On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:12:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 28, 12:16*pm, "amdx" wrote:
*I just contributed $100.00 to help Tim Burns.
It would great to elect Tim Burns, who is the Republican candidate
for the May 18 PA-12 special election to fill the seat vacated by
the passing of Jack Murtha.

http://www.timburnsforcongress.com/

"We have a chance to win an upset election that will reverberate
through the country much like the election of Scott Brown did in January."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mike

Ah yes, like the Scott Brown that screwed over the tea baggers.Useless
idiots!

No, *you* are the idiot.

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

i

What is an honest liar?
cuhulin

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

On 2010-04-29, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

Yep.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...t/tab/article/

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

Just trying my best.

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

I do not say something like "I am NOT a usenet poster", unlike that
Tim Burns politician who says he is NOT a politician.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

Possibly, but that does not make Tim Burns any more trustworthy.

i

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:39:53 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

On 2010-04-29, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

Yep.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...t/tab/article/

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

Just trying my best.

Obviously. Are you still breathing?

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

I do not say something like "I am NOT a usenet poster", unlike that
Tim Burns politician who says he is NOT a politician.

shrug *You* are still a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

Possibly, but that does not make Tim Burns any more trustworthy.

I made no statement otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that you're a
liar, and an admitted ignoramus.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

Ah, don't pick on iggy he's ok.
The point is we need to get conservatives elected or we will still have a
speaker Pelosi.
Mike

On 2010-04-29, amdx wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

Ah, don't pick on iggy he's ok.
The point is we need to get conservatives elected or we will still have a
speaker Pelosi.

I used to vote Republican, but, unfortunately, the Republican party
has greatly decayed morally. This "I am NOT a politician" politician
is a good example. I would like to see the Republican party reborn as
an honest, intellectual, and enlightened organization.

i

i

On Apr 28, 10:12*pm, Ignoramus22435 ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.
22435.invalid wrote:
On 2010-04-29, amdx wrote:





wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! *You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

* Ah, don't pick on iggy he's ok.
The point is we need to get conservatives elected or we will still have a
speaker Pelosi.

I used to vote Republican, but, unfortunately, the Republican party
has greatly decayed morally. This "I am NOT a politician" politician
is a good example. I would like to see the Republican party reborn as
an honest, intellectual, and enlightened organization.

There's a move afoot to do exactly that, by people who call themselves
"conservatives." "Conservative" here though, is really what was
classically called "liberal"--one who is prudent (not prudish) and
thoughtful; avoiding excessive risk; conserving, as in responsibly
husbanding resources, not wasting or wasteful; fiscally responsible;
motivated to improve the human condition for all, and so forth. You
know, like a conservative design--something built solid, with margins
of safety.

The Tea Party seeks to encourage statesmen who vow to be faithful to
the principles of smaller government, more liberty, and to the
Constitution.

It's a beautiful thing.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

On Apr 29, 3:03*pm, wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:12*pm, Ignoramus22435 ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.





22435.invalid wrote:
On 2010-04-29, amdx wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! *You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

* Ah, don't pick on iggy he's ok.
The point is we need to get conservatives elected or we will still have a
speaker Pelosi.

I used to vote Republican, but, unfortunately, the Republican party
has greatly decayed morally. This "I am NOT a politician" politician
is a good example. I would like to see the Republican party reborn as
an honest, intellectual, and enlightened organization.

There's a move afoot to do exactly that, by people who call themselves
"conservatives." *"Conservative" here though, is really what was
classically called "liberal"--one who is prudent (not prudish) and
thoughtful; avoiding excessive risk; conserving, as in responsibly
husbanding resources, not wasting or wasteful; fiscally responsible;
motivated to improve the human condition for all, and so forth. *You
know, like a conservative design--something built solid, with margins
of safety.

The Tea Party seeks to encourage statesmen who vow to be faithful to
the principles of smaller government, more liberty, and to the
Constitution.

It's a beautiful thing.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

You mean like Teddy Rooseyvelt?