Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again



What are you talking about - are youb just making things up!??? Where did I 
bring that up? Don't confuse me with your buddy kevin.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:44:19 
To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again


 You brought up your inability to write a substanitive argument on a 
Blackberry.Surely you don't spend ALL of your time having to rely on a small 
phone with it's tiny keys.
wanzala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: As barack obama told mccain, I've got some news for 
you too: Cell phones *are* computers with virtually the same capabilities, only 
you can't carry a computer, even a laptop around in your pocket.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: Melinda Iley-Dohn 
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:10:54 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Re: 
[NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again

LOL....Use a computer.
Kevin White wrote: 


I don't think you can type a "substantive argument" into a Blackberry.   K

----- Original Message ----From: "wanzala@xxxxxxxxx" To: Kevin White ; 
NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:50:37 AMSubject: 
Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again
Clearly you wouldn't recognize a substantive argument if one was staring you 
right in the face, as in my previous posts.
Joe w.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: Kevin White yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:38:53 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com, wanzala@gmail. 
comSubject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again

No you haven't.   K

----- Original Message ----From: "wanzala@gmail. com" com>To: wanzala@gmail. 
com; NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:08:39 
AMSubject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again
And I would add that I have already provided substantive points to counter 
Nalini's assertions and all you can offer to support her is empty bombast.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: wanzala@gmail. com com> 
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:54:31 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com 
yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander 
Begins Again

Same rules apply to you - ie, you are also obliged to prove your assertions. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: Melinda Iley-Dohn com com> >
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:34:32 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com 
yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander 
Begins Again

It isn't a comparative analysis. It's a declarative statement. You say that 
they are the same but you do not point out any that would bear this out. It's 
one thing to say it and another to prove it.
wanzala@gmail. com com>  wrote: I defy you to disprove the fact that any 
comparative analysis of democratic and republican positions would find more 
similarity than difference. Clearly you and nalini are the delusional ones here.
Joe w.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: Melinda Iley-Dohn 
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:45:44 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com 
yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander 
Begins Again

Joe,    I would not accust Nalini of being delusional in a phrase that ends 
like your first paragraph. We have a word for this in Central Texas. Caca del 
Torro.   Nalini is on the spot with this. 
Melinda
wanzala@gmail. com com>  wrote: 
You are the delusional if you think there are meaningful policy differences 
between the sort of people a democrat or republican would appoint to cabinet 
positions. A visual representation of democratic and republican party ideology 
would look like venn diagram, with most of it overlapping. 
As to judicial appointments, I invite you to provide actual examples and 
significant trends showing a significant difference between democratic party 
and republican appointments to the federal bench in the last 20 years.
On the supreme court its a wash, and one of the most 'progressive' justice on 
the supreme court is david souter, a bush appointee
And democrats have either pushed or failed to block - even when they had the 
numbers - some of the most repressive legislation in us history.
At least 70 percent of every vote for a democrat is the same, in policy terms 
as a vote for a republican.
Joe w.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----From: "Nalini Lasiewicz" com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:25:38 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com com/> Subject: 
[NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again

--- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com com/> , wanzala@... wrote:>> No, a vote 
for a third party candidate is just that. 
That's one way to say it.
However, the only once to actually WIN the election will be a Democrat or a 
Republican.
You are glib about how those are the same, but if you'd spend a few hours 
studying the federal judicial appointments of the past 20 years, you'd choke. 
Also, the President appoints the entire Cabinet....that's the department heads 
of the whole federal government. If you think that the Dems and Reps appoint 
the same sort of folks, you're deluded. Since Nader and no "third party" person 
is going to become President, I guess you can comfort yourself in a fantasy in 
which Nader will appoint the Cabinet. But on Inaguration Day, you'll have to 
wake up and realize that, once again, you've thrown away your vote to send a 
"message."
I started school last week. One of the instructors told us (among many other 
insipid things) that he voted for Edwards in the CA primary, even though 
Edwards had dropped out of the race a week prior. He said, "I had to vote my 
conscience." I dropped the class. He's a loser and wants us to be come losers. 
No thanks.
Nalini



----------------Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 
New Pacifica Working Grouphttp://www.egroups. com/group/NewPacifica 
com/group/NewPacifica> 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links





----------------Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with 
Yahoo! Search. 
yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> 
 
New Pacifica Working Grouphttp://www.egroups. com/group/NewPacifica 
com/group/NewPacifica> 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links






----------------Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! 
Mobile.  Try it now. 
yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
> 


----------------Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 


----------------Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! 
Mobile. Try it now. 
New Pacifica Working Grouphttp://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica'Save Our 
Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links




 ----------------Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
   
New Pacifica Working Grouphttp://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica'Save Our 
Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/
<*> Your email settings:    Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:    
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/join    (Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:    mailto:NewPacifica-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
   mailto:NewPacifica-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:    
NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:    
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



questions/problems with archive to: webmaster@mcabee.org
Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.16