From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.062703.39956@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In <farenebt.724432680@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:

>>>Well people, you have all proven to me that I WAS RIGHT!!! From the last two
>>>postings I've made,NONE OF YOU could come up with ANY recourse except for the
>>>fact that my grammmmmmmmer isn't by best feature. If all you can do is rip me
>>>for some technical misconfiguration of words, don't bother me. After all,
>>>LIBERALS use this type of tactic when they are proven WRONG (as opposed to
>>>admitting that you were WRONG)! THANK YOU, LEFTISTS!You prove ONCE AGAIN that
>>>Rush is the current leader in the mad race of providing POLITICALLY
>>>CORRECTNESS and defining people to their actions.

>>Absolutely. It is us, immoral, feminazi, tax and spend, commie loving,
>>anti-family values, eco freak, god-hating, baby killing,
>>loony left liberals who engage in
>>name calling...but we all know that the innocent conservatives would NEVER
>>do anything like that...

>   I'm so glad that you agree that you are immoral, feminazi, tax and spend,...

Do you know what the word "sarcasm" means?

>   It's YOUR fault that this country is screwed up, not the conservatives in
>   the nation.People like you who say that it's o.k. to kill an unborn infant,

Killing something that hasn't been born yet?  Neat.
As opposed to those who say that it's ok to decide that a woman should
be pregnant?

>   that it's unconstitutional to make prisoners work hard labor, that

No one said prison labor was unconstitutional; what's not allowed,
despite Clarence Thomas's idiocy, is "cruel and unusual punishment."

>   making public handgun ownership illegal would solve the crime rate assisted
>   by the use of firearms (not that narcotics have been illegal for HOW LONG
>   and you STILL can't get rid of them), the fact that police officers are

Really.  And which party is more identified with the War on Drugs?  I'm
not going to defend the so-called liberal policy on gun bans, except to
say that many liberals do NOT support this idea.

>   treated worse than the criminals they try to arrest (although SOME cops

Really?  What liberal ever said this?

>   should not be cops, THEY should be jailed), and so on, and so on........
>   The fact that the LIBERALS in Congress don't know what the word PROMISE
>   means (RE: Bush's "Read my lips..." speach, and the agreement WITH Congress
>   that if he hiked up taxes, they would cut their spending 2 to 1.

There was no such promise; the PAUL RITTER's on this net don't know what
the word "FACT" means.  The Democratic leadership and George Bush came
up with a spending cut/tax increase compromise.  But many rank-and-file
Democrats, AS WELL AS *MOST* Republicans, rejected this compromise,
though obviously for different reasons.

So, instead, the Democrats passed a tax increase bill ONLY.  Though all
the Republicans opposed this one, many Democrats who had opposed the
first bill switched sides and voted for it, and it passed.  

George Bush *SIGNED*, not vetoed, this bill.  And the rest is history.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton