medicineman
New Member
I'm not colorblind, but the yellow is unreadable, well at least not worth the effort.
Aid to Israel rape of American taxpayer
- Thread starter trishmybiscuits
- Start date
- Status
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
You disappoint me. That's quite an accomplishment for you because I find your history of everyday behavior at RIU beneath contempt for the most part. How can you justify using such offensive language and call yourself a Progressive?
Whether you support Israel is irrelevant. One can dislike Israel just like one may dislike any country. No problem there. You can say fuck Joe Lieberman and I may not agree, but I will not criticize it. Why did you frame it the way you did? 'Jew scumbag'? Call him a scumbag, no problem, but why did you preface it with 'Jew'? What would your response be to a post which included words like 'Mexican scumbag' or 'black scumbag'?
Joe Lieberman is not a traitor. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Lieberman had the guts to stand up to his party, and when the party tried to replace him, he ran as an Independent and flattened the Democrat challenger in the general election. I call Joe Lieberman a shrewd politician and a good leader. He is an Independent in name only. He's mostly a Democrat and the record is very clear here. It is simply not true that he voted in lockstep with Bush. Who are these vandals of which you speak?
When I see hateful shit like this spewing from you, it reads like the words of an operative from a fringe group bent on making progressives look bad. You wouldn't happen to be an ultra-right-wing troll would you?
medicineman
New Member
Oh Johnny, you're such a drag. I was just saying that traitor Joe lieberman was a scumbag and, well yes he is a jew. Jew in the sense that they run the government, not in the sense of their religion. I have great appreciation of those jews and their biblical heritage, but great disdain for the money grubers, like you know, the ones Jesus threw out of the temple. Tell me Joe lieberman is not of the money grubbing Jew culture and I'll retract my Jew verbage. You have made it your personal task to malign me at every turn so all I really have to say to you is kiss my American ass. You act all high and mighty but I'll bet you're a little pencil necked geek. So as for now back to the dungeon, and oh yeah, fuck you asshole.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The fact I take exception to offensive language does not make me high and mighty. The fact that I mop the floor with you every time we tangle is another matter entirely.
You better hurry back to that Ignore feature before I prompt you to embarrass yourself further.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Listen up you piece of shit motherfucker. I find your VERBIAGE against jewish people offensive too. If you used those terms in front of me I'd kick your rotten motherfucking teeth down your fucking throat. I'm growing tired of your fat motherfucking old ignorant ass disparaging everyone who doesn't agree with your fucked inthe head ideology. You are nothing more than a bitter, old, hateful, racist cum stain who feels that anyone who doesn't see things your way are ignorant fools. They are not. I am not. And you, you closet faggot, better hope you and I don't cross paths.
This 4th a July I hope someone shoves a Roman Candle up your ass and lights it.
Oh yeah...And fuck you too.
medicineman
New Member
Geeze dave,I didn't know you were so eloquent. I guess I struck a nerve eh. A threat from a Biker faggot eh. well Since I have a carry permit, I'm not too scared. You have some pretty wierd ideas yourself. You and Johnny faggot make a good pair. I have a few friends that would like to meet you and take care of our little problem. I guess you didn't notice the part where I gave all the real Jews Kudos, but thats typical of intellect like yours. Quick to jump to conclusions and condemn anything you don't understand. I guess this means I can cross you off my christmas list (a Play on Jewdom) As I said, I have no predjudice against jews, just the way they run the world. we cant forget the bilderbergs or the rothschilds. Here dave, I realize you won't read it but anyway, here is a partial list of Jews in the Bush administration, past or present :
Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Mel Sambler, Michael Chertoff, steve goldsmith, Adam Goldman, Douglas feith, Edward Luttwak, Henry Kissinger, Dov Zakheim, Kenneth Adelman, I Lewis Libby, Robert Satloff, Elliot AQbrams, Marc Grossman, Richardf Hass, Robert Zoellick, Ari fleischer, James Schelisinger, David Frum, josua Bolton, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Christopher Gersten, Mark Weinberger, Samuel Bodman, Bonnie Cohen, Ruth Davis, Daniel Kurtzer, Cliff Sobel, Stuart Bernstein, Nancy Brinker, Frank Lavin, Ron Weiser, Mel Sembler, well as you can see, this is a very limited partial list of Jews in the present white house and cabinet, The list is long and very Jewish, It goes on for pages. These are the people that I'm refering to, the ones with power that are fucking up the world. People of Jewish descent or religion are very welcome in my home or presence, but the evil ones are not. So I guess the question is; are you one of the evil ones? Anyway, trying to have a civil conversation with a Biker is useless, they always bring out the knives, fists, and guns. THis has inspired me to write a Jewish espose', the evil ones of course.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
I hear he like to ride horses and you forgot his beast of burden. So allow me Dave.
Fuck you AND the horse you rode in on!
He's a narcissist Dave and this will make his 4th very happy. So Cussing him and his horse is really a good thing.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Fucking typical. Oh Med's got a problem and he'll have someone else take care of it for him. You talk a good story you piece of shit, but clearly lacks the balls to back it up....unless you have someone else do it for you or have a weapon. If you're going to shit out of that pie hole of yours at least grow a pair to stand behind what you say you fat fuck. You can't remain civil if your life depended upon it for more than a few days. Being an obnoxious, spiteful, mean person is your nature.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Yeah, He's a real bad motherfucker. LOL! It's funny because this 'little pencil necked geek' tears him a new one every time.
Did you see how he tried to back peddle from 'jew scumbag' by making a distinction between 'good jews' and 'money grubbing-jews?' LOL! Next he'll try to explain the difference between black people and *(insert N-word here). Never have a I seen such a tone-deaf, yet self-righteous, sack of hate as Medicineman.
As for 'Johnny faggot', unless we all see some compelling evidence ASAP proving your ASSertion, this will simply be another case of Medicineman projection.
'THis has inspired me to write a Jewish espose', the evil ones of course.' As long as it's not the work of someone else under the guise of a cut-and-paste job, I am on the edge of my seat in anticipation. I will shred this one just as I did your 'treatise' on Libertarians.
Which extreme-right-wing organization do you work for Med? You should get a gold watch because you make Progressives look real bad.
Med, Dave was patient with you for a long time. I commend him for him for his forbearance. Like me, there was a line YOU crossed which could not be tolerated by Dave.
Last edited:
medicineman
New Member
I see you didn't read the article, just spewing hateful biker bullshit. When in my prime, I'd have kicked the living shit out of you, but being nigh on to 70, it's a little past my repose. You talk like a big man but I'll bet you never had a fight without your Biker buddies backing you up, typical drunken Biker talk, "I'll kick your ass" what you really mean is "We'll kick your ass. Anyway, you are way to ignorant to converse with so as they say is So. Nv., fuck you too asshole.
ccodiane
New Member
"Which extreme-right-wing organization do you work for Med? You should get a gold watch because you make Progressives look real bad."
Your desire to moderate the liberals is curious. The mask comes off, and you tell him to put it back on? I'm all about keeping the mask off these liberals. Maybe it's because of the identity you've shrouded yourself in, very conservative, very liberal at times, I recall.
Med is a lib, saying what all libs want to say, and will eventually do, if we give them a pass and let them create their own image independent of facts. We are what we are, labels be damned. And libs are Marxists.
Your desire to moderate the liberals is curious. The mask comes off, and you tell him to put it back on? I'm all about keeping the mask off these liberals. Maybe it's because of the identity you've shrouded yourself in, very conservative, very liberal at times, I recall.
Med is a lib, saying what all libs want to say, and will eventually do, if we give them a pass and let them create their own image independent of facts. We are what we are, labels be damned. And libs are Marxists.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I don't oppose just Liberals. If a Conservative had used the hateful term "jew scumbag," you would have seen a response just as lively from me. It was the hate to which I objected.
The only thing I shroud myself in is the Constitution. I know you've read the Bill of Rights. Would you agree that the articles within are BOTH Conservative and Liberal?
Many labels could be accurately applied to JohnnyOrganic based on my posts: Classical Liberal, Jeffersonian Liberal, Neo-libertarian, but my favorite is Goldwater Libertarian. If you must label me, call me a Goldwater Libertarian.
Here I disagree. Med is an extremist. He is an aberration. Not all Liberals share his fringe-group beliefs. What I believe about the great majority of liberals/progressives today is that they are misguided.
Last edited:
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Eat shit you worthless cum stain. I see you're also delusional, but no big surprise there either. First, I am not a biker and I have no "biker buddies" but I see that you're incapable, in that pea brain of yours, of discerning between one who rides a bike and a biker. Secondly, I need nobody to back my shit up unlike yourself who constantly goes on about needing a gun or "friends". Actually, I'm quite surprised you have friends other than the ones you probably swap seminal fluid with.
It'll be just my knuckles pounding your worthless ass into a pulp...Again, you are incapable of remaining civil with anyone who disagrees with you for more than a few days and you're right back to your mean, hateful, racist, spiteful self. You're an old, bitter, spiteful waste of air.
Last edited:
ccodiane
New Member
"I don't oppose just Liberals. If a Conservative had used the hateful term "jew scumbag," you would have seen a response just as lively from me. It was the hate to which I objected."
One just did..........................................................................................
It's all in context.
Goldwater, huh. Please do me a favor. Listen to this portion of a Goldwater definition of liberal and conservative. It is very illuminating, as is Goldwater. The favor aspect will be me knowing that you heard this, so I can respond accordingly in future exchanges.
The Mark Levin Show » Audio
07/03 streaming audio...start at 13:00 and go to about 17:00.......excellent stuff, quoting Goldwater. Happy 4th all!
One just did..........................................................................................
It's all in context. Goldwater, huh. Please do me a favor. Listen to this portion of a Goldwater definition of liberal and conservative. It is very illuminating, as is Goldwater. The favor aspect will be me knowing that you heard this, so I can respond accordingly in future exchanges.
The Mark Levin Show » Audio
07/03 streaming audio...start at 13:00 and go to about 17:00.......excellent stuff, quoting Goldwater. Happy 4th all!
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Mark Levin is a name-caller. Nothing more. I've listened to his dribble before and I didn't like it. Please just provide here the excerpt you wish to discuss. Otherwise, spare me having to listen to Mark Levine."I don't oppose just Liberals. If a Conservative had used the hateful term "jew scumbag," you would have seen a response just as lively from me. It was the hate to which I objected."
One just did..........................................................................................
Goldwater, huh. Please do me a favor. Listen to this portion of a Goldwater definition of liberal and conservative. It is very illuminating, as is Goldwater. The favor aspect will be me knowing that you heard this, so I can respond accordingly in future exchanges.
The Mark Levin Show » Audio
07/03 streaming audio...start at 13:00 and go to about 17:00.......excellent stuff, quoting Goldwater. Happy 4th all!
ccodiane
New Member
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf
excerpt, "Conscience of a Conservative", by Barry Goldwater
Chapter One
The Conscience of a Conservative
"I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to
breast-beating. “Republican candidates,” Vice President Nixon has said, “should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart.” President Eisenhower announced during his first term, “I am a conservative
when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems.” Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves “progressive” Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an
admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper’s guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy. The same judgment, though in
the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. “We liberals,” they say, “are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the
preservation of economic privilege and status.” Take them a step further and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the “malefactors of great wealth.”
Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is
Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place—that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in
which economics plays only a subsidiary role. The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the
material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs
and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political
philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for “human beings”—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their
characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature. Surely the first obligation of a political
thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not
too proud to learn from the great minds of the past. The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man’s most sacred possession is his individual soul—which has an
immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and,
accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about “the common man.” It is a concept that pays little
attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate
slavery. Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man’s nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved
politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State. The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man’s development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not
something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make:
they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security “benefits,” it is because he is more anxious
than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit. So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other
men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with
“democratic” Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a
mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with
dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race. With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon
politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the
establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a
self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds."
For you, Johnny. Happy 4th.
excerpt, "Conscience of a Conservative", by Barry Goldwater
Chapter One
The Conscience of a Conservative
"I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to
breast-beating. “Republican candidates,” Vice President Nixon has said, “should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart.” President Eisenhower announced during his first term, “I am a conservative
when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems.” Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves “progressive” Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an
admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper’s guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy. The same judgment, though in
the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. “We liberals,” they say, “are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the
preservation of economic privilege and status.” Take them a step further and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the “malefactors of great wealth.”
Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is
Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place—that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in
which economics plays only a subsidiary role. The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the
material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs
and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political
philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for “human beings”—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their
characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature. Surely the first obligation of a political
thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not
too proud to learn from the great minds of the past. The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man’s most sacred possession is his individual soul—which has an
immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and,
accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about “the common man.” It is a concept that pays little
attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate
slavery. Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man’s nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved
politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State. The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man’s development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not
something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make:
they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security “benefits,” it is because he is more anxious
than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit. So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other
men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with
“democratic” Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a
mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with
dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race. With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon
politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the
establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a
self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds."
For you, Johnny. Happy 4th.
Last edited:
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Thank YOU! I will consider the above and respond as soon as I digest it and craft a response.
Happy Independence Day to you and everyone on this board!
medicineman
New Member
And to what do I owe the honor of being called a lib. Actually I am quite proud if my liberal Ideas. Here's my philosophy in a nutshell. If you aren't fucking over anyone in any manner, then you're allright with me. It seems that on this site especially, those birds are extremely rare. There are a few good eggs on here and a few that are on the border, but there is a contingent of hateful, spiteful folks with extremely large mouths, or pieholes as some may say. Those are the ones that I have issues with, And to be blunt, they can kiss my liberal ass. I will be as nice to you as you are to me. Give and you will recieve.........
- Status