I believe Senator Baucus and Montana Senator Jon Tester are proposing to build that in Thompson Falls Montana.
It will be quite a boost to the local economy.
Snowe to Support Baucus Bill
- Thread starter Winter_123
- Start date
I believe Senator Baucus and Montana Senator Jon Tester are proposing to build that in Thompson Falls Montana.
It will be quite a boost to the local economy.
- 14,808
Well stated. I don't think anyone has a right to health insurance but everyone should have access to affordable health care. Two totally different issues.
- 3,863
Wow - there's a can of worms opened up wide.
Where's Al3? I would love to hear his response to this. I do enjoy his posts, I am sure he would have one incredible response to this statement.
- 15,319
He's busy right now having brunch so let me respond for him.
You neo-cons are human garbage. I hope you need healthcare and can't get it.
Insurance is not for unforseen problems. It must be available after the fact, the way god intended.
I am the only ethical insurance agent on this forum and you guys all are disgusting. I vomit when I think about you and would leave this forum if I had anything else going on in my life.
(please pretend I wrote another 2,000 words that nobody will read below).
Al3
- 686
Wow! If I hadn't seen this by Rick I would have thought it was vintage Al3.
You rock, Rick!
- 10,275
Al is usually civil with me. But if he wasn't, I could probably expect something like this from him:
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Mr. Oxford Chumps as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Oxford probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his crazy neocon sermons, which, after all, are the things that promote a pathological antidisestablishmentarianism. Instead of focusing on why he should have instructed his neocon winged monkeys not to protect undeserved privilege, I would like to remind people that he must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could Oxford manage to tell us that he has his moral compass in tact? He says that a book of his neocon writings would be a good addition to the Bible. If that's the limit of Oxford's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him and his Ohio loonies.
If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I put the kibosh on Oxford's neocon snow jobs. It would be bad enough if Oxford's secret agents were merely trying to cause one-sided ruses to be entered into historical fact. But their attempts to demonize my family and friends are just plain amoral. Oxford seems incapable of understanding that one of his subalterns keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Oxford's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Oxford is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with neocon inconvenient facts. Eventually, however, Oxford is likely to switch to some sort of "set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts" approach to draw our attention away from such facts.
We can't stop Oxford overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that Oxford constructs those neocon statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that today, we might have let Oxford mollycoddle what I call cuckoo snollygosters. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will resolve a number of lingering problems.
How do you think Oxford will get his hands on all of the incriminating documents about him that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or his favored battering-ram incursion? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why is it that 99 times out of 100, Oxford unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Oxford and his neocon hangers-on take is that Oxford should just quit whining about everything. What is his current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
Oxford's flunkies all look like Oxford, think like Oxford, act like Oxford, and use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to exploit the public's short attention span in order to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature, just like Oxford does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha! Let's understand one fundamental fact: We must cast a gimlet eye on his neocon doctrines. Our children depend on that.
There are two types of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and conscienceless, unrestrained gasbags like Oxford. For heaven's sake, if his idolators had even an ounce of integrity they would reinforce notions of positive self-esteem. His hatchet men are sanctimonious at best, the downfall of society at worst. To fully understand that, you need to realize that Oxford follows a dual code of Ohio neocon morality—one morality for his fellow spiteful big-labor bosses and another for the rest of the world. This is why by refusing to act, by refusing to respond to his wheelings and dealings, we are giving him the power to vandalize our neighborhoods. His cronies are tools. Like a neocon hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Oxford Chumps, who wants nothing less than to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination.
At first blush, it appears that Oxford's shenanigans are a quick-fix detour, a placebo aimed at surface symptoms, and an excuse to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought. However, Oxford claims that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his maneuvers. Then again, my current plan is to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by Oxford and his peuplade. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but I believe in "live and let live". Oxford, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his anecdotes but endorsement of them. It's because of such neocon balmy demands that I allege that he swears that he can succeed without trying. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, Oxford's philosophies are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to create anomie.
Oxford's propaganda machine once said that Oxford would never form the association in the public's mind between any vaporings he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. So much for credibility! His taradiddles are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by plagiarism to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. That's self-evident, and even Oxford would probably agree with me on that. Even so, while he has been beating the drums of opportunism, I've been trying to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. In doing so, I've learned that when Oxford's infantile utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. For me, this supercilious moonshine serves only to emphasize how while Oxford manufactures crises over credentialism, his gestapo has been attacking everyone else's beliefs.
I don't wish to psychologize here, but Oxford wants to convince impressionable young people that it's okay for him to indulge his every neocon whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Who does he think he is? I mean, we are now stuck with a dictatorial fascism bearing a human face—that of Oxford Chumps. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to overweening serpents who want to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Oxford claims that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Oxford's précis are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Mr. Oxford Chumps and establish democracy and equality.
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Mr. Oxford Chumps as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Oxford probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his crazy neocon sermons, which, after all, are the things that promote a pathological antidisestablishmentarianism. Instead of focusing on why he should have instructed his neocon winged monkeys not to protect undeserved privilege, I would like to remind people that he must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could Oxford manage to tell us that he has his moral compass in tact? He says that a book of his neocon writings would be a good addition to the Bible. If that's the limit of Oxford's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him and his Ohio loonies.
If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I put the kibosh on Oxford's neocon snow jobs. It would be bad enough if Oxford's secret agents were merely trying to cause one-sided ruses to be entered into historical fact. But their attempts to demonize my family and friends are just plain amoral. Oxford seems incapable of understanding that one of his subalterns keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Oxford's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Oxford is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with neocon inconvenient facts. Eventually, however, Oxford is likely to switch to some sort of "set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts" approach to draw our attention away from such facts.
We can't stop Oxford overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that Oxford constructs those neocon statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that today, we might have let Oxford mollycoddle what I call cuckoo snollygosters. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will resolve a number of lingering problems.
How do you think Oxford will get his hands on all of the incriminating documents about him that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or his favored battering-ram incursion? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why is it that 99 times out of 100, Oxford unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Oxford and his neocon hangers-on take is that Oxford should just quit whining about everything. What is his current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
- to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas,
- to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings, and
- to foster suspicion—if not hatred—of "outsiders".
Oxford's flunkies all look like Oxford, think like Oxford, act like Oxford, and use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to exploit the public's short attention span in order to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature, just like Oxford does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha! Let's understand one fundamental fact: We must cast a gimlet eye on his neocon doctrines. Our children depend on that.
There are two types of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and conscienceless, unrestrained gasbags like Oxford. For heaven's sake, if his idolators had even an ounce of integrity they would reinforce notions of positive self-esteem. His hatchet men are sanctimonious at best, the downfall of society at worst. To fully understand that, you need to realize that Oxford follows a dual code of Ohio neocon morality—one morality for his fellow spiteful big-labor bosses and another for the rest of the world. This is why by refusing to act, by refusing to respond to his wheelings and dealings, we are giving him the power to vandalize our neighborhoods. His cronies are tools. Like a neocon hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Oxford Chumps, who wants nothing less than to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination.
At first blush, it appears that Oxford's shenanigans are a quick-fix detour, a placebo aimed at surface symptoms, and an excuse to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought. However, Oxford claims that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his maneuvers. Then again, my current plan is to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by Oxford and his peuplade. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but I believe in "live and let live". Oxford, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his anecdotes but endorsement of them. It's because of such neocon balmy demands that I allege that he swears that he can succeed without trying. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, Oxford's philosophies are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to create anomie.
Oxford's propaganda machine once said that Oxford would never form the association in the public's mind between any vaporings he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. So much for credibility! His taradiddles are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by plagiarism to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. That's self-evident, and even Oxford would probably agree with me on that. Even so, while he has been beating the drums of opportunism, I've been trying to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. In doing so, I've learned that when Oxford's infantile utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. For me, this supercilious moonshine serves only to emphasize how while Oxford manufactures crises over credentialism, his gestapo has been attacking everyone else's beliefs.
I don't wish to psychologize here, but Oxford wants to convince impressionable young people that it's okay for him to indulge his every neocon whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Who does he think he is? I mean, we are now stuck with a dictatorial fascism bearing a human face—that of Oxford Chumps. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to overweening serpents who want to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Oxford claims that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Oxford's précis are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Mr. Oxford Chumps and establish democracy and equality.
- Thread starter
- #27
- 2,908
Precisely my sentiments. You have certainly summarized things quite well and placed the issues squarely within a circumcized triangle.
- 10,275
"circumcized triangle"
That...might win the Forum phrase of the month.
That...might win the Forum phrase of the month.
- 990
Similar threads
