XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Wed, 29 May 2013 07:38:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"    
   wrote in alt.atheism:   
      
   >"Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   >news:csraq81970ul3ohpb0a4mfhb3eq3ht6mai@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:53:35 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"    
   >> wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >>   
   >>>"Jeanne Douglas"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:hlwdjsd2-08852C.17293125052013@news.giganews.com...   
   >>>> In article   
   >>>> ,   
   >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:   
   ....   
   >>>>> I worked for a state agency before I retired. I worked with some   
   employees   
   >>>>> just like Cindy Thomas. They would do whatever the boss told them to do   
   >>>>> (even if it was a violation of the rules). They knew that was the best   
   way   
   >>>>> to get promotions. They were correct. Many of them got the promotions   
   they   
   >>>>> were seeking since the top bosses knew they would obey their orders even   
   >>>>> if the orders were in violation of the rules or laws. We called them ass   
   >>>>> kissers and lap dogs.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It worked out for the lady that Obama appointed to the supreme court.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What? What the fuck are you talking about?   
   >>>   
   >>>You really are this ignorant ??   
   >>>Let me repeat the clues for the clueless   
   >>>    ++ One woman got to become a US Supreme Court Justice   
   >>>    ++ for all the work she did  to help push through Obamacare.   
   >>>    ++ And she didn't even have the decency to recuse herself   
   >>>    ++ when the case came to the Supreme Court.   
   >>>   
   >>>I'll give you another clue, because you are so stump-ignorant   
   >>>    Her name starts with a "K"..   
   >>   
   >> You need to stop lying to us.   
   >   
   >Where is the lie, dummy ?   
   >    Or are you just trying to prove (again) how stupid and ignorant you are   
   >?   
   You have falsely claimed that Justic Kagan did not recuse herself on a   
   case where that is the ethical thing to do. It seems unlikely that she   
   had anything to do with it given that the law had only been passed   
   shortly before she was nominated to the Court.   
      
   Do you have actual evidence or merely the bigoted innuendo that   
   ignorant, hate-filled reactionaries spew?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)