Re: CINDY SHEEHAN: AN EXAMPLE OF GRIEVING
Shannon Jacobs
substantive issues buried in there, but you'd have to be as stupid as the
troll to imagine that you are going to have a serious discussion on any of
those topics with someone who has already proclaimed his fanaticism.
Fanatics proclaiming their faith-based reasoning are not interested in facts
or intellectual honesty. In this case, the most likely goal of the troll is
to assuage his own doubts against the battering of reality. As Colbert put
it so elegantly last week "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." That
Colbert put it into Dubya's face was only more amusing. Dubya, as the
acclaimed leader of the faithful has had quite enough of reality these
days... (I'm really looking forward to the reality on the sudden Goss
fiasco.)
I've scanned your comments below looking for the most significant aspects to
focus on, but you are basically boxing at a shadow. Hypocrisy and logical
contradictions are not the issues here. Actually, Colbert probably said it
very well in another part of his presentation: "He [Dubya] believes the same
thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday.
Events can change; this man's beliefs never will." I actually wondered if he
was referring to 9/11, which had no effect on Dubya's belief that we needed
to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Nor would it have mattered if Dubya
had known with complete and absolute certainty that Saddam was as weak as he
turned out to be. Dubya's beliefs are NOT influenced by such awkward little
realities. Unfortunately, reality isn't going anywhere. Reality is like a
brick wall and doesn't even care about Dubya's head banging up against it.
The real victim's are the *OTHER* people who suffer and die while Dubya is
banging away.
Cindy Sheehan is different. I've noticed that she has responded to extremist
criticism like the troll's. She started with a relatively moderate position,
and she has clearly moved (or been pushed) farther and farther to the left.
Actually, she clearly started somewhat right of what used to be regarded as
the center. She encouraged her children to join the service, and her family
has an unusually active track record of supporting the military--with their
entire bodies, not just their fingers (like the troll).
If you're looking for serious and thoughtful discussion... Well, you're not
going to find so much of it in the newsgroups these years, and it's
especially unlikely in such obvious troll threads as the original one. (I
removed the "SHAMEFUL" troll marking. I really can't imagine what could be
shameful about grief, but I'm not pretending to understand the insanity of
vicious little trolls.)
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Andrew LeGuerre <AndrewL...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:n1fq52lq775fsci32...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>
>> When parents like Cindy Sheehan feel the need to assemble a stage and
>> rail against the decisions that led to her son being sent to Iraq,
>> they inadvertently do a massive amount of damage.
>
>
> So only parents who support the government
> should be listened to, and all who disagree with
> it are traitors. How very simplistic.
>
>
>> While they are
>> entitled to their beliefs and have the right to speak their minds,
>> these parents only accomplish one thing and that is to bolster the
>> enemy. They strengthen the resolve of those evil men and women
>> overseas whose delight is piqued by knowing they are about to shed
>> American and Canadian blood. By railing against her own government,
>> the likes of Cindy Sheehan encourage the enemy abroad to step up its
>> attacks against other American and Canadian sons and daughters;
>> children such as her own.
>
>
> Funny you didn't mention this "opposition only
> helps the enemy" line when rightwingers were
> criticizing military adventures overseas under Clinton.
>
>
>>
>> As well, these grieving parents fail to take into account the fact
>> that their son or daughter willingly joined the Armed Forces. Their
>> children apparently had a much different value system than their
>> parents, or so it would seem. I have heard some state that these men
>> and women never bargained for war, but were only pursuing a free
>> education. Poppycock. Young people are not that stupid.
>
>
> Actually some are that stupid. But they wise up
> quickly, which is the military is spending millions
> in "reenlistment bonuses" to bribe them to stay in
> uniform.
>
>
>
>>
>> Apparently Cindy considers men who bury axes in the skulls of our
>> soldiers and who rig roadside bombs to maim our forces to be innocent
>> people. They are not, Cindy, they are enemy combatants committed to
>> our destruction. The residents of Afghanistan have told our soldiers
>> countless times that they are appreciated and wanted. We are making a
>> huge and profound difference in their lives by keeping the Taliban at
>> bay and unable to regain control of the municipal levels of
>> government.
>
>
> Is that the same government that believes in
> killing residents who chose a religion other than
> Islam? Is THAT what we are defending?
>
>
>>
>> Ms. Sheehan goes on to say that by having our soldiers in
>> Afghanistan, we are freeing up Americans to fight in Iraq. Perhaps
>> our peacekeepers all over the world are accomplishing that. What
>> now? Should we cease and desist all international peacekeeping
>> duties to tie up more American soldiers? Sorry, Cindy, but that is
>> not how we operate.
>>
>> Canadian soldiers are dying, too. Just like Cindy's son. I sit here
>> knowing full well that I have absolutely no idea of the scope and
>> depth of her grief. Nor do I ever want to. But should my fate ever
>> come to that, I would prefer to stand up proud like the parents of
>> our fallen sons did just this year. I would hope to stand up and
>> honor their strong belief in our country, in their duty, and their
>> desire to make the world better. I would hope to stand up and
>> proclaim that they died doing what they believed was right, and
>> doing what they loved; serving others. I hope to God that I never
>> become as disenfranchised and miserable as this mother.
>>
>> I believe the only legacy this distraught and bitter woman will leave
>> is bad timing. She fought against her own country's involvement in
>> Iraq too late for her own reasons, and she has arrived in Canada
>> three months after a government that may have worshipped her was
>> stripped of its power and replaced by a real one.
>>
>> Cindy, please go home, you are embarrassing yourself.
>
>
> Good for Sheehan. She is standing up to her government
> over a policy that most of her fellow countrymen - not mention
> the rest of the world - has come to see as wrong, futile, and
> the product of lies and distortions.
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "We can support our troops without
> supporting the president"
> Trent Lott, Republican Senator, 1999
--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a war.
Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread" and/or
ploinked.
Shannon Jacobs
in Iraq. It's just so hard to keep them straight after you go past the first
thousand mothers. I admit that I haven't really paid that much attention to
Cindy Sheehan in particular, though I am very interested in the answer to
her big question. If you're so up to date on this, maybe you know the *real*
answer. Why is America in Iraq?
Let me give you a little hint. Dubya and Cheney are on very friendly terms
with the oil companies that continue to post the largest corporate profits
in history. Do you really regard that as coincidental?
By the way, I actually think it would be a good thing if Dubya were to
attend a few of the funerals, as long as he kept his mouth shut and didn't
try to make them into campaign stops. Then Dubya could learn a few things
about grief. Heck, he could splurge and attend a couple of Iraqi funerals,
too. Maybe he'd get a bit of feeling for the real cost of war before he
sends our troops into Iran. (As I've gotten older I've been attending more
funerals, though fortunately none for close relations. However, even when
I've never met the guest of honor, I find the secondary experience of grief
quite unpleasant enough.)
Janos Kaldy wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 11:18:32 +0900, "Shannon Jacobs"
> <sha...@cashette.com> wrote:
>
>> She encouraged her children to join the service, and her family
>> has an unusually active track record of supporting the
>> military--with their entire bodies, not just their fingers (like the
>> troll).
>
> I guess you missed the part where Cindy Sheehan says she was always a
> democrat, anti-war and was surprised that Casey joined the military
> because they not a military family. I see no evidence that they
> *ever* supported the military. Far from encourage her children from
> joining the service Cindy was *shocked* when Casey did join the Army.
> This is hardly the reaction of someone who supported the military and
> wanter her children to join.
>
> I wonder where you got an idea that is so far off base.
>
> From the daily Kos
>
> http://darksyde.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/1/2161/52638
> Cindy Sheehan (CS): Casey joined the Army in May of 2000. I was
> devastated. He was 21, he didn't discuss it with us.<!--break-->
>
> DS: Devastated? Why?
>
> CS: Because he would be leaving home ... we are not a military family
> and we really didn't understand his enlistment.
>
> or the fact that she said this
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0428-01.htm
> "I definitely wish I'd knocked him out and taken him to Canada instead
> of the airport," says Sheehan
>
> Sheehan was bitterly opposed to the war before her son Casey
> re-enlisted in August 2003:
>
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434216
> I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I
> told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to
> go to that immoral war. *** The U.N. weapon inspectors were saying
> there were no weapons of mass destruction. So I believed all along
> that this invasion was unnecessary and that there was some other
> agenda behind it besides keeping America safe.
>
> So, far from having been turned into a "vocal opponent" some time
> after her son's death, Ms. Sheehan already considered the war
> "immoral" before he re-enlisted in 2003, and she never did believe the
> intelligence about WMDs.
George Washington Hayduke
>I guess you missed the part where Cindy Sheehan says she was always a
>democrat, anti-war and was surprised that Casey joined the military
>because they not a military family. I see no evidence that they
>*ever* supported the military.
LOL! Um, no, her family have a long history of joining the US
military and she discussed the pros and cons of doing so with her
baby killing son.
You rightards have no shame.
---
"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
"Wow. You don't normally see such hostility from neutered pets." - Miles Long
Paul Harper
<Janos...@zoroastrian.net> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part where Cindy Sheehan says she was always a
>democrat, anti-war and was surprised that Casey joined the military
>because they not a military family. I see no evidence that they
>*ever* supported the military. Far from encourage her children from
>joining the service Cindy was *shocked* when Casey did join the Army.
>This is hardly the reaction of someone who supported the military and
>wanter her children to join.
This is where the ultra-jingoistic far-right Republicans get it all
wrong. They assume that because someone is anti-war that they are,
defacto, anti-military and do not support their own country's troops.
Such simplistic, almost amoebic reasoning is sympromatic of the causes
behind the recent rapid decline of the US. It seeks to deliberately
paint a "black-and-white" picture of just about everything when the
reality is many varied shades of grey.
It is possible (I know, because it accurately describes me) to be
vehemently anti-war, yet simultaneously support our troops being put
so needlessly into harms way by corrupt and stupid politicians.
There is *no* conflict there at all, as anyone with a functioning
brain stem and an IQ in three figures (thereby excluding the majority
of Republicans) will be able to tell you.
Paul.
--
. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.
Jim E
"Shannon Jacobs" <sha...@cashette.com> wrote in message
news:445d58f9$0$206$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
> Why are you wasting time arguing with a fanatical troll?
Why is anyone wasting their time on the ditch bitch?
She has been discarded by the dim party, and is currently reduced to trying
to capitalize on her
rapidly disappearing fame.
Her fifteen minutes expired a long time ago.
She's just another pathetic leftist screeching in the dark.
Jim E
Jim E
> Hmm... Well, I must have confused her with a different mother who lost a
> son in Iraq. It's just so hard to keep them straight after you go past the
> first thousand mothers.
As if you know even one.
Your parasitical feeding on the grief of others is typical of loser
leftists.
Jim E
Sid9
> anti military attitudes. At best they want a military that is never
> used, is made up of only losers and has no real purpose. In other
> words a program for those who can not find real work (like most of
> those democrats who work for government).
>
> I think it scares many of them that we have warriors who may not want
> war but are not afraid it of either. Men and women who have
> education, physical conditioning, character and self discipline.
> Individuals who have killed, if not in war then as hunters. People
> that know the thrill of the hunt.
>
> If you are not anti military then why are so many of you who dislike
> guns, dislike hunting, even dislike just dislike violence as
> practiced in sports? The Left wing seems full of those who have
> issues over these things. -----------------------
>
>
> "Or - as in the case of the US, the military is made up of that part
> of society that are not drug abusers, have no criminal records, can
> pass an intelligence test, have at least a few college classes, and
> can meet some sort of physical fitness standards.
>
> And you reflect the portion of society that cannot meet the
> military's minimum standards?"
>
> --MSG Colin Campbell
Wrong.
It's "anti-the Iraqi" debacle.
Afghanistan was justified.
bush,jr left that unfinished business that is sliding into the toilet, too.
bush,jr...world class loser dragging America down with him.
Paul Harper
<omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In reading many who post here, their "anti war" views often border on anti
>military attitudes. At best they want a military that is never used, is made up
>of only losers and has no real purpose. In other words a program for those who
>can not find real work (like most of those democrats who work for government).
Well, I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't need to
use mallrats as fodder for their military machine, so it doesn't
really apply to me, but your generalisation is still inaccurate even
so.
Most people with anti-war leanings want a military. They want a
well-paid, very well-trained and equipped military that can protect
them and the rest of their country from aggression. I am fortunate
enough to live in a country where this is the case (and I am not sure
it applies to the US, to be honest - too many mistakes keep getting
made there).
What they don't want is that military to be used as a political tool -
like some tin-pot military or commercial dictatorship - for personal
aims. (vis. Iraq 2)
We have no difficulty differentiating between capability and control.
We know that *both* have to be properly managed in order for peace to
work.
>I think it scares many of them that we have warriors who may not want war but
>are not afraid it of either. Men and women who have education, physical
>conditioning, character and self discipline.
You just described to a tee the UK armed forces. Well done.
>Individuals who have killed, if
>not in war then as hunters. People that know the thrill of the hunt.
Now you corrupted it and described the US armed forces. Not good.
A country's armed force should be (and in my case, fortunately is)
made up of people who can with ruthless efficiency kill, but hate
doing it, and will avoid it if they can. It's the difference between
the professional and the enthusiastic amateur. The first does a job
and gets out, the second usually screws up the job and stays around
too long mistakenly admiring their handiwork.
>If you are not anti military then why are so many of you who dislike guns,
>dislike hunting, even dislike just dislike violence as practiced in sports? The
>Left wing seems full of those who have issues over these things.
And quite right too. Violence and civilisation are mutually exclusive.
James H. Hood
Shannon Jacobs <sha...@cashette.com> wrote in message
news:445d93bc$0$205$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
> Let me give you a little hint. Dubya and Cheney are on very friendly terms
> with the oil companies that continue to post the largest corporate profits
> in history. Do you really regard that as coincidental?
I'll give you a dose of reality.....damn near all federal politcians are on
very friendly terms with oil companies.
James H. Hood
George Washington Hayduke <GeorgeWashi...@Hotmail.COM> wrote in
message news:125saig...@corp.supernews.com...
> LOL! Um, no, her family have a long history of joining the US
> military and she discussed the pros and cons of doing so with her
> baby killing son.
Prove he killed anyone, you seditious leftwing traitorshit.
James H. Hood
Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote in message
news:1hbs52p2591rn3acm...@4ax.com...
> This is where the ultra-jingoistic far-right Republicans get it all
> wrong. They assume that because someone is anti-war that they are,
> defacto, anti-military and do not support their own country's troops.
The inevitable leftwing smokescreen.
James H. Hood
> Well, I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't need to
> use mallrats as fodder for their military machine
Any one of which has shown more guts than you, leftard.
Shannon Jacobs
fame:
Jim E wrote:
<old stuff snip>
>
> Why is anyone wasting their time on the ditch bitch?
> She has been discarded by the dim party, and is currently reduced to
> trying to capitalize on her
> rapidly disappearing fame.
> Her fifteen minutes expired a long time ago.
> She's just another pathetic leftist screeching in the dark.
>
>
>
> Jim E
Whoops. The troll didn't make it.
*ploink*
Jack
"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80os52p1j1g6jsglm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:50:31 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> They were the same folks who were yelling to have the military cut back in
> the
> 1990s so that we could use the money for a "peace dividend". They are the
> same
> folks who push gun control and political correctness.
You appear pretty politically correct yourself (silly I mean).
> There will never be a
> war, in their minds, that is justified. Even if we are invaded. They
> would
> rather surrender than risk being at war....
Sure Ghandi, You seem to know them very well, would you be one of them ? And
why would anyone invade India ?
Jack
"Jim E" <YD65...@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:4c73hfF...@individual.net...
Typical looser Jim E boy right-knee jerk comment without the slightest
shadow of a point to make.
Jack
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:445e8c11$0$1014$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
Jack
>
> "Shannon Jacobs" <sha...@cashette.com> wrote in message
> news:445d58f9$0$206$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
>> Why are you wasting time arguing with a fanatical troll?
>
>
> Why is anyone wasting their time on the ditch bitch?
Since you are doing it as well, perhaps you should know the answer.
> She has been discarded by the dim party, and is currently reduced to
> trying to capitalize on her
> rapidly disappearing fame.
> Her fifteen minutes expired a long time ago.
Feeling a little jealous ?
> She's just another pathetic leftist screeching in the dark.
You clearly would be the expert on pathetic...
>
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
John Teague
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
<snip>
> In reading many who post here, their "anti war" views often border on anti
> military attitudes. At best they want a military that is never used, is made up
> of only losers and has no real purpose.
Thanks for giving them at least one they can point to -- that would be
you of course.
> In other words a program for those who
> can not find real work (like most of those democrats who work for government).
Right, because there are clearly no republicans who work in government.
BTW knothead, if you are a member of the armed forces you work for the
government. Or were you missing in action the day they taught civics in
the 5th grade.
> I think it scares many of them that we have warriors who may not want war but
> are not afraid it of either. Men and women who have education, physical
> conditioning, character and self discipline. Individuals who have killed, if
> not in war then as hunters.
Then again there are examples of hunters who kill other hunters and
military personnel that kill wildlife. Come to think of it, there are
also cases of wildlife killing hunters and wildlife that have fave
killed military personnel, and hunters that have killed military
personnel, and even military personnel that kill military personnel. Oh
but the scenarios are many, killer.
> People that know the thrill of the hunt.
> If you are not anti military then why are so many of you who dislike guns,
> dislike hunting, even dislike just dislike violence as practiced in sports? The
> Left wing seems full of those who have issues over these things.
Well, there are a lot of people who think you're a psychopath but they
also appreciate firearms. Would that make them a member of the left
wing or right wing?
John Teague,
who is still waiting for you to enlighten me on the thrill of killing
the enemy--based on your own experience there killer.
La N
"John Teague" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147216692.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Here's how Omega's true story would start:
"No shit, there I was in Baghdad, up to my ass in alligators ..... democrats
to the right of me, democrats to the left of me ..."
- nil
John Teague
'. . . when all of sudden someone yelled "incoming" and I could hear
someone screaming at the top of his lungs. You know, that ultra-high
pitch scream of indescribable fear-oh-god-help-me-momma kind of scream.
And then I realized. . . it was me.'
redjacket
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0ba8g.5150$zn1.3982@clgrps13...
won't anything left alive in those parts.
Bad men beware ! Kill her dog rape her sista sell her land
break her guitar drink her last Molson and then..........
the Judgment Shall come..
La N
Then, from out of the shadows emerged a figure approaching me. Momentarily
blinded by fear, I smelt the fresh lacquer aroma of boot polish and a
gentle hand nudging me on my collarbone. It was the 1st Sergeant asking
"Omega. Omega. Are you okay?" Top was a woman, and it was said that she
was a single parent. Then I knew that everything I read about in the G.I.
Comic books and watched with bright eyed panting wonderment in the movies of
my youth was true: War is hell. Just one day after arriving in Balad, I
knew I was in Hell.
La N
"redjacket" <redj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdGdnVb6dP2...@adelphia.com...
I better look for a gun. 'coz, look who appears to be in *my* hood:
U.S. MOST WANTED FUGITIVE SPOTTED IN B.C.
One of the most wanted fugitives in the United States has been spotted
in B.C.'s Okanagan Valley.
FULL STORY:
http://www.cbc.ca/vancouver/story/bc_fugitive20060505.html
I think you yanks should keep yer criminals to your own self and not send
them *my* way!
- nilita
redjacket
Yep, at least LOOK in the damn Mail Bag !
Shheeeeeesh.....
As old as the hills that one is.
>
>
James H. Hood
Jack <jkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF88g.31440$4v2.5...@weber.videotron.net...
Gutless AND stupid.....quite a combination you exhibit.
Jim E
You don't know one, you just feed off grief like a pain off strangers.
That is really sick
That's the pray for Soldier deaths, to promote my agenda approach of the
liberal dems.
Jim E
Jim E
Jim E
> Here's a typical Bushevik troll's typically witless bid for 15 minutes of
> fame:
>
Lack of a hint of couonterargument noted
> Jim E wrote:
> <old stuff snip>
>>
>> Why is anyone wasting their time on the ditch bitch?
>> She has been discarded by the dim party, and is currently reduced to
>> trying to capitalize on her
>> rapidly disappearing fame.
>> Her fifteen minutes expired a long time ago.
>> She's just another pathetic leftist screeching in the dark.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim E
>
> Whoops. The troll didn't make it.
>
> *ploink*
You have ""ploinked"" me so many times as to be hilarious.
What particular brand of loon are you?
And if you are too damn stupid to figure out that ploink is meaningless,
then so are you.
Jim E
Paul Harper
>"Jack" <jkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cF88g.31438$4v2.5...@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Jim E" <YD65...@sea.edu> wrote in message
>> news:4c73hfF...@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Shannon Jacobs" <sha...@cashette.com> wrote in message
>>> news:445d93bc$0$205$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
>>>> Hmm... Well, I must have confused her with a different mother who lost a
>>>> son in Iraq. It's just so hard to keep them straight after you go past
>>>> the first thousand mothers.
>>>
>>> As if you know even one.
>>> Your parasitical feeding on the grief of others is typical of loser
>>> leftists.
>>>
>> Typical looser Jim E boy right-knee jerk comment without the slightest
>> shadow of a point to make.
>
>You don't know one, you just feed off grief like a pain off strangers.
>That is really sick
>That's the pray for Soldier deaths, to promote my agenda approach of the
>liberal dems.
How strange then, that's it's the Dems who want the troops out,
thereby stopping any more deaths and it's the Repugnants who want them
to stay there, thereby causing more deaths. How you live with your
lies and deception I have no idea. Self-delusion is not a pretty
sight.
Howling Rectal Itch
Learn the difference between LOSER and LOOSER, you fucking idiot.
Paul Harper
<blo...@mybutt.soon> wrote:
>"Jack" <jkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cF88g.31438$4v2.5...@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Jim E" <YD65...@sea.edu> wrote in message
>> news:4c73hfF...@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Shannon Jacobs" <sha...@cashette.com> wrote in message
>> > news:445d93bc$0$205$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
>> >> Hmm... Well, I must have confused her with a different mother who lost
>a
>> >> son in Iraq. It's just so hard to keep them straight after you go past
>> >> the first thousand mothers.
>> >
>> > As if you know even one.
>> > Your parasitical feeding on the grief of others is typical of loser
>> > leftists.
>>
>> Typical looser Jim E boy right-knee jerk comment without the slightest
>> shadow of a point to make.
>
>Learn the difference between LOSER and LOOSER, you fucking idiot.
While it's true that there is a difference in the words, are you sure
that Jack's version isn't accurate? It's certainly funnier.
James H. Hood
> How strange then, that's it's the Dems who want the troops out,
> thereby stopping any more deaths
Typical leftwing fantasizing yet again.
JustThe...@aol.com
SLIME & PREDATOR..
These are the folks that want to hear from you regarding this Internet
SLIME & PREDATOR..
----- Original Message -----
From: Freespe...@aol.com
To: wh5...@sbc.com ; ab...@swbell.net ; tg6...@sbc.com ;
ab...@prodigy.net ;
ab...@att.net,ab...@pacbell.net,pbi...@sbcis.sbc.com,sup...@pacbell.net,ab...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: More Abuse, Harassment, Libel, Filth From Your Servers
Dear Mr. Whitacre...
This Usenet vermin continues his campaign of harassment through your
servers. He has been reported on several occasions with no definitive
action from your staff. All is documented for future litigation.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=sbc+whitacre+freespeechstore&qt_s=Search
Respectfully,
Richard Scoville
CEO...FSS
==============================================================
Howling Rectal Itch wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=gxFoaBIAAABXiCkFqCYeMohDLT6IrXEuzM2lGg6mE0rTJxnkKThJOA&utoken=12XzQU8AAACf6kv8YBWmEXD8axRY9fYySOi7nIlG_Cj_ZRc1L4ybt6fnCQ9DgfUFTLaX1BT08yUBkzeY-AJp-F1v4Eddc2W--xsoxZ3gCvjvAxxHLlQOyw
===============================================================
Hachiroku
Hey, Paul, look at the looney that keep posting how many 'Oil Nazis' bit the
dust on any given day.
Seems to me he is focusing on deaths in order to prove his point.
And it irritates a few of us here.
Paul Harper
>Hey, Paul, look at the looney that keep posting how many 'Oil Nazis' bit the
>dust on any given day.
>Seems to me he is focusing on deaths in order to prove his point.
>And it irritates a few of us here.
Yeah. It's people like that, like Jacobs too, who *claim* to be
Democrats (or liberals, or left-leaning or whatever) but use methods
indistinguishable from those used by the right-wing stormtroopers of
the Republicans that have over the years given decent socially-
conscious left-wingers a bad name.
The whole lot can rot in hell as far as I am concerned.
Paul.