) moves on
> and leaves them in my wake.
>
> It is quite enough to be taxed once on your income. Any more than that is
> an affront to the intelligence. An inheritance tax is nothing but a tax on
> death. It is like adding an insult to an injury. Now you know once again
> why I am so Great and why the rest of you are such dwarfs.
>

You are the Great one Ed. The rest of us are just dwarfs on your street.

$$$

Date: 24 Feb 2006 00:16:23
From: $$$
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
>>>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!

>>>
>> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
>> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
>> affront to God.

>> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
>> their poverty.

Oh, one more thing. The bottom 50% of Federal Income Tax payers pay only
3.5% of the total income taxes, yet some of them have the nerve to
constantly mouth off about Bush's tax cuts to the "wealthiest Americans"
(the top 1% pay over 33% of the total!). It's just amazing how some of the
3.5 percenters think they are entitled to the earnings of others and that
it's just fine for themselves to pay next to nothing. I say these 3.5
percenters need to step up and start contributing their fair share of the
tax load.

$$$

Date: 24 Feb 2006 02:08:12
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"$$$" <$$$@taxme.com > wrote in message
news:wZCdndshGOszOWPeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
>>>>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!
>
>>>>
>>> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
>>> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
>>> affront to God.
>
>>> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
>>> their poverty.
>
> Oh, one more thing. The bottom 50% of Federal Income Tax payers pay only
> 3.5% of the total income taxes, yet some of them have the nerve to
> constantly mouth off about Bush's tax cuts to the "wealthiest Americans"
> (the top 1% pay over 33% of the total!). It's just amazing how some of
> the 3.5 percenters think they are entitled to the earnings of others and
> that it's just fine for themselves to pay next to nothing. I say these
> 3.5 percenters need to step up and start contributing their fair share of
> the tax load.
>
> $$$

Yes, the poor get a free ride in this country. They would literally starve
to death in any other country. But we take care of those who are unable to
take care for themselves. We are too good to them and they do not appreciate
all that we do for them. They are like ungrateful children. What the hell is
all this welfare for if not for them.

I say if the poor cannot get bread, then let me eat cake. Good Grief - I
thought all of this was settled centuries ago prior to the French
Revolution. Queen Antoinette - where are you when you are needed! Mr.
Sherman needs to be enlightened by Your Royal Highness.

Frankly, I just can't stand all these peasant types like Mr. Sherman who are
forever complaining about their lot in life. What ails them anyway? They
should be happy to just be alive by the grace of Great Ones like Myself and
Queen Antoinette.

On a serious note, I myself have been as poor as a church mouse all of my
life. But I am grateful to live in such a rich country where even the poor
live better than most others on the face of the earth. If I had wanted to be
rich, I would have done the things that you have to do in order to be rich.
But I chose to be poor because I wanted a life of leisure. That I have had
in rich measure and I have never regretted it.

To be poor in America is to be rich if you have the mental resources to know
what to do with your poorness. The most pitiful people I have ever known are
those who are aspiring to wealth. I sometimes feel so sorry for them that I
want to weep at their childishness. Don't they not know that all wealth is
of the mind?

Mr. Sherman is far richer than he realizes. He has a mind that he can put to
any use he fancies. You do not ever get any richer than that.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 24 Feb 2006 09:46:02
From: $$$
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:D_WdnXs25-VsI2Pe4p2dnA@prairiewave.com...
>
> "$$$" <$$$@taxme.com> wrote in message
> news:wZCdndshGOszOWPeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You
>>>>>> merely
>>>>>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!
>>
>>>>>
>>>> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
>>>> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
>>>> affront to God.
>>
>>>> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
>>>> their poverty.
>>
>> Oh, one more thing. The bottom 50% of Federal Income Tax payers pay only
>> 3.5% of the total income taxes, yet some of them have the nerve to
>> constantly mouth off about Bush's tax cuts to the "wealthiest Americans"
>> (the top 1% pay over 33% of the total!). It's just amazing how some of
>> the 3.5 percenters think they are entitled to the earnings of others and
>> that it's just fine for themselves to pay next to nothing. I say these
>> 3.5 percenters need to step up and start contributing their fair share of
>> the tax load.
>>
>> $$$
>
> Yes, the poor get a free ride in this country. They would literally starve
> to death in any other country. But we take care of those who are unable to
> take care for themselves. We are too good to them and they do not
> appreciate all that we do for them. They are like ungrateful children.
> What the hell is all this welfare for if not for them.
>
> I say if the poor cannot get bread, then let me eat cake. Good Grief - I
> thought all of this was settled centuries ago prior to the French
> Revolution. Queen Antoinette - where are you when you are needed! Mr.
> Sherman needs to be enlightened by Your Royal Highness.
>
> Frankly, I just can't stand all these peasant types like Mr. Sherman who
> are forever complaining about their lot in life. What ails them anyway?
> They should be happy to just be alive by the grace of Great Ones like
> Myself and Queen Antoinette.
>
> On a serious note, I myself have been as poor as a church mouse all of my
> life. But I am grateful to live in such a rich country where even the poor
> live better than most others on the face of the earth. If I had wanted to
> be rich, I would have done the things that you have to do in order to be
> rich. But I chose to be poor because I wanted a life of leisure. That I
> have had in rich measure and I have never regretted it.
>
> To be poor in America is to be rich if you have the mental resources to
> know what to do with your poorness. The most pitiful people I have ever
> known are those who are aspiring to wealth. I sometimes feel so sorry for
> them that I want to weep at their childishness. Don't they not know that
> all wealth is of the mind?
>
> Mr. Sherman is far richer than he realizes. He has a mind that he can put
> to any use he fancies. You do not ever get any richer than that.
>

Ed's right - being poor in America is often a state of mind. His voluntary
poverty is fine with me as long as he doesn't rely on the state to fund his
lifestyle choice. Katrina was an example of all levels of government failing
the poor who had come to be dependent on the various agencies that serve
them. As a group the freed slaves after the civil war were far more capable
of caring for themselves than are our modern welfare classes. Many
immigrants, legal and otherwise, come to America with nothing and become
productive and self sufficient almost immediately. They don't sit around
and whine about how bad things are here. They have a very different state
of mind and it serves them well. One of these days one of them will
probably be Mr. Sherman's boss and have to deal with his workplace
complaints and his liberal/welfare mindset.

$$$

Date: 24 Feb 2006 20:49:34
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"$$$" <$$$@taxeme.com > wrote in message
news:SOednZQ3MK2tt2LeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
[...]
> Ed's right - being poor in America is often a state of mind. His
> voluntary poverty is fine with me as long as he doesn't rely on the state
> to fund his lifestyle choice. Katrina was an example of all levels of
> government failing the poor who had come to be dependent on the various
> agencies that serve them. As a group the freed slaves after the civil war
> were far more capable of caring for themselves than are our modern welfare
> classes. Many immigrants, legal and otherwise, come to America with
> nothing and become productive and self sufficient almost immediately.
> They don't sit around and whine about how bad things are here. They have
> a very different state of mind and it serves them well. One of these days
> one of them will probably be Mr. Sherman's boss and have to deal with his
> workplace complaints and his liberal/welfare mindset.
>
> $$$

I was once a liberal like Mr. Sherman, maybe even further to the Left than
he is. But I learned a hard lesson when I was living in New York City back
in the 60's. I saw first hand how the welfare classes were living. My God,
it was nothing but parties, drunkenness and sex and in short, total
irresponsibility. I couldn't believe humans could behave so badly. And so I
out grew my liberalism and began to take note of how badly human nature is
flawed. In short, I became a conservative.

Mr. Sherman continues to believe that humans are better than I know them to
be. This is at the root of all liberal and progressive thinking. It really
comes down to what we think human nature is like. I have a very dark view of
human nature which does not make me happy, but it is always better to be a
realist about such matters and not trust to our better natures. Very many of
us do not have any better natures.

I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

T.S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 21 Feb 2006 18:57:00
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"$$$" <$$$@richyrich.com > wrote in message
news:bsKdncf-yp2zLWbenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:16edndg6bLXHE2benZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140483717.168930.144580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> perryb67@yahoo.com aka Perry Butler wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
>>>> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!
>>>
>>> God chooses the most worthy to be born to affluent parents. This is why
>>> God-fearing Republicans oppose ALL inheritance taxes - the taxes are an
>>> affront to God.
>>
>> Rich Dems oppose inheritance taxes as much as rich Repubs. In fact, the
>> only people who are in favor of them are poor people regardless of
>> political party. I can assure you that Mr. Sherman would be opposed to
>> inheritance taxes too if he had any real money.
>
>
>
> And we might add that Mr. Sherman would, with great certainly, also be
> opposed to an inheritance tax if he stood any chance at all of inheriting
> any real money from any one whether near or far.
>
> The state lottery, I suspect, will be his best bet to riches.
>
>
>>
>>> The rich children deserve their wealth, and the poor children deserve
>>> their poverty.
>>
>> I stopped thinking of myself as a child about 60 years ago. Apparently,
>> some on this forum never do. Well, they are welcome to their infantile
>> tantrums and in the meantime the great ship of state (that's me) moves on
>> and leaves them in my wake.
>>
>> It is quite enough to be taxed once on your income. Any more than that is
>> an affront to the intelligence. An inheritance tax is nothing but a tax
>> on death. It is like adding an insult to an injury. Now you know once
>> again why I am so Great and why the rest of you are such dwarfs.
>>
>
> You are the Great one Ed. The rest of us are just dwarfs on your street.
>
> $$$

Hells Bells, a post to ARBR would not be complete if it did not include at
least one insult. I try not to limit my insults to specific individuals
however. I like to insult whole groups of people, yea, even complete nations
like France and Canada and the entire Muslim World. I don't think much of
Australia and the United Kingdom either, especially the Scots. Screw them
all!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 20 Feb 2006 13:30:26
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
> <perryb67@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139757252.044473.101410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Edward Dolan wrote:

> > I'm not Lutheran, from Lake Wobegon, or a "Minnesota Liberal." The
> > Edward Kennedy's AND the Eddie Dolan's are one in the same; you two
> > just went around the circle in different directions to land in the same
> > spot.
>
> Here is an example of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bias on the part of the
> English Protestant Perry Butler. He does not mind defending homos, but he
> has never gotten over the historic English resentment of the Irish. Too bad
> for him that we Irish are alive and well and that the English are now
> second-rate everywhere in the world.

I'm Irish (McCall), Scottish, Danish, and Norwegian. Don't see where I
wrote anything anti-Irish. I just wrote how similar politically to
Edward Kennedy you are. Again, you did NOT read for content. I was
talking about politics not heritage. Are you sure you're a college
graduate?

Many of my friends are Catholic, and they too disagree with the
Catholic church's attitude toward pedofiles within the church. Does
being anti-pedofile make me a liberal?

> >Remember, we're talking about YOU.
>
> I am only a pretext for talking about everything under the sun besides me.
> Funny you haven't figured that out by now.
>
> > It's also easy to see why you were a failure to society.
>
> All teachers like yourself are in a sense failures.

I really don't know what I failed at.

At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!

>Those who can ... do,
>those who can't ... teach.

And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!

>But the more telling point is your concern with
> success and failure.

Those who have had a career and have been a contributing member of
society ARE concerned with success and failure. Of course, a mommy and
daddy's boy, like yourself, never had to worry about success and
failure.

>But the more telling point is your concern with
> success and failure. That ks you as basically insecure, something that no
> one has ever accused me of being. Please note my signature below.

> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Sorry Eddie, the way you use this forum shows your insecurity!

Your prolific number of posts shows your insecurity!

Your having to always have the last word shows your insecurity!

Your signature shows your insecurity!

Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

Enjoy,

Perry Butler

Date: 20 Feb 2006 18:06:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Date: 20 Feb 2006 17:29:47
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140471026.903680.159120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> <perryb67@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139757252.044473.101410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> > I'm not Lutheran, from Lake Wobegon, or a "Minnesota Liberal." The
>> > Edward Kennedy's AND the Eddie Dolan's are one in the same; you two
>> > just went around the circle in different directions to land in the same
>> > spot.
>>
>> Here is an example of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bias on the part of
>> the
>> English Protestant Perry Butler. He does not mind defending homos, but he
>> has never gotten over the historic English resentment of the Irish. Too
>> bad
>> for him that we Irish are alive and well and that the English are now
>> second-rate everywhere in the world.
>
> I'm Irish (McCall), Scottish, Danish, and Norwegian. Don't see where I
> wrote anything anti-Irish. I just wrote how similar politically to
> Edward Kennedy you are. Again, you did NOT read for content. I was
> talking about politics not heritage. Are you sure you're a college
> graduate?

The Kennedys are perhaps the most famous Irish family in America of our
generation. Not only that, but they are Boston Irish. I mean, it doesn't get
any worse than that!

To compare me in any way with the Kennedys (other than the Irish thing)
ks you as "Haven't a Clue" kind of guy. Are you sure you are over 14
years old and have attained the age of reason? Kennedy has become a ranting
raving liberal lunatic. He shames himself and the Irish every time he opens
his big mouth. The wrong person drowned at Chappaquidic.

> Many of my friends are Catholic, and they too disagree with the
> Catholic church's attitude toward pedofiles within the church. Does
> being anti-pedofile make me a liberal?

No, it makes you a sane and sound person. The Catholic Church of course does
not want pedophiles in its ranks, but how the hell to keep them out when
almost all men are incapable of chastity and purity. Only Great Souls like
myself can attain this state of nirvana. I should have been a Catholic
priest myself. I would have been the scourge of God on this earth and, I
assure you, I would know exactly what to do with pedophiles.

>> >Remember, we're talking about YOU.
>>
>> I am only a pretext for talking about everything under the sun besides
>> me.
>> Funny you haven't figured that out by now.
>>
>> > It's also easy to see why you were a failure to society.
>>
>> All teachers like yourself are in a sense failures.
>
> I really don't know what I failed at.

You failed at knowing how to deal with someone so Great as Myself. This is
mostly a failure of the imagination, so you have lots of company. But I
would urge you to acquire an imagination if that is possible. Then you will
revere and indeed worship the very ground that I walk on because you will be
so overcome by My Greatness.

> At least I can say I contributed my fair share to society. You merely
> lived off mommy and daddys money. Not much to be proud of there!

I am not into pride at all, just Greatness. Try to be more humble like me,
why don't you?

>>Those who can ... do,
>>those who can't ... teach.
>
> And those who can't teach....work! Or suck off of society like you!

Work is for servants and slaves like yourself. My Greatness will not permit
it. I am like God, pure consciousness that only delights in contemplating
Itself. Of course, if I were you, I can see where that would not be
possible. Perry Butler, like most men, is essentially a drudge. He works and
works like a donkey all of his life and then at the end of it wants to know
what it was all about. No wonder he resents Me and My Greatness!

>>But the more telling point is your concern with
>> success and failure.
>
> Those who have had a career and have been a contributing member of
> society ARE concerned with success and failure. Of course, a mommy and
> daddy's boy, like yourself, never had to worry about success and
> failure.

Nonsense, you know you are a failure, All men know that much at least. Just
ask your wife and kids. They will tell you how great a failure you have been
if no one else will.

>>But the more telling point is your concern with
>> success and failure. That ks you as basically insecure, something that
>> no
>> one has ever accused me of being. Please note my signature below.
>
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
> Sorry Eddie, the way you use this forum shows your insecurity!
>
> Your prolific number of posts shows your insecurity!
>
> Your having to always have the last word shows your insecurity!
>
> Your signature shows your insecurity!
[...]

Nope! All of the above shows just the opposite Very funny that you can't see
it. Only the truly secure can make fun of themselves in public.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with my ego that becoming a god would not
cure. I am presently working on this and will let you know when the Great
Happening occurs. At that point I will expect to see a change in your
attitude towards me, one more of awe and reverence as will befit my new
status.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

PS. My signature is mainly in retaliation for Peter Clinch's (also of this
newsgroup) rekably asinine signature which no one but me has ever
objected to. Since that was the case, I decided to come up with the best
signature ever. I think I have succeeded when I can even get a stodgy
stick-in-the-mud fellow like Perry Butler to comment on it.

Date: 12 Feb 2006 16:29:03
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
> ...
> I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
> exist....

I am opposed to Homo sapiens propagating.

--
Tom Sherman - (In Transition)

Date: 12 Feb 2006 21:27:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1139790543.063705.92240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
>> ...
>> I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
>> exist....
>
> I am opposed to Homo sapiens propagating.

Not only that, but the wrong breeds are propagating. The days of the West
are numbered because demography is destiny.

> Tom Sherman - (In Transition)

What are you transitioning to - a conservative perchance? "Johnny Sunset aka
Tom Sherman" stinks. I urge you to put some thought into your user name and
your signature.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

PS. Will the last person to post to ARBR please turn off the lights after
you leave.

Date: 12 Feb 2006 07:14:12
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
> exist. That is a politically correct liberal opinion, is it not?

Sorry Eddie, I know many conservatives who think it's OK to be gay.
Let me repeat, Eddie, there are some conservatives who think it's OK to
be gay, some real conservative conservatives! That alone does not make
me a "liberal," except maybe in some simple minds.

> If you agree with Tom that homos should exist,

It's not "should" but "do." You, a former Catholic altar boy, exist
don't you?

>then you will also agree with him that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Saddam Hussain needed to be removed. There I said it. And that's all
the further on this forum I'm going.

>You never deny any of my accusations.

You "never" bother to read for content. No wonder why your career as a
librarian was so short.

> Incidentally, I would like to know if you are now or have ever been a member
> of the Communist Party?

No.

>I know he is as one with Tom. They both think it
> is fine and dandy to be a homo.

I don't know anyone who thinks it's "fine and dandy to be a homo." The
few gays I know would certainly disagree with your statement. Each
would love to be straight.

I always wonder why someone like you can be so homophobic:

Former Catholic altar boy?
(Opps! Sorry! That would be pedofile not homosexual!)

Closet-homosexual yourself?

In denial?

You sure are infatuated with "homos."

> Why can't he be a good Lutheran from Lake Wobegon instead of a confounded
> Minnesota liberal. This is the worst kind of liberal in the entire world and
> has produced numerous numskulls who thought they should be president. Thank
> God none of them ever made it to the White House, no thanks to Perry Butler.

I'm not Lutheran, from Lake Wobegon, or a "Minnesota Liberal." The
Edward Kennedy's AND the Eddie Dolan's are one in the same; you two
just went around the circle in different directions to land in the same
spot.

But let's talk about "you." Again, the main point being, "Let's face
it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone
who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the definition used by
your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting
of you! "

Gee Eddie, do you think you can actually address the above paragraph or
did you fail English 101. So far you've failed English 101. Remember,
we're talking about YOU.

It's also easy to see why you were a failure to society.

Enjoy your closet,

Perry B

Date: 12 Feb 2006 22:53:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1139757252.044473.101410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Why can't he be a good Lutheran from Lake Wobegon instead of a confounded
>> Minnesota liberal. This is the worst kind of liberal in the entire world
>> and
>> has produced numerous numskulls who thought they should be president.
>> Thank
>> God none of them ever made it to the White House, no thanks to Perry
>> Butler.
>
> I'm not Lutheran, from Lake Wobegon, or a "Minnesota Liberal." The
> Edward Kennedy's AND the Eddie Dolan's are one in the same; you two
> just went around the circle in different directions to land in the same
> spot.

Here is an example of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bias on the part of the
English Protestant Perry Butler. He does not mind defending homos, but he
has never gotten over the historic English resentment of the Irish. Too bad
for him that we Irish are alive and well and that the English are now
second-rate everywhere in the world.
[...]

Remember,
> we're talking about YOU.

I am only a pretext for talking about everything under the sun besides me.
Funny you haven't figured that out by now.

> It's also easy to see why you were a failure to society.

All teachers like yourself are in a sense failures. Those who can ... do,
those who can't ... teach. But the more telling point is your concern with
success and failure. That ks you as basically insecure, something that no
one has ever accused me of being. Please note my signature below.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 12 Feb 2006 13:36:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1139757252.044473.101410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
>> exist. That is a politically correct liberal opinion, is it no
>
> Sorry Eddie, I know many conservatives who think it's OK to be gay.
> Let me repeat, Eddie, there are some conservatives who think it's OK to
> be gay, some real conservative conservatives! That alone does not make
> me a "liberal," except maybe in some simple minds.

Conservatives who are homo at least have some shame about it but not
liberals like you. No, you crow about how it is OK to be a homo, never once
condemning it. That is the difference and it is all the difference in the
world.

>> If you agree with Tom that homos should exist,
>
> It's not "should" but "do." You, a former Catholic altar boy, exist
> don't you?

But I condemn their existence and you don't. I am judgmental on the matter
and you aren't. Again, that is the difference and it is all the difference
in the world.

> >then you will also agree with him that the Iraq War was a mistake.
>
> Saddam Hussain needed to be removed. There I said it. And that's all
> the further on this forum I'm going.

I agree, the tyrant is gone and it is good riddance to him. The rest of the
world needs to thank God that the US exists. More nations like France and we
could kiss civilization farewell forever.

>>You never deny any of my accusations.
>
> You "never" bother to read for content. No wonder why your career as a
> librarian was so short.

I freely choose what it is that I do or not do. I never allow myself to be
influenced by what others might think. Try it sometime yourself. It frees
you from some of the constraints of society which we are all subject to. I
would rather be free to do my own thing even if it results in me not
"succeeding". If I succeed in my own mind, than I am a crashing success.
[...]

>>I know he is as one with Tom. They both think it
>> is fine and dandy to be a homo.
>
> I don't know anyone who thinks it's "fine and dandy to be a homo." The
> few gays I know would certainly disagree with your statement. Each
> would love to be straight.

Fully 95% of all gays freely choose that life style. They wallow in their
perversions. Read Gore Vidal if you want to know what homos are really like.
Andre Gide was another sad case, but he was French so what can you expect
from that quarter. Oscar Wilde was probably fairly typical of the breed.
Bottom line, nature would never create so many homos as it makes no sense
and is counterproductive to the long range interests of the species.

> I always wonder why someone like you can be so homophobic:
[...]

Nonsense. I like myself just fine. I just don't like Minnesota liberals like
you.

The rest of Perry Butler's post is just an ad hominem attack, something that
liberals are ever wont to do when all else fails them. I, the Great Ed
Dolan, would never stoop that low myself. My Greatness does not permit it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 06 Feb 2006 10:30:33
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

I'm galled that the current issue of Adventure Cyclist has a spot
article on this pervo ricon graffitti (con) "artist" who's doing some
charity road trip, but whose main claim to fame is his "art" on other
people's property.

I hope a bunch of blacks and hispanics show up in Missoula, MT, at the
AC HQ and give 'em a treatment of ghetto "art," complete with a few
riots demanding "no justice, no peace"...ghetto eye for the white guy!
Make-over hints for Wonder Bread Country...hehe!

perryb67@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>

Date: 05 Feb 2006 05:54:42
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
> My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what I
> mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few years
> ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and he
> are on the same page.

Where are Tom and I on the same page? In fact, even Tom will say that
we are often not on the same page.

>You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
> want to do anything about Iran either.

Sorry, where did you get this information? I'm active politically
where appropriate.

>That is because like all liberals you
> are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk know
> how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France for
> sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

Just because I believe this is not a political forum does not make me a
"liberal," except maybe in your small mind.

I truly wonder if you have the ability to rationalize thought! Can you
respond to all my points or only the ones that you can respond to
irrationally? You literally never respond to the main point!

Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

Enjoy,

Perry B

Date: 05 Feb 2006 23:31:25
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1139147682.830601.208410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly
>> what I
>> mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few
>> years
>> ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and
>> he
>> are on the same page.
>
> Where are Tom and I on the same page? In fact, even Tom will say that
> we are often not on the same page.

I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
exist. That is a politically correct liberal opinion, is it not?

>>You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
>> want to do anything about Iran either.
>
> Sorry, where did you get this information? I'm active politically
> where appropriate.

If you agree with Tom that homos should exist, then you will also agree with
him that the Iraq War was a mistake. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. Hells
Bells, I can know what you think on everything under the sun once I know you
are a liberal. Only we conservatives think for ourselves. We are not spoon
fed propaganda and brain washed like liberals are.

>>That is because like all liberals you
>> are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk
>> know
>> how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France
>> for
>> sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.
>
> Just because I believe this is not a political forum does not make me a
> "liberal," except maybe in your small mind.

You never deny any of my accusations. That speaks louder than anything!
Incidentally, I would like to know if you are now or have ever been a member
of the Communist Party?

> I truly wonder if you have the ability to rationalize thought! Can you
> respond to all my points or only the ones that you can respond to
> irrationally? You literally never respond to the main point!
>
> Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
> shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
> can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
> Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

Perry Butler has never denied being a liberal. His silence on this matter
speaks louder than words. I know he is as one with Tom. They both think it
is fine and dandy to be a homo.

Why can't he be a good Lutheran from Lake Wobegon instead of a confounded
Minnesota liberal. This is the worst kind of liberal in the entire world and
has produced numerous numskulls who thought they should be president. Thank
God none of them ever made it to the White House, no thanks to Perry Butler.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 01 Feb 2006 07:01:47
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Jeff Grippe wrote:
>
>
> I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.
>
> From dictionary.com
>
> coward:
> One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
>
> Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
> much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
> when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped with
> the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.

That reminds me of my favorite "working definition" of bravery -- doing
despite fear. It's easy to be clean and brave when fighting the
village drunk.

> I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look deeper.

You know one of the things I actually found charming about Army
infantry?

The sergeant who says, "I ain't dying for my country! Hell no...I'll
let the enemy die for his!"

> As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
> the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the better.
> The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who say "live
> and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may be
> impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

The problem is that each new generation is born with the bullying
instinct...and then as adults -- physical adults, anyway -- this
propensity is covered over with words and ideologies, but the emotional
stimulus remains this primal, visceral egoism. So what do you do
except use a thief to catch a thief?

> Jeff Grippe
> --Not a saint by any stretch but doesn't aspire to be one either

Date: 30 Jan 2006 21:13:44
From: JanPB
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "JanPB" <filt@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138675932.119960.136010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >> Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
> >> America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.
> >
> > But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?
>
> Are you crazy? Go down to our southern border with Mexico and see what is
> happening there.

OK, so exceptions do exist.

> > And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
> > tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of yland,
> > the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
> > both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
> > opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
> > must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
> > testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
> > that sort of thing.)
>
> The only polls that count are the election results.

Ah, the elections. Ahem. Well, I better not go there. :-)

--
Jan Bielawski

Date: 30 Jan 2006 18:52:12
From: JanPB
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
> America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.

But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?

And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of yland,
the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
that sort of thing.)

--
Jan Bielawski

Date: 30 Jan 2006 21:57:11
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"JanPB" <filt@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1138675932.119960.136010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
>> America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.
>
> But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?

Are you crazy? Go down to our southern border with Mexico and see what is
happening there. Americans do not flee from the US, but very many from
other nations will sell their souls to enter the US.

> And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
> tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of yland,
> the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
> both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
> opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
> must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
> testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
> that sort of thing.)

The only polls that count are the election results. By the way, there is
another one coming up next year. We shall see how the Dems will do, won't
we?

The Dems will have to get right on the security issue if they ever want to
resume power. The US is worth defending as it is the bulwark of Western
Civilization. I hate the far left because they are treasonous to the US and
to the West. They will not defend this nation the way it ought to be
defended. I wish they would go to Hell where the Devil could plague them for
their many errors and sins for all eternity.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 29 Jan 2006 08:53:48
From:
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Edward Dolan wrote:
> <perryb67@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1137841725.277602.283250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Ed,
> >
> > I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
> > politics and voting record.
> >
> > Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
> > it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?
> >
> > And Ed, feel free to pontificate!
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Perry B
> >
> > PS, sorry I top-posted!
>
> No, you did not top post since this message originated with you. Elementary,
> my dear Watson!

Sucker!

>
> Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
> mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
> that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
> enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.
>
> Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
> America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth. I
> note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
> issue.

Eddie,

This is it? This is the best you can do? Why are you calling others
and myself "liberals"? You use the word "liberal," can't you define
"liberal" any better than this?

If that's your answer, there are very few "liberals" in the good old
USA!

Amazing, even the Great Eddie Dolan can't adequately define "liberal."
Or was it too much of a shock to find out that maybe Perry isn't a
"liberal"!

Cat got your tongue?

Was this question too much for your simple mind?

Christ Eddie, answer the question!

Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you,
is "anyone who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the
definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple
definition befitting of you!

Feel free to rant! Of course, when you do you won't answer the
questions above, but will just find some way to pass your
simplemindedness. You always do!

Enjoy,

Perry B

Date: 30 Jan 2006 02:53:11
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1138553628.788494.138890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> <perryb67@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137841725.277602.283250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Ed,
>> >
>> > I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
>> > politics and voting record.
>> >
>> > Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
>> > it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?
>> >
>> > And Ed, feel free to pontificate!
>> >
>> > Enjoy,
>> >
>> > Perry B
>> >
>> > PS, sorry I top-posted!
>>
>> No, you did not top post since this message originated with you.
>> Elementary,
>> my dear Watson!
>
> Sucker!

???

>> Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
>> mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
>> that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
>> enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.
>>
>> Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
>> America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.
>> I
>> note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
>> issue.
>
> This is it? This is the best you can do? Why are you calling others
> and myself "liberals"? You use the word "liberal," can't you define
> "liberal" any better than this?
[...]

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what I
mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few years
ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and he
are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
want to do anything about Iran either. That is because like all liberals you
are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk know
how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France for
sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 30 Jan 2006 05:38:25
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

> My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what
> I mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few
> years ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You
> and he are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you most
> likely do want to do anything about Iran either. That is because like all
> liberals you are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you
> and your ilk know how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of
> la belle France for sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.

From dictionary.com

coward:
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped with
the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.

I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look deeper.

As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the better.
The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who say "live
and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may be
impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

Jeff Grippe
--Not a saint by any stretch but doesn't aspire to be one either

Date: 30 Jan 2006 06:51:41
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:11trr5qdm1skub8@news.supernews.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:

>> My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly
>> what I mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a
>> few years ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal.
>> You and he are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you
>> most likely do want to do anything about Iran either. That is because
>> like all liberals you are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare.
>> All you and your ilk know how to do is to run to the UN and seek the
>> approval of la belle France for sanctions or some other absurd
>> non-solution.
>
> I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.
>
> From dictionary.com
>
> coward:
> One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
>
> Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
> much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
> when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped
> with the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.
>
> I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look
> deeper.
>
> As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
> the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the
> better. The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who
> say "live and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may
> be impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands and
those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply cannot
afford any more Carter's in the White House.

This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon (maybe
from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would take for the
West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom bomb to go off in
one major city. At that point we will all be living in a world of police
states. People will give up their freedom readily in order to live in
safety.

We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists with
extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have nuclear
weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on. This is a war
worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have no stomach for
this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them cowards. If they
had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end. They did not know how
to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power and they do know any
better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.

Jeff is like an ostrich who buries his head in the sand the better not to
see what is happening in the world. The World Trade Center fiasco was not
enough to convince him of the dire peril we are in. It will take an atom
bomb destroying Manhattan before Jeff will ever wake up. But by then, it
will be too late. The kind of world we are living in today demands
preemptive wars.

The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any guts
and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 01 Feb 2006 05:49:23
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

> Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands
> and those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply
> cannot afford any more Carter's in the White House.
>

Jeff does not want the destiny of this nation in his hands. He knows he is
not equipped for that.

> This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
> terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
> (maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would take
> for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom bomb to
> go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in a world
> of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in order to
> live in safety.
>

A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of liberty,
however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it doesn't
really make them safer then they will want their liberty back. The
terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police state
doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an Iranian or
Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do anything to prevent
that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No matter how many patriot
acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue nations from acquiring a
weapon. We need a solution to this problem but taking away our liberties
isn't it.

> We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
> with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have nuclear
> weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on. This is a
> war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have no stomach
> for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them cowards. If
> they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end. They did not
> know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power and they do
> know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.
>

You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't be
done, do you have another plan?

> The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
> Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
> guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.
>

I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has been
deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North Koreans and
Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have done is talk
back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work with the
international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all so clear cut
and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and propose a
solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can actually be
accomplished.

Date: 01 Feb 2006 22:25:25
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:11u14hq546a0gcf@news.supernews.com...

Jeff, you must always attribute whatever is said to whoever said it. You
should have written the following before beginning:

Edward Dolan wrote:

>> Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands
>> and those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply
>> cannot afford any more Carter's in the White House.
>>
>
> Jeff does not want the destiny of this nation in his hands. He knows he is
> not equipped for that.

You should have said something about President Carter since I referenced
him. He was a liberal Dem whom you may have approved of and who is now going
about the world making a complete jackass out of himself. He is the worst
ex-president ever!

>> This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
>> terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
>> (maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
>> take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
>> bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in
>> a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in
>> order to live in safety.
>>
>
> A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
> liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it
> doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty back. The
> terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police state
> doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an Iranian or
> Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do anything to prevent
> that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No matter how many
> patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue nations from
> acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but taking away our
> liberties isn't it.

A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever happening.
Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution. Freedom will
no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a nuclear event.

Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than enough
for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only in the
West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily revert to
the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile creations and
it is by no means assured that such arrangements will prevail in the long
term.

If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will want
to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure and
you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter what it
takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order to
accomplish this, then I am all for it.

>> We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
>> with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
>> nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
>> This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have
>> no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them
>> cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end.
>> They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power
>> and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.
>>
>
> You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't be
> done, do you have another plan?
>
>> The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
>> Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
>> guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.
>>
>
> I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
> build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has been
> deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North Koreans
> and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have done is
> talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work with the
> international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all so clear
> cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and propose a
> solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can actually
> be accomplished.

As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take out
the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to begin
with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq. We would
go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be an Iraq all
over again.

However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in the
last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank God for
gutsy little Israel!

A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it. We
need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going to
lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 03 Feb 2006 03:57:44
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:v_2dnZgN3aEkFHzeRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
>>> This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
>>> terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
>>> (maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
>>> take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
>>> bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in
>>> a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in
>>> order to live in safety.
>>>
>>
>> A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
>> liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it
>> doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty back.
>> The terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police
>> state doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an
>> Iranian or Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do
>> anything to prevent that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No
>> matter how many patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue
>> nations from acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but
>> taking away our liberties isn't it.
>
> A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
> millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
> humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever
> happening. Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution.
> Freedom will no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a
> nuclear event.
>

We agree about the desired outcome but not about how to get there. The
number of terrorists is so small and the population so large that a police
state could never solve the problem regardless of whether or not a nuclear
device is detonated. People will trade freedom for security until they
discover that giving up their freedom did not result in greater security.

> Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
> they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
> had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than
> enough for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only
> in the West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily
> revert to the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile
> creations and it is by no means assured that such arrangements will
> prevail in the long term.
>

You are mixing apples and oranges here Ed. The reasons that some Russians
will give for saying that they were better off has nothing to do with
security and terrorism. The transition from the type of government that they
had to a free ket economy is not an easy one and during the rough spots,
some people will say, "we were better off before". But you are implying that
they were safe from Muslim terrorists when they lived under the Soviet Union
and nothing could be further from the truth.

>If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will want
>to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure and
>you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter what it
>takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order to
>accomplish this, then I am all for it.
>

It can't be done, Ed. You can't kill an idea. You and I agree that
fundamentalism in all of its incarnations is a very bad thing. Did killing
Tim McVeigh end the type of fundamentalism that he was involved in? Are we
safe from future acts of domestic terrorism?

When you go "over there" and kill the Muslim terrorists you create ters.
When you have collateral damage, and kill and torture civilians, you create
more terrorists. While it sounds good to say "Let go get 'em all.", I know
you are ster than that.

I also think that you are st enough to think for yourself and not accept
everything that President Bush says at face value.

You and I both agree that we want the terrorists stopped (or at least
controlled) and we want security for the American people. You are not going
to achive that by going to war with the Muslim world. You can't "Kill them
all" and you can't kill ideas.

>>> We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
>>> with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
>>> nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
>>> This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion)
>>> have no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call
>>> them cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the
>>> end. They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in
>>> power and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.
>>>
>>
>> You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't
>> be done, do you have another plan?
>>
>>> The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
>>> Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
>>> guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
>> build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has
>> been deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North
>> Koreans and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have
>> done is talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work
>> with the international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all
>> so clear cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and
>> propose a solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can
>> actually be accomplished.
>
> As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take
> out the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to
> begin with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq. We
> would go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be an
> Iraq all over again.
>
> However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
> weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
> them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in
> the last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank
> God for gutsy little Israel!
>
> A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it.
> We need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going
> to lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.
>

Sadly, we are already in decline, Ed. We have sold ourselves to China for
the cheap goods that you value so highly. By spending so much money on our
military we have allowed the economic advantage to slip to Europe and China.
I should say that I don't really view this as a contest although I have just
presented it as one. It is good for Europe, China, and the US to be
dependant on each other so that cooperation is assured. We will not "always
be at war". The number of people to wage war against is decreasing. As ties
between various nations becomes closer, all of them will have more to lose
from extremists, Muslim or otherwise.

The situation in Iran may actually lead to war. Unlike Iraq, where the
reliable intelligence pointed to there being no weapons program that was a
threat, in Iran, they are openly talking about having a weapons program that
will lead to weapons which would be a threat. Also, they are a theocracy
that sees us as an enemy. Saddam may have considered us an enemy but he was
at least secular. Iran is a real threat to the west but we have wasted our
precious resources in Iraq. We don't have an army to send to Iran if that
were determined to be necessary. Ultimately it will have to be settled by
the international community which is how it should be settled.

Date: 03 Feb 2006 17:45:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:11u66o927egt859@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:v_2dnZgN3aEkFHzeRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
>>>> This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
>>>> terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
>>>> (maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
>>>> take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
>>>> bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living
>>>> in a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily
>>>> in order to live in safety.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
>>> liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that
>>> it doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty
>>> back. The terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The
>>> police state doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of
>>> an Iranian or Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do
>>> anything to prevent that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No
>>> matter how many patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue
>>> nations from acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but
>>> taking away our liberties isn't it.
>>
>> A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
>> millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
>> humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever
>> happening. Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution.
>> Freedom will no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a
>> nuclear event.
>>
>
> We agree about the desired outcome but not about how to get there. The
> number of terrorists is so small and the population so large that a police
> state could never solve the problem regardless of whether or not a nuclear
> device is detonated. People will trade freedom for security until they
> discover that giving up their freedom did not result in greater security.

A police state would likely prevent most acts of terrorism, whether nuclear
or otherwise. Police states are even capable of preventing most crime, even
petty crime, it they are severe enough. The Soviet Union under Stalin was
excellent at keeping down all its minorities, including its many Muslim
minorities.

>> Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
>> they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
>> had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than
>> enough for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only
>> in the West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily
>> revert to the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile
>> creations and it is by no means assured that such arrangements will
>> prevail in the long term.
>>
>
> You are mixing apples and oranges here Ed. The reasons that some Russians
> will give for saying that they were better off has nothing to do with
> security and terrorism. The transition from the type of government that
> they had to a free ket economy is not an easy one and during the rough
> spots, some people will say, "we were better off before". But you are
> implying that they were safe from Muslim terrorists when they lived under
> the Soviet Union and nothing could be further from the truth.

The Russians are now living in a very crime ridden society. They are not as
safe and secure in their persons as they were under the old Soviet Union. In
addition, they now have to fear their Muslim minorities which they never had
to do before. Ever hear of Chechen?

>>If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will
>>want to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure
>>and you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter
>>what it takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order
>>to accomplish this, then I am all for it.
>>
>
> It can't be done, Ed. You can't kill an idea. You and I agree that
> fundamentalism in all of its incarnations is a very bad thing. Did killing
> Tim McVeigh end the type of fundamentalism that he was involved in? Are we
> safe from future acts of domestic terrorism?

McVeigh was very much a lone wolf. Such acts are rare and a free society can
handle these types by treating them as criminals. However, the Muslim
terrorists are something else altogether. They can only be defeated by
warfare.

> When you go "over there" and kill the Muslim terrorists you create
> ters. When you have collateral damage, and kill and torture civilians,
> you create more terrorists. While it sounds good to say "Let go get 'em
> all.", I know you are ster than that.

We should not concern ourselves at all with collateral damage or anything
else peripheral to getting the job done. We should proceed to kill as many
of them as fast as possible. There is no substitute for victory. Your
thinking is squishy like all liberal thinking. That is why I do not want
liberals running the country.

> I also think that you are st enough to think for yourself and not
> accept everything that President Bush says at face value.
>
> You and I both agree that we want the terrorists stopped (or at least
> controlled) and we want security for the American people. You are not
> going to achive that by going to war with the Muslim world. You can't
> "Kill them all" and you can't kill ideas.

Israel has learned the hard way that you cannot make peace with terrorists.
There will be peace in the Middle East when Israel decisively defeats the
Palestinians once and for all. Halfway measures are always the worst. The
best kind of peace to have is when all your enemies are dead and lying
peacefully in their graves.

>>>> We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
>>>> with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
>>>> nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
>>>> This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion)
>>>> have no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call
>>>> them cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the
>>>> end. They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in
>>>> power and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't
>>> be done, do you have another plan?
>>>
>>>> The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do
>>>> about Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you
>>>> have any guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
>>> build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has
>>> been deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North
>>> Koreans and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have
>>> done is talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work
>>> with the international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all
>>> so clear cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and
>>> propose a solution, however, please be sure to propose something that
>>> can actually be accomplished.
>>
>> As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take
>> out the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to
>> begin with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq.
>> We would go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be
>> an Iraq all over again.
>>
>> However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
>> weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
>> them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in
>> the last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank
>> God for gutsy little Israel!
>>
>> A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it.
>> We need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going
>> to lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.
>>
>
> Sadly, we are already in decline, Ed. We have sold ourselves to China for
> the cheap goods that you value so highly. By spending so much money on our
> military we have allowed the economic advantage to slip to Europe and
> China. I should say that I don't really view this as a contest although I
> have just presented it as one. It is good for Europe, China, and the US to
> be dependant on each other so that cooperation is assured. We will not
> "always be at war". The number of people to wage war against is
> decreasing. As ties between various nations becomes closer, all of them
> will have more to lose from extremists, Muslim or otherwise.

China has been around for thousands of years and has never amounted to much
on the world stage. The same is true for India. Their internal problems will
forever keep them backward. They both are over developed in the numbers of
people they have to feed and clothe.

Europe had its moment in the sun prior to this century. Even if they were to
unite, they will continue to have their own problems which will forever
prevent them from dominating the world as they did in the 19th century.
Sorry, but the US is stuck with being the one remaining super power for
quite some time to come.

We will always want to be at war for good and just reasons. Any other view
is insane. For instance, I think it would be a good idea to go to the Sudan
and kick some Arab ass there. We could easily do it and we would thereby
save hundreds of thousands of people by doing so. It is liberals like you
who end up causing the most misery in the world by your constant inaction in
the face of outrage.

> The situation in Iran may actually lead to war. Unlike Iraq, where the
> reliable intelligence pointed to there being no weapons program that was a
> threat, in Iran, they are openly talking about having a weapons program
> that will lead to weapons which would be a threat. Also, they are a
> theocracy that sees us as an enemy. Saddam may have considered us an enemy
> but he was at least secular. Iran is a real threat to the west but we have
> wasted our precious resources in Iraq. We don't have an army to send to
> Iran if that were determined to be necessary. Ultimately it will have to
> be settled by the international community which is how it should be
> settled.

All of the above is nothing but liberal propaganda and has no relationship
at all to how the world actually functions. We are fighting the war against
the Muslim terrorists in Iraq which is exactly where I want it to be fought,
not here in the US. Iran is not a bigger threat than Saddam, it is the same
threat. It all springs from Islamic extremism. Let's face it, Islam is a God
awful religion for men to be saddled with. It will have to be defeated and
extinguished just as Nazism was, or else totally reformed from within. The
world cannot live with it the way it is now.

If and when we invade Iran we will go through that miserable country the
same way we went through Iraq. We have the military to do it right now. I do
not worry about ever being defeated by Islamic terrorists or Muslim nations,
but I do worry about being defeated by liberal scum right here in the US.

Please stay the hell out of the Heartland and remain in New York where you
belong. Another Muslim terrorist strike in NY is what you deserve, only
maybe the next time it will take out half the city instead of just a couple
of buildings.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 22 Jan 2006 01:05:45
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1137841725.277602.283250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ed,
>
> I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
> politics and voting record.
>
> Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
> it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?
>
> And Ed, feel free to pontificate!
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Perry B
>
> PS, sorry I top-posted!

No, you did not top post since this message originated with you. Elementary,
my dear Watson!

Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth. I
note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
issue.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 21 Jan 2006 19:50:57
From: LoGo USA
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Apolitical greetings -

Tom opined:

>Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/
>~30 kph downhill on a tadpole trike.

Actually, I suspect Ed's more likely to think a liberal
is someone who enjoys that experience. He might accept a
guy whose sweaty sphincter is clinching as a fellow
conservative. As usual, in both cases he's probably wrong.

Regards,
Wayne

Date: 22 Jan 2006 01:12:36
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

"LoGo USA" <wayne@logo-us.com > wrote in message
news:1137901857.239725.7130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Apolitical greetings -
>
> Tom opined:
>
>>Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/
>>~30 kph downhill on a tadpole trike.
>
> Actually, I suspect Ed's more likely to think a liberal
> is someone who enjoys that experience. He might accept a
> guy whose sweaty sphincter is clinching as a fellow
> conservative. As usual, in both cases he's probably wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Wayne

I am against anyone going faster than about 20 mph on any kind of a bike
unless you are into racing. You are courting death when you undertake speed
on a bike. I urge all of you to proceed slowly on your bikes. You will live
longer that way.

"I grow old . I grow old .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled."

T.S.Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 21 Jan 2006 07:10:25
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Ed, define "Liberal"

Perry Butler <perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
> politics and voting record.
>
> Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is?...

Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/~30 kph downhill
on a tadpole trike.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)