Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/16/2006 5:20:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Look, you pretentious halfwit, SI threads are not owned by you or any other thread moderator. If you want your conversations to be private, conduct them in PM or in your living room. Message 22726452

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/16/2006 6:25:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I don't actually know anyone who would use that word ("deserved"), and I can't even remember reading anyone using it Message 22726587 True, only a hateful kook would say the US "deserved" it. Like Euterpe, I find that kind of thinking truly sick. Like this hypocritical halfwit: Message 19027907 "But bullies usually get their comeupance. I will be sorry to see my country get that, when it happens, even though it will be deserved."

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/17/2006 10:08:04 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Do you want to see a movie with me and JLA? We could then talk about it. Won't that be fun? How about, "Dude, Where's My Car?"

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/17/2006 10:10:47 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Stop following me around and talking about me on closed threads. Message 22730423 You do realize it is a TOU violation to talk about people on threads they cannot respond to you on, don't you? Perhaps you should find your other half of a wit before you get yourself in trouble. BTW, your threats are a joke. As are you.

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/18/2006 11:12:19 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 90947

I have just seen your posts about me. I had no idea you still hated me so much. I find your posts sick and disturbing. While you have the option to be as hateful on SI as you want to be, I don't want to be around someone that harbors those kinds of feelings. I know you will be incapable of understanding that, but it doesn't really matter. I didn't realize just how angry you men are, and how sick you could get en masse, and how disturbingly dedicated you could be in following me around and making me the subject of your group fixation. I figured it was just a sick game, but it's obviously more than that. Now I know. I'm very sorry for you, but I will not participate in your sickness by allowing you on this thread. And you other men, you know who you are (Lazurus, Bill, Solon and whoever else you have roped in to your rather disturbed play group), who wish to follow me around, post to me though I do not post back, and discuss me in absentia in what I can only call an obsessive and sick manner, do not post here- or you WILL be banned. I do not have to put up with your freakish behavior and I won't. You find my posts "sick and disturbing" because they are accurate portrayals of yourself no doubt. The posts are not "hateful" but accurate. You do not refute them because you can not. You are one of the most hateful and spiteful posters on SI no matter how you dress up your posts and no matter how many times you have allegedly reinvented yourself. I know you will be incapable of understanding that but it does not really matter. Your alleged (and phony) pity for me is misplaced. You should save it for all the many victims of your hateful bile whom you have offended over the years on SI....living and dead. Yes....even the dead are not safe from your spewage. J.

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/18/2006 1:33:05 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Dear X or E or whatever alias you hide behind now. Unfortunately, you can't rid yourself of your hateful, spite-filled past; it will haunt you to your grave. Message 22684254 This is CHOICE coming from you: Message 14930453 No attack posts by you? Are you SERIOUS? Message 11729185 Message 15170380 Message 15424046 That's just a sampling. There's plenty more if you want it.

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/22/2006 10:34:45 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Looks like you've been hitting the sauce again tonight. What's with all the excrement references? Don't you know it's impolite to talk about human waste?

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	8/23/2006 12:24:34 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

Message 22744084

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	9/12/2006 5:54:42 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 90947

Hey X, put down the bottle long enough to read this. Message 22805496

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	11/1/2006 10:52:42 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 90947

Well, it looks like you got me. I mistakenly stumbled onto that thread to make a single post about voting machines. It was meant for the other thread, the one with real left/right conversation. So you finally achieved your goal and banned me. Congratulations. I trust it made your day.

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	11/2/2006 7:11:07 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

JIHAD IS FUN! VOTE DEMOCRAT! November 1, 2006 John Kerry is the "botched joke" of American politics. For those of you keeping score at home, John Kerry has now called members of the U.S. military (a) stupid, (b) crazy, (c) murderers, (d) rapists, (e) terrorizers of Iraqi women and children. I wonder what he'll call them tomorrow. Whatever Karl Rove is paying John Kerry to say stupid things, it's worth every penny. Now, back to the midterm elections ... Analysts place the average midterm loss for the party in the White House at around 15 to 44 seats, depending on which elections are counted — only elected presidents, midterm elections since the Civil War, midterm elections since World War II, comparable-sized congresses, first and second midterm elections and so on. The average first midterm election loss for every elected president since 1914 is 27 House seats and three Senate seats. The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president's party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. This makes the average loss in two midterm elections for the party in the White House: 30 House seats and four or five Senate seats in each midterm election. In his first midterm election, George W. Bush picked up six House seats and two Senate seats — making him, according to The New York Times, "the first Republican president to gain House seats in an off-year election" and only the third president of either party to pick up House seats in a midterm election since the Civil War. This means that for Democrats simply to match the historical average gain for the party out of the White House during the first and second midterm, they would have to pick up 67 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate. They're about 30 Mark Foleys short of having that happen. It at least seems clear that Democrat gains this year are going to fall far short of the historical average. No poll has the Democrats winning even half of their rightful midterm gains. Despite the precedent of big wins in midterm elections for the party out of power — especially in a sixth-year midterm election — something is depressing the Democrats' popularity with Americans this year. I suspect it's the perception that many of them are Democrats. But instead of recognizing that the Democratic Party is a dying party, falling far short of its due historical gains, any gain by the Democrats will be hailed as a crowning mandate for the party that wants to lose the Iraq war, shut down Guantanamo and stop spying on Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil. Even a dying party has death throes. If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war. Democrats can't not be crazy. They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters. The only way to get Democrats to focus on terrorists would be to convince them that the terrorists are interfering with a woman's right to choose or that commercial jetliners exploding in midair are a threat to America's wetlands. The probable new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is in a catfight with Rep. Jane Harman for not being insane enough. Pelosi has indicated she will deny Harman the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, instead giving it to Rep. Alcee Hastings, whom Pelosi voted to impeach from his federal judgeship in 1988 for conspiring to extract a $150,000 bribe from convicted criminals in return for lowering their sentences. An O.J. jury had acquitted Hastings on the bribery charge in a criminal proceeding, though his alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, was convicted. But the evidence of Hastings' bribery plot was so overwhelming that a Democratic House voted to impeach Hastings 413-3 on 17 separate counts — including falsifying evidence to win his acquittal in the criminal case, and a majority Democratic Senate voted to convict Hastings on the very first count by 69-26, enough to remove him from office. Rep. John Conyers Jr. — another finalist for the coveted "craziest Democrat in congress" title — led the charge for Hastings' impeachment, saying the judge had "betrayed his office." In addition to having a history of soliciting bribes from criminals before his court, Hastings wants to shut down Guantanamo, and he adamantly opposes the U.S. government listening to phone calls from al-Qaida phones to anyone in America (especially federal judges negotiating bribery deals by telephone). As millions of lunatic Muslims plot to murder Americans, some Americans — we call them "Soccer Moms" — will cast a vote to save Michael J. Fox this year. In the process, they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party.

To: epicure who wrote (40847)	11/10/2006 3:28:50 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 90947

HISTORIC VICTORY FOR DIEBOLD! November 8, 2006 History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated. So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet. Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three. Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming. Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards. Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas! But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont). In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate. In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate. In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats. Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party. During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.) So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy. The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia." The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.