b4d4ca02   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 17 Apr, 20:29, "Scout"    
   wrote:   
   > "wy"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:87d49275-8e6e-470e-9770-b4bc18dc055b@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On 16 Apr, 22:38, "Scout"    
   > > wrote:   
   > >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > >>news:758610b1-37ae-4de9-815c-fd416747d8bf@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > >> > On 16 Apr, 18:03, RD Sandman    
   > >> > wrote:   
   >   
   > >> >> >> If you don't wish to discuss it and consider the other side of the   
   > >> >> >> argument, that is your choice.  However, the Supreme Court has   
   > >> >> >> ruled,   
   > >> >> >> and, IMHO, gotten it right.   
   >   
   > >> >> > Well, of course it's gotten it right for you because you're a right   
   > >> >> > wingnut who's totally satisfied by a razor-thin partisan win of 5-4.   
   >   
   > >> >> I am an independent and not long ago a registered Democrat.   
   >   
   > >> > Funny.  You don't think and write like one.   
   >   
   > >> How exactly do you feel a liberal should think and write?   
   >   
   > >> Please be specific in your answer and use examples with cites.   
   >   
   > > A liberal thinks and writes not like a right wingnut.   
   >   
   > IOW, you have no idea of how he should think or write.   
      
   I already said what he'd have to do.  The opposite of what he already   
   is doing.  Boy, you're stupid.   
      
      
   >   
   > >  I thought you'd   
   > > at least be smart enough to figure that one out yourself.   
   >   
   > Nope, you're simply stating how he shouldn't think or write, I asked you how   
   > a liberal thinks and writes. Seems you don't know.   
   >   
   > Though I suspect it doesn't have lot to do with actually being able to   
   > think, knowing what is being talked about, using facts, and primarily by not   
   > pointing out how you're wrong in what you say.   
   >   
   > >  As for   
   > > examples, just refer to everything you've written and rewrite it all   
   > > with an opposite point of view.   
   >   
   > But we're not talking about me, and what's wrong with having an opposite   
   > point of view particularly if the facts support that point of view?   
      
   Nothing's wrong, so long as the opposite view makes sense.  Repugnants   
   don't make sense.  Ever.   
      
      
   >   
   > Are you telling me that liberalism is all about agreeing with each other   
   > even someone is ignorant, stupid, wrong or flat out lying?   
      
   No, don't be boy, you're stupid.   
      
      
   >   
   > > The resulting revelation of how dumb   
   > > you really were as a right wingnut will astound you.   
   >   
   > And so we reach the end and you've yet to answer the simple question put to   
   > you.   
   >   
   > And you want to talk about being dumb. You want to see dumb?   
   >   
   > Look in your mirror.   
      
   Pretty handsome guy if I have to say so myself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)