Subject:
|
Re: Wench as a word
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:31:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
529 times
|
| |
|
|
Ed,
Ed \"Boxer\" Jones wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Ed,
> >
> > Boy, Ed, you sure an interesting person.
>
> Some find me very interesting, thank you.
>
> >
> > Ed \"Boxer\" Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Well there's a fine figure to admire. James Trafficant, the man that took
> > > money from a "Supposed" mob-figure and then the mob figure disappeared, a • man
> > > who has repeatedly failed to file his Federal Income taxes (which will make • him
> > > a Libertarian hero), the man with one of the foulest mouth's in Washington, • and
> > > a man who doesn't seem to own a shirt that has been ironed or doesn't have a
> > > stain. Yeah, that's my idea of what this country needs.
> >
> > Boy, Ed, the ability to iron a sure sure qualifies someone to have a
> > House seat, huh? I would love to see what your thoughts on
> > qualifications are.
>
> How do you iron a sure? :')
>
> Qualifications: One would definitely be that you have to pay your taxes.
Well, Ed, since i don't know the particulars on this one, why don't you
inform us of it? I do remember something along the lines of congress
people now being under the same laws oas we, the citizens, are. If he
did not pay his taxes, he should be investigated.
> >
> James happens to be one of the few Democrats that
> > did not accept the Clinton Administrations lines on numerous issues.
>
> Of course rather than debate his character, or lack thereof, you chose to focus
> only on my shirt comment.
If he has bad character, that is an issue to be addressed. I think the
ironing of the shirts is an analogy of people who can't debate well,
Ed. From what I saw of him, and what he said, and on some of what he
voted for, he has some agreeable points that coincide with my views. If
he is so terrible, let's see all of it, and we can decide then.
So, from your comments above, you don't care what
> kind of slimy weasel is in Washington as long as he disagrees with Clinton?
There are lots of slimy weasels, Ed. Clinton is the leader of them. I
don't see evidence of his sliminess just because of your "allegations".
I have seen proof of Clinton's, however. Both Bill and Hillary.
> > I could go on and on regarding David Bonior's questionable practices,
> > but why bother? I am sure he can iron his shirt, so he's qualified,
> > right?
>
> I could care less about Bonior or his shirts.
But Traficant is different because he can't iron his shirts (I have seen
him on C-Span, by the way, and his shirts looked fine to me.)
> > As are some people here who have problems with shirts.
>
> As are some people's inability to debate all the facts presented but to only
> single out those items that will win them easy points.
Debate what? He can't iron his shirts, you say he took money from the
mob? Just because you say it, I don't believe it, sir. Proof would be
nice in this instance, not some rant by you. Give me some url's, etc. I
only use the points you given me, Ed. Whether or not one can iron shirts
or have stains on them is a dubious point to make about anyone, from any
party.
> > Well, politicians from both sides to that, Ed. I think we all can agree
> > on that.
>
> Certainly, but after 20(?) years, you'd think someone would say to heck with
> him and try someone else.
Well, Ted Kennedy has been in office since the 60's, and nobody wants to
kick him out. I say heck with Washington and kick everyone out.
> >
> > Well, Ed, I got burned by it, if you don't like it, tough. I had
> > numerous people tell me that, from all sides of the spectrum. Inane,
> > indeed.
>
> So rather than argue the points made, you chose to perpetuate the "debate
> policy" instituted by "who-knows-who"? I would have thought better of your
> debating abilities than to cop out so easily and quickly.
Well, calling a person a Nazi because you disagree with him is not
debatable, Ed. That is a waste of time, IMHO. If you don't like
Gulliani, fine. Calling people names and providing disgusts about shirts
seem a funny road to go down, however. Coping out involves dubious
points, like most of what you put here. Talk to Larry if you feel
compelled enough about it.
> Partisanship issues, not at all. My voting record would reflect that I vote on
> issues, not party.
Interesting, Ed. What do you vote for, then?
> If I had partisanship issues, I would have applauded your
> pleasure with Trafficant. But my stomach would have turned in the process.
> Trafficant is certainly not my idea of someone who should even be involved in
> restoring America.
Well, Ed, if you read the post carefully enough, I was referring to
Clinton, and what he says about partisanship. I think your debating
skills, however good you think they are, are questionable.
Person x did x,z,y and can't iron his shirt.
Person x is a n.
Wow, I'm convinced.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Wench as a word
|
| (...) Some find me very interesting, thank you. (...) man (...) him (...) and (...) How do you iron a sure? :') Qualifications: One would definitely be that you have to pay your taxes. (...) James happens to be one of the few Democrats that (...) Of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
