XPost: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: maxheadroom@localnet.com   
      
   Matt  wrote in  news:XnsA173A27E05D58mat   
   tellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:   
      
   > "max headroom"  wrote in   
   > news:kgjb4k$uf4$2@dont-email.me:   
      
   >> Matt  wrote in   
   >> news:kgj5bq$p8k$1@dont-email.me:   
      
   >>> "max headroom"  wrote in   
   >>> news:kgimnl$tdi$2@dont-email.me:   
      
   >>>> Matt  wrote in   
   >>>> news:XnsA1733390CA81Bmatttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:   
      
   >>>>> "max headroom"  wrote in   
   >>>>> news:kghc08$gof$2@dont-email.me:   
      
   >>>>>> Matt  wrote in   
   >>>>>> news:XnsA172C83D7945Fmatttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:   
      
   >>>>>>> "max headroom"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>> news:kgh6le$s4f$3@dont-email.me:   
      
   >>>>>>>> Democrats are equally guilty of the sins for which you condemn   
   >>>>>>>> conservatives.   
      
   >>>>>>> So, because some Democrats are guilty of some of the sins which   
   >>>>>>> make Republicans bad for America, they are equals? Then, surely,   
   >>>>>>> it makes no difference who you vote for, and you should vote a   
   >>>>>>> straight Democratic ticket.   
      
   >>>>>> Do you vote a straight ticket? Since that requires almost no   
   >>>>>> thought, it would explain much.   
      
   >>>>> Ah, so now you think you know how I vote too.   
      
   >>>> Do you see that squiggly mark after the word "ticket"? That's called   
   >>>> a "question mark" and it means the sentence asks a question. It is   
   >>>> not making a statement.   
      
   >>> Really. Do you know the word "rhetorical"? Perhaps you should look it   
   >>> up. Asking a question and making a statement after it implies a level   
   >>> of rhetoric.   
      
   >> Any inference of rhetoric was purely on your part.   
      
   > Then why did you offer the opinion that it explained a lot?...   
      
   I didn't. If you read more carefully, you'll see I wrote that it WOULD explain   
   much. It's a   
   conditional statement.   
      
   > ... Shouldn't you wait until I answer? No, because you've already made up   
   your mind.   
      
   BTW, it was a question you never answered. Why is that?   
      
   >>>> No need to thank me: elucidating the mysterious to the enfeebled is   
   >>>> my burden   
      
   >>> Thank you. You have shown yourself for what you are. A Conservative   
   >>> loser....   
      
   >> So you believe educators are losers. That's rather harsh... for a pinkie.   
      
   > You educate about as well as, say, George W. Bush decides.   
      
   It's unseemly for an educator to blame the student, but in your case, I   
   imagine it happened   
   frequently.   
      
   >>> ... Oops, my bad, I was redundant.   
      
   >> Wow... if you believe all educators are conservatives, that kinda   
   >> places you to the left of Bernie Sanders on the political spectrum.   
      
   > Really. Bernie being an independent, you have the most interesting view....   
      
   Sanders an independent?!? "Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist..."   
      
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_sanders   
      
   > ... That would make your idol a bit to the right....   
      
   Please quote from my writing evidence that I have an idol. Use as many lines   
   as necessary.   
      
   > ... Hitler, perhaps?...   
      
   Oops. Now you've done it -- Godwin's Law. You lose.   
      
   But thanks for playing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)