Toyota Nation Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
this response from reader Scott Wallace:

Your discussion reminded me of a friend's decision to follow anything
negative he said with, "But I support the troops!" If he didn't like
the meal he just ate, he would follow his complaint with "But I
support the troops!" Complaints about a bad parking spot? "But I
support the troops!"

It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in which Jerry and George
were suspected of being gay. Throughout the whole show, anytime
anything potentially negative towards homosexuals was mentioned,
someone would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" This
would give them coverage to be as vicious or insensitive toward the
gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. In later interviews,
Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was added in to the scripts
late just to give them coverage. It was a wink to political
correctness, and it was funny because you knew it was just a wink.

Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they want about this
war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war atrocities by the
troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war is unwinnable--as long
as they follow up with, "But I support the troops!" Every time I hear
them say they support the troops I think of that "Seinfeld" episode.
Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, calculated to give them
coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny because you knew he didn't
really mean it, and such is becoming the case with the Democrats.

Democrats don't seem to understand that they're in danger of becoming
a tag-line joke.

This is an excellent idea. We may even be able to work it into our
John Kerry* footnotes.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
supports the troops!

--

Scott in Florida
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
In article <[email protected]>,
Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:

> By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal
>
> Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
> this response from reader Scott Wallace:
>
> Your discussion reminded me of a friend's decision to follow anything
> negative he said with, "But I support the troops!" If he didn't like
> the meal he just ate, he would follow his complaint with "But I
> support the troops!" Complaints about a bad parking spot? "But I
> support the troops!"
>
> It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in which Jerry and George
> were suspected of being gay. Throughout the whole show, anytime
> anything potentially negative towards homosexuals was mentioned,
> someone would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" This
> would give them coverage to be as vicious or insensitive toward the
> gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. In later interviews,
> Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was added in to the scripts
> late just to give them coverage. It was a wink to political
> correctness, and it was funny because you knew it was just a wink.
>
> Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they want about this
> war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war atrocities by the
> troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war is unwinnable--as long
> as they follow up with, "But I support the troops!" Every time I hear
> them say they support the troops I think of that "Seinfeld" episode.
> Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, calculated to give them
> coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny because you knew he didn't
> really mean it, and such is becoming the case with the Democrats.
>
> Democrats don't seem to understand that they're in danger of becoming
> a tag-line joke.
>
> This is an excellent idea. We may even be able to work it into our
> John Kerry* footnotes.
>
> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> supports the troops!


Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".

Democrates, we are on to you.
--
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

Scott in Florida wrote:
> By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal
>
> Our item yesterday on the Democrats' antimilitary attitude prompted
> this response from reader Scott Wallace:


Now you hate Jews?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
>


>>
>> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> supports the troops!


What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
record?

>
> Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>
> Democrates, we are on to you.


Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:33:05 -0500, "Learning Richard"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

>
>>>
>>> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>>> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>>> supports the troops!

>
>What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
>dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>record?


Look and listen to John 'the traitor' Kerry and you will see what is
meant by the term French Looking...

He is a surrender monkey...and a traitor!


>
>>
>> Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>>
>> Democrates, we are on to you.

>
>Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.
>

--

Scott in Florida
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
In article <[email protected]>,
"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
> >

>
> >>
> >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> >> supports the troops!

>
> What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> record?
>
> >
> > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> >
> > Democrates, we are on to you.

>
> Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.


It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
for at this time.
--
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
"The benevolent dbu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >

>>
>> >>
>> >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
>> >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> >> supports the troops!

>>
>> What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the
>> absolutely
>> dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>> record?
>>
>> >
>> > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>> >
>> > Democrates, we are on to you.

>>
>> Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.

>
> It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> for at this time.
> --
>
>
>
>


Hell, I've been referring to them as:

Commucrats
Bolsheviks
Demoncrats
Demonrats
etc
for more than 30 years now. . . .

Charles
Friends don't let friends vote Democratic.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

The benevolent dbu wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >

> >
> > >>
> > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> > >> supports the troops!

> >
> > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> > record?
> >
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> > >
> > > Democrates, we are on to you.

> >
> > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.

>
> It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> for at this time.


Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
Charles of Kanker Sore.

Here allow me to help.

d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t

And here's how you spell Republican:

f-e-l-o-n
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

In article <[email protected]>,
"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The benevolent dbu wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way
> > > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
> > > >> supports the troops!
> > >
> > > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the absolutely
> > > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
> > > record?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
> > > >
> > > > Democrates, we are on to you.
> > >
> > > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.

> >
> > It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
> > for at this time.

>
> Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
> Charles of Kanker Sore.
>
> Here allow me to help.
>
> d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t
>
> And here's how you spell Republican:
>
> f-e-l-o-n


rich is not following along again.
--
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

>by Scott in Florida <[email protected]> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM


>By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal


>Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
>this response from reader Scott Wallace:


>Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
>negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
>the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
>support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
>support the troops!"


>It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
>were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
>anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
>someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
>would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
>gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
>Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
>late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
>correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.


>Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
>war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
>troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
>as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
>them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
>Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
>coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
>really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.


>Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
>a tag-line joke.


>This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
>John Kerry* footnotes.


>* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
>think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
>supports the troops!


>--


> Scott in Florida



And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
party about *nothing*.
Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded
by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.
John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!

-hbuck
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

hbuck wrote:
> >by Scott in Florida <[email protected]> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM

>
>
> >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

>
> >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
> >this response from reader Scott Wallace:

>
> >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
> >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
> >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
> >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
> >support the troops!"

>
> >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
> >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
> >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
> >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
> >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
> >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
> >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
> >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
> >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.

>
> >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
> >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
> >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
> >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
> >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
> >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
> >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
> >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.

>
> >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
> >a tag-line joke.

>
> >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
> >John Kerry* footnotes.

>
> >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
> >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
> >supports the troops!

>
> >--

>
> > Scott in Florida

>
>
> And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
> party about *nothing*.


Care to elaborate?

> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded


Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
party.

> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.


Cute.

> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!


I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
Dyno Dean.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

In article <[email protected]>,
"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> hbuck wrote:
> > >by Scott in Florida <[email protected]> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM

> >
> >
> > >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

> >
> > >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
> > >this response from reader Scott Wallace:

> >
> > >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
> > >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
> > >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
> > >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
> > >support the troops!"

> >
> > >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
> > >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
> > >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
> > >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
> > >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
> > >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
> > >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
> > >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
> > >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.

> >
> > >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
> > >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
> > >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
> > >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
> > >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
> > >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
> > >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
> > >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.

> >
> > >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
> > >a tag-line joke.

> >
> > >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
> > >John Kerry* footnotes.

> >
> > >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
> > >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
> > >supports the troops!

> >
> > >--

> >
> > > Scott in Florida

> >
> >
> > And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
> > party about *nothing*.

>
> Care to elaborate?
>
> > Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded

>
> Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
> party.
>
> > by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.

>
> Cute.
>
> > John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
> > Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!

>
> I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
> Dyno Dean.


rich speaks as though we are all on his side. rich, you are on the
losers side. We are not.
--
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

On 11 Dec 2005 16:16:22 -0800, "Learning Richard"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>hbuck wrote:
>> >by Scott in Florida <[email protected]> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM

>>
>>
>> >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

>>
>> >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
>> >this response from reader Scott Wallace:

>>
>> >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
>> >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
>> >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
>> >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
>> >support the troops!"

>>
>> >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
>> >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
>> >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
>> >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
>> >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
>> >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
>> >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
>> >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
>> >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.

>>
>> >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
>> >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
>> >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
>> >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
>> >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
>> >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
>> >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
>> >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.

>>
>> >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
>> >a tag-line joke.

>>
>> >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
>> >John Kerry* footnotes.

>>
>> >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
>> >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
>> >supports the troops!

>>
>> >--

>>
>> > Scott in Florida

>>
>>
>> And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
>> party about *nothing*.

>
>Care to elaborate?


Sure the Democratic party is for NOTHING....


>
>> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*, surrounded

>
>Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
>party.


Joe Leiberman is one of the only Democrats that make any sense...

If that is turncoat then you guys are going to lose so badly in 06 and
08 that the Libertarian's will pull ahead of you...


>
>> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George Costanza*.

>
>Cute.
>
>> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
>> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!

>
>I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
>Dyno Dean.

--

Scott in Florida
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

"The benevolent dbu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The benevolent dbu wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:43:08 +0000, The benevolent dbu spake:
>> > >
>> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > > > Scott in Florida <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> * The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the
>> > > >> way
>> > > >> think American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he
>> > > >> supports the troops!
>> > >
>> > > What in the living hell makes someone look French? That is the
>> > > absolutely
>> > > dumbest thing you've posted Scott. How do you keep beating your own
>> > > record?
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yeah, it's like "but it's for the children".
>> > > >
>> > > > Democrates, we are on to you.
>> > >
>> > > Don't know how to spell Dbu? Typical neocon.
>> >
>> > It is a intentional misspelling of a party which I have little respect
>> > for at this time.

>>
>> Oh. You don't know how to spell then. Just like your genius buddy
>> Charles of Kanker Sore.
>>
>> Here allow me to help.
>>
>> d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t
>>
>> And here's how you spell Republican:
>>
>> f-e-l-o-n

>
> rich is not following along again.
> --
>
>
>
>


Unlearned Dick just don't get it. He's still on the Liberal Plantation.

Charles
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> hbuck wrote:
>> >by Scott in Florida <[email protected]> Dec >11, 2005 at 08:24 AM

>>
>>
>> >By JAMES TARANTO Wall Street Journal

>>
>> >Our item yesterday on the Democrats' >antimilitary attitude prompted
>> >this response from reader Scott Wallace:

>>
>> >Your discussion reminded me of a friend's >decision to follow anything
>> >negative he said with, "But I support the >troops!" If he didn't like
>> >the meal he just ate, he would follow his >complaint with "But I
>> >support the troops!" Complaints about a bad >parking spot? "But I
>> >support the troops!"

>>
>> >It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in >which Jerry and George
>> >were suspected of being gay. Throughout the >whole show, anytime
>> >anything potentially negative towards >homosexuals was mentioned,
>> >someone would say, "Not that there's anything >wrong with that!" This
>> >would give them coverage to be as vicious or >insensitive toward the
>> >gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. >In later interviews,
>> >Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was >added in to the scripts
>> >late just to give them coverage. It was a wink >to political
>> >correctness, and it was funny because you knew >it was just a wink.

>>
>> >Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they >want about this
>> >war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war >atrocities by the
>> >troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war >is unwinnable--as long
>> >as they follow up with, "But I support the >troops!" Every time I hear
>> >them say they support the troops I think of >that "Seinfeld" episode.
>> >Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, >calculated to give them
>> >coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny >because you knew he didn't
>> >really mean it, and such is becoming the case >with the Democrats.

>>
>> >Democrats don't seem to understand that they're >in danger of becoming
>> >a tag-line joke.

>>
>> >This is an excellent idea. We may even be able >to work it into our
>> >John Kerry* footnotes.

>>
>> >* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts >Democrat, who by the way
>> >think American servicemen are war criminals and >terrorists. But he
>> >supports the troops!

>>
>> >--

>>
>> > Scott in Florida

>>
>>
>> And just like Seinfeld was a show about *nothing* the Democrat Party is a
>> party about *nothing*.

>
> Care to elaborate?


The Bolshevik DemonRats have no positive plan to fix anything really wrong
in this country. They only complain and hate George Bush. As a matter
of fact, they are often the cause of a lot that is wrong in this country.
Taking Christmas out of the season, thanks to their friends at the American
Communist Liberation Union. Gay marriage thanks to Klinton's Kommunist
Kool-Aid judges.

But then you refuse to believe the truth. You can't even get it through
your head that you aren't saved because you don't believe something that
Jesus himself believed, and yet you claim to be his disciple. You have
no credibility. You appear to be stuck on the liberal plantation.
>
>> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the straight man *Seinfeld*,
>> surrounded

>
> Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become irrelevant in the
> party.
>
>> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the excitable *George
>> Costanza*.

>
> Cute.
>
>> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. Nancy Pelosi as *Elaine*.
>> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!

>
> I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. Maybe I'll forward it to
> Dyno Dean.
>


You mean Dishonorable Dean, the man who should be forced to resign. But
then again so should the entire Mass Senate delegation along with Illinois
and Californication.

Charles
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

<snip>
>> And just like Seinfeld was a show about >*nothing* the Democrat Party

is
>a
>> party about *nothing*.


>Care to elaborate?


Howard Dean on Meet the Press recently said "Now is not the time to be for
anything"."We just need to be against the Republicans".
Nancy Pelosi admitted recently they have no plan now, maybe next year.


>> Joe Leiberman is the equivalent of the >straight man *Seinfeld*,

>surrounded


>Joe Leiberman is a turncoat and will soon become >irrelevant in the
>party.


>> by his kooky friends. Howard Dean would be the >excitable *George

>Costanza*.


>Cute.


>> John Kerry, the know it all dufuss *Kramer*. >Nancy Pelosi as

*Elaine*.
>> Hello Newman....... Karl Rove!


>I gotta say, that's a pretty funny analogy. >Maybe I'll forward it to
>Dyno Dean.


-hbuck
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

hbuck wrote:
> <snip>
> >> And just like Seinfeld was a show about >*nothing* the Democrat Party

> is
> >a
> >> party about *nothing*.

>
> >Care to elaborate?

>
> Howard Dean on Meet the Press recently said "Now is not the time to be for
> anything"."We just need to be against the Republicans".
> Nancy Pelosi admitted recently they have no plan now, maybe next year.



OK then, General Buck....

Exactly how are the Democrats supposed to develop a reasonable
strategy, when it is obvious that the only information allowed to
trickle out of the White House and Pentagon is a bunch of flawed lies?

No... the Democrats' plan is to kick all of the torturous crooks out of
the White House and Capitol Hill (see ROVE, LIBBY, DELAY, FRIST, et
al)... then, unlike REPUBLICANS who MAKE SHIT UP to WIN VOTES.... once
we take power back, THEN we'll come up with a sane solution.

Laugh, fools. Laugh hard.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> hbuck wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> And just like Seinfeld was a show about >*nothing* the Democrat Party

>> is
>> >a
>> >> party about *nothing*.

>>
>> >Care to elaborate?

>>
>> Howard Dean on Meet the Press recently said "Now is not the time to be
>> for
>> anything"."We just need to be against the Republicans".
>> Nancy Pelosi admitted recently they have no plan now, maybe next year.

>
>
> OK then, General Buck....
>
> Exactly how are the Democrats supposed to develop a reasonable
> strategy, when it is obvious that the only information allowed to
> trickle out of the White House and Pentagon is a bunch of flawed lies?
>
> No... the Democrats' plan is to kick all of the torturous crooks out of
> the White House and Capitol Hill (see ROVE, LIBBY, DELAY, FRIST, et
> al)... then, unlike REPUBLICANS who MAKE SHIT UP to WIN VOTES.... once
> we take power back, THEN we'll come up with a sane solution.
>
> Laugh, fools. Laugh hard.
>


When you damnable DemonCraps keep pumping out lies about Bush and what's
going on in Iraq and quit deluding yourselves, maybe you can get somewhere.

I am Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off.

Denial is not a plausible argument, and is no plan to win back power.

Charles
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Re: OT The 'Seinfeld' Democrats

<snip>
>>> Howard Dean on Meet the Press recently >>said "Now is not the time to

be
>>for
>>> anything"."We just need to be against the >>Republicans".
>>> Nancy Pelosi admitted recently they have no >>plan now, maybe next

year.


>>OK then, General Buck....


>>Exactly how are the Democrats supposed to >>develop a reasonable
>>strategy, when it is obvious that the only >>information allowed to
>>trickle out of the White House and Pentagon is >a >bunch of flawed

lies?
>>No... the Democrats' plan is to kick all of the >>torturous crooks out

of
>>the White House and Capitol Hill (see ROVE, >>LIBBY, DELAY, FRIST, et
>>al)... then, unlike REPUBLICANS who MAKE SHIT >>UP to WIN VOTES....

once
>>we take power back, THEN we'll come up with a >>sane solution.


The way the Republicans came into power from being the minority party was
having good beliefs and putting them out there; while they were still the
minority and not after. You can't put the horse before the cart.


>>Laugh, fools. Laugh hard.


-hbuck
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top