Re: DemocRAT Congress won't repeal Patriot Act. Why not?
Bret Cahill
> > >>> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act that
> > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
Ain't that service?
Don't you think a nutter's sinuses -- nutters ain't got no brains --
exploding out of the back of his skull will make a great YouTube
video?
A few videos like that and NRA president Charlton Heston or whatever
Hollywood actor they got now would have to start hissing "out of my
live warm hands."
Bret Cahill
Immortalist
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the
Federalists in the United States Congress—which was waging an
undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War—and
signed into law by President John Adams. Proponents claimed the acts
were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of
enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the
government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians,
attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle
criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the
states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in
the elections of 1798 and 1800.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917
passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned
that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The
passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane,
scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government,
flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster
General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy
during wartime.
Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the
press". The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act at the
time it was in effect in Debs v. United States, but subsequent Supreme
Court decisions (such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969) make it less
likely that a similar law would be considered constitutional today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
McCarthyism is a term describing the intense anti-communist suspicion
in the United States in a period that lasted roughly from the late
1940s to the late 1950s. This period is also referred to as the Second
Red Scare, and coincided with increased fears about communist
influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents.
Originally coined to criticize the actions of U.S. Senator Joseph
McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not
necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone.
During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being
Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of
aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-
industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such
suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment
industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given
credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level
of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or
beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of
employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most
of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later
overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals
for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal
procedures that would come into general disrepute.
The most famous examples of McCarthyism include the Hollywood
Blacklist and the investigations and hearings conducted by Joseph
McCarthy. But it was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that
affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of
debate and conflict in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot" Act, is an Act of
Congress that United States President George W. Bush signed into law
on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for " Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L.
107-56).
The Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for
the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and
abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law
enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and
medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign
intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the
Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial
transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and
entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and
immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants
suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the
definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus
enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded
law enforcement powers can be applied.
Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of
Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening
protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law
have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of
immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement
officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the
occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National
Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and
financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of
law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and
financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have
been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a
number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31,
2005, approximately 4 years after its passage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by
strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often
maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive
measure.
Gunner Asch
You know..thats a Great idea! Whenever the People kill a Leftwinger,
they do a Youtube video and post it on the net.
Why..Ill bet the 15million killers will go to any lenghts to out do the
next guy. One group hangs a Leftist, the next group hangs a leftist with
barbed wire, the following group hangs their leftist with 15lb fly line
and times it to see how long it is before the head pops off....
This is going to be fucking Marvelous! Gory as hell but absolutely
entertaining!
Ill bet folks are already digging around on the net for old books
describing how the Romans and Ferro-Urics and proto-vandals executed
their enemies.
Glorious! Absofuckinlutely GLORIOUS!
Anyone want to set up a pool on how Bret is executed?
Ill bet $5 that its done with a cordless drill and will take more than
100 holes drilled into him before he croaks.
Anyone want in on this?
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Bret Cahill
>
> >> > >>> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act that
> >> > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> >the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
>
> >Ain't that service?
>
> >Don't you think a nutter's sinuses -- nutters ain't got no brains --
> >exploding out of the back of his skull will make a great YouTube
> >video?
>
> >A few videos like that and NRA president Charlton Heston or whatever
> >Hollywood actor they got now would have to start hissing "out of my
> >live warm hands."
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> You know..thats a Great idea! Whenever the People kill a Leftwinger,
> they do a Youtube video and post it on the net.
>
> Why..Ill bet the 15million killers will go to any lenghts to out do the
> next guy. One group hangs a Leftist, the next group hangs a leftist with
> barbed wire, the following group hangs their leftist with 15lb fly line
> and times it to see how long it is before the head pops off....
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
shoot up your trailer park.
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
You live in a trailer park? That somehow doesnt suprise me in the
slightest.
Im curious Bretttt. Will you be hanging around..or will you be leaving
for say..Cuba or Canada when the killings start?
You must know that you are on someones list, right? So Breetttt..will
you simply go with your executioners, leave the Nation, or scream, curse
and wave a spatula at the people coming to kill you?
Ill have to ask for a video tape. Should prove to be quite funny.
Bret Cahill
> Keyton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@lightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:11:26
-0800 in misc.survivalism:
Nope. I don't make a special of putting down old dogs, and the
same goes for things which look human. Just put him in a shroud, add
him to the mass grave.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Bret Cahill
Is this after rightards build the concentration camps?
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not
>necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone.
>
>During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being
>Communists or communist sympathizers
And history has shown us that the majority of those accused..and
countless others WERE indeed communists and their sympathizers
Which is fascinating..because while the charge against McCarthy is often
posted in derision by the Left...the results of countless investigations
are NEVER posted by the Left.
Joe McCarthy Was Right
Submitted by Don Capron
[Author's Note: The following is part of a lecture being given this
Thursday at the SUNY-Oswego Library at noon. All are invited.]
Joe McCarthy was right. Now that I've grabbed your attention, let me
tell you why.
For fifty years I trust there isn't an educator in either the academy or
high schools who hasn't failed to castigate Joe McCarthy as a
hate-monger, liar, destroyer of careers, and someone who routinely
accused innocent people of wrong doing.
"McCarthyism" has become the reflexive adjective among those on the
American Left when accused of anything of less than patriotic motives
or, for that matter, taken to task for questionable behavior. McCarthy
was not only right, he's been given a bad rap by history.
For four years, from 1950 until 1954, McCarthy was the only voice in
America speaking out against those in government that were Communists,
fellow-travelers (liberals who believed in but did not join the
Communist Party), Russian sympathizers, and Stalin apologists. His
enemies, consistent with the Left today, chose to attack the messenger
rather than the message.
From the earliest years of the New Deal until the late 1940's the
government was deeply infiltrated with Communists and their supporters.
There was no shortage of either messages to the President or evidence to
support such infiltration. Yet, Roosevelt then Truman chose to ignore
such evidence.
Adolph Berle, Undersecretary of State for internal security at State,
went to Roosevelt in 1940 with a list of Communists in government
provided by Whittaker Chambers, a party member who'd defected.
Roosevelt, according to all accounts laughed it off and refused to deal
with it.
J. Edgar Hoover, in 1943, informed Roosevelt of Soviet spying both
within the government and at the Russian Embassy. On this occasion
Roosevelt not only disregarded the evidence, he sent Harry Hopkins, his
Domestic Affairs advisor, to warn the Soviet embassy that their phones
were tapped.
In 1946 Hoover again went to the White House, this time providing Harry
Truman with a list of known Communists and sympathizers still in the
government. Truman's response was: "What am I going to do? Give those
@#%&* Republicans up on the Hill something to bash me with."
McCarthy's detractors, Communists, and Soviet sympathizers never
anticipated two things: One, the Venona intercepts and their subsequent
release; Two, the collapse of Communism and the opening of Soviet files.
From 1943 until 1980, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, the National
Security Agency intercepted every Soviet message going from or to the
United States. It was not until 1994 that their existence was even
acknowledged, and 1995 when the first 1,400 of 240,000 intercepts were
released to the public. Their content was damning and supportive of the
contentions of not only McCarthy but Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth
Bentley, Hoover, and others.
The collapse of Communism opened files of not only internal Soviet spy
documents but also gave the FBI, CIA, and American scholars access to
the files of the American Communist Party that had been hidden in a
Russian warehouse since 1950. The cat was out of the clich�d bag.
Just who was exposed by these documents. Alger Hiss who had been the
number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who,
most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of
State. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who
purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists,
during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their
efforts against Mao's Communists.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging
information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed. Lauchlin
Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R. Samuel Dickstein, member of the
House of Representatives from Brooklyn.
William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to
Germany in the 1930's. Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of
Latin American Affairs. Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's
impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior. Finally, William
Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency. This is just a very few, the
most prominent or household names one might say.
Was Robert Oppenheimer, the Director of the Atom Bomb Project at Los
Alamos, New Mexico, a member of the Communist Party? Quite emphatically,
no! His wife was. His brother was. His mistress was. As were many of his
closest associates at the University of California. In addition,
Oppenheimer was one of those scientists in the 40's who thought that all
scientific information should be shared universally for the good of
mankind.
Were any of the aforementioned exposed by McCarthy? Not one. He'd been
too late at the spy discovery game. After all, Alger Hiss got Richard
Nixon the Vice-Presidency. White had been shifted to that historical
ashbin where failures are allowed to "resign" to, the International
Monetary Fund.
Hiss, unquestionably the most brilliant of the rising stars at State at
the age of 43, in 1947 became the head of the Carnegie Endowment for
Peace; a position usually held by a senior citizen with insufficient
retirement funds. Lawrence Duggan, as the FBI closed in on him, had the
presence of mind and good sense to jump from a window and commit
suicide. Of course, he was considered a "victim" of a non-existent "Red
Scare".
Just how many did McCarthy catch? Darn few. Of the 10,000 government
employees who were exposed as Communists, security risks, or of
questionable loyalty and lost their jobs, at the least, only forty can
be attributed to McCarthy.
Any of the major players? None, as most had either been moved laterally
by Truman or snared by the FBI.
Most of the forty were small time functionaries such as Owen Lattimore,
John Stewart Service, Philip and Mary Jane Keeney, and Howard Shapley;
and these were the most prominent. In every case, of the forty, they
were all accorded trials and attorneys before their dismissal.
Lattimore had been Director of the School Of International Relations at
Johns Hopkins University, advisor to FDR on China in 1941, advisor at
State in 1946-1947, preached that Mao's Communists were "agrarian
reformers", in 1948 encouraged George Marshall to stop aid to Chiang
Kai-Shek and his Nationalists, and in 1949 urged U.S. withdrawal from
Korea.
Senator Joseph McCarthy's Charges 'now accepted as fact'
By Jon Basil Utley
WorldNetDaily | February 8, 2000
WASHINGTON -- Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized
American politicians of the last century, new information -- including
half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are
showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.
"With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which
condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of Accuracy in Academia's recent
national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.
Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Vanona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every
case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing
atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories
in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.
The conference, a gathering of old McCarthyites and younger scholars,
commemorated the senator's first speech, in Wheeling, West Virginia 50
years ago, when he first held up a list of names of employees of the
State Department whom, he said, were major security risks. McCarthy
questioned how, in six short years after America's winning of World War
II, the communist world was triumphant and had expanded to include 800
million people.
Of the lists, a key one consisted of 108 names from a House
Appropriations Committee report, of persons declared as "security risks"
in the State Department -- the Lee List. The House committee chairman
had complained that State wasn't bothering to do anything about the
suspects. Details of the list and its accusations were presented at the
conference.
Speakers detailed many of the cover-ups used to smear McCarthy. Veteran
journalist and teacher Stan Evans, director of National Journalism
Center, told of the Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy's
charges of communists in government. Its report had exonerated
everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no
evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure
in the communist conspiracy.
Lattimore had been Roosevelt's key advisor on China policy. Yet Evans
showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files on him -- files released
only a few years ago to the public, although the White House had access
to them.
However, evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had
supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin
purge trials in Russia, "sound like democracy to me." With then-Vice
President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration
camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to
abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea. FBI
chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with
him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of
information for its criminal prosecutions.
Although most of McCarthy's cases involved actual spies and "security
risks," the really important issue was that of communist influence over
American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's
closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with
Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and
Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German
reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to
go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White
at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by
denying military support was the product of "China Hands" led by John
Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described
other major spy networks -- in England, the Burgess Maclean group which
infiltrated Washington as well as London.
Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been
a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but
McCarthy's speeches had made him think and start to read "evidence that
I had avoided." He described how all during his military career as a
Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never
hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the
CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but
that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had
wanted him discredited.
Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor
Arthur Herman. His new book, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and
Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," and featured in the Sunday New
York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy's
charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian's Western
Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no
longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact."
However, the term "McCarthyism" still remains in the language.
Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against
him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn't realized he'd be fighting
against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was
fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said,
and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of
the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared
investigations of their past appointments and associations with people
who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.
That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.
Joe McCarthy had been a Marine air gunner, an amateur boxer, a county
judge and towards his end, under constant attack, he began to drink
heavily. Herman said he certainly was over his head and his fall came
about after sweeping attacks on General Marshall and the Army. Senator
Taft and other key supporters began to draw away from him.
If Robert Kennedy, his competent and well-connected co-counsel, had
stayed on, McCarthy might have behaved more carefully, said Herman. An
argument with other co-counsel Roy Cohn left Cohn in charge, but Cohn
and staffer David Schine were disastrous for McCarthy. Still, McCarthy's
original charges helped bring about Eisenhower's electoral victory and
the defeat of the Democrats and key leftist Democratic senators such as
Tydings of Maryland. Four years after his original charges, Joe McCarthy
was censured by the Senate and died shortly thereafter.
On the evening of May 1, 1957, while convalescing from a bout of
hepatitis at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, the courageous Senator
was quietly administered poisonous carbon tetrachloride by persons
unknown. (Eight years earlier the CIA had murdered Secretary of Defense,
James Forrestal, in that same hospital. Forrestal had been working on an
expose of Soviet espoinage rings in the Pentagon and treason in the
Truman Administration when he was suddenly silenced in 1949).
There is more evidence to come. Herb Rome Stein, another speaker, who
started out with the old House Un-American Activities Committee, is
writing a book about the Vanona FBI intercepts and their links to other
evidence from his comprehensive study in Russia of Soviet archives, made
available to Westerners since the fall of communism. His book, The
Vanona Secrets, will be released by Regnery Gateway this fall.
Communism - McCarthy
Was Right
By Jon Basil Utley
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON -- Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized
American politicians of the last century, new information -- including
half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are
showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.
"With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which
condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of <http://www.academia.org
Accuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast
by C-SPAN.
Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Vanona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every
case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing
atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories
in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.
The conference, a gathering of old McCarthyites and younger scholars,
commemorated the senator's first speech, in Wheeling, West Virginia 50
years ago, when he first held up a list of names of employees of the
State Department whom, he said, were major security risks. McCarthy
questioned how, in six short years after America's winning of World War
II, the communist world was triumphant and had expanded to include 800
million people.
Of the lists, a key one consisted of 108 names from a House
Appropriations Committee report, of persons declared as "security risks"
in the State Department -- the Lee List. The House committee chairman
had complained that State wasn't bothering to do anything about the
suspects. Details of the list and its accusations were presented at the
conference.
Speakers detailed many of the cover-ups used to smear McCarthy. Veteran
journalist and teacher Stan Evans, director of National Journalism
Center, told of the Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy's
charges of communists in government. Its report had exonerated
everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no
evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure
in the communist conspiracy. Lattimore had been Roosevelt's key advisor
on China policy. Yet Evans showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files
on him -- files released only a few years ago to the public, although
the White House had access to them.
However, evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had
supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin
purge trials in Russia, "sound like democracy to me." With then-Vice
President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration
camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to
abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea. FBI
chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with
him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of
information for its criminal prosecutions.
Although most of McCarthy's cases involved actual spies and "security
risks," the really important issue was that of communist influence over
American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's
closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with
Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and
Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German
reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to
go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White
at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by
denying military support was the product of "China Hands" led by John
Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described
other major spy networks -- in England, the Burgess Maclean group which
infiltrated Washington as well as London.
Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been
a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but
McCarthy's speeches had made him think and start to read "evidence that
I had avoided." He described how all during his military career as a
Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never
hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the
CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but
that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had
wanted him discredited.
Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor
Arthur Herman. His new book, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and
Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," and featured in the Sunday New
York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy's
charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian's Western
Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no
longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact."
However, the term "McCarthyism" still remains in the language.
Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against
him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn't realized he'd be fighting
against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was
fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said,
and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of
the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared
investigations of their past appointments and associations with people
who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.
That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.
Joe McCarthy had been a Marine air gunner, an amateur boxer, a county
judge and towards his end, under constant attack, he began to drink
heavily. Herman said he certainly was over his head and his fall came
about after sweeping attacks on General Marshall and the Army. Senator
Taft and other key supporters began to draw away from him.
If Robert Kennedy, his competent and well-connected co-counsel, had
stayed on, McCarthy might have behaved more carefully, said Herman. An
argument with other co-counsel Roy Cohn left Cohn in charge, but Cohn
and staffer David Schine were disastrous for McCarthy. Still, McCarthy's
original charges helped bring about Eisenhower's electoral victory and
the defeat of the Democrats and key leftist Democratic senators such as
Tydings of Maryland. Four years after his original charges, Joe McCarthy
was censured by the Senate and died shortly thereafter.
There is more evidence to come. Herb Rome Stein, another speaker, who
started out with the old House Un-American Activities Committee, is
writing a book about the Vanona FBI intercepts and their links to other
evidence from his comprehensive study in Russia of Soviet archives, made
available to Westerners since the fall of communism. His book, The
Vanona Secrets, will be released by Regnery Gateway this fall.
<http://www.academia.org Audiotapes of the "Accuracy in Academia"
conference are available online.
JOE McCARTHY WAS RIGHT
THIS ISSUE:
# Red Tunes
# Defending A Cover-Up
# Protecting A Red
# Marxists Pressure Post
What You Can Do
# CLIFF'S NOTES
The release of transcripts of closed-door hearings conducted by Senator
Joseph McCarthy gave the media another opportunity to charge that the
Wisconsin Senator made reckless charges about communists that destroyed
the lives of innocent people. But many of the stories about the hearings
and McCarthy were far more reckless, inaccurate and misleading than
anything he ever said or did.
The media have had 50 years to get the story straight but still can�t
present the basic facts to the American people about the communist
threat that McCarthy tried to expose-and which still exists today in a
different but equally deadly form.
Consider that the government has indicted Katrina Leung, a suspected
Chinese-American double agent, and her FBI case officer, who also was
her lover. The full story of this spectacular case is yet to be told,
but Leung through her FBI handlers may have provided disinformation
about Chinese Communist aims and ambitions to U.S. presidents and
Congress for over a decade.
Brian P. Regan, a retired Air Force sergeant, was recently convicted of
espionage and barely escaped the death penalty. He was selling U.S.
secrets to China and Iraq. And more details about convicted Cuban spy
Ana Montes, a former senior analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency,
are coming to light. Insiders are comparing her role as an agent of
influence on behalf of Cuba to the service Alger Hiss gave to the Soviet
Union. We already know that she peddled the line in an official report
that the Castro regime was not a significant security threat to the U.S.
All of these recent cases involve the deep and long-term penetration of
our intelligence agencies.
Meantime, in a troubling comment that largely escaped critical media
scrutiny or even notice, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on
Black Entertainment Television that U.S. policy toward Chilean Marxist
President Salvador Allende in the 1970s was �not a part of American
history that we�re proud of.� Powell appears not to know that in
toppling Allende the Chilean military saved Chile from suffering the
same fate as South Vietnam with very little loss of life.
The Bush administration is, of course, preoccupied with the Middle East,
and this drives media coverage of foreign affairs. But voices are
struggling to be heard in the media about the communist danger and
potential terrorist threat we face just south of the border.
Al Santoli, Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy
Council, told the Free Congress Foundation�s radio news service that
Venezuela, an oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro,
Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli,
who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are
helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more
than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing.
He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez�s military, and
that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela
as Chavez�s guests. He is Venezuela�s Allende.
In a new report, the American Defense Council notes that not only does
China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven
of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.
Shane Connor, a Texas businessman who has traveled several times to
Venezuela and interviewed military officials who have quit the Chavez
regime, tells AIM that Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, a former
pilot for Chavez, has revealed his own role in the payment of $1 million
from the regime to al Qaeda after 9/11. Connor said this disclosure made
headlines in Venezuela but not in any major American newspapers. Connor
also said there is evidence that a controversial bioweapons lab reported
to be in Cuba has been secretly transferred to Venezuela. The location
has been posted at www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, a Web site in English
for opponents of the Chavez regime.
Writing in Human Events, the conservative weekly, intelligence expert
Herbert Romerstein says Cuba should be considered a member of the Axis
of Evil for its long-time support of international terrorism.
Mary Anastasia O�Grady of the Wall Street Journal is one of the few
national media voices expressing alarm about the deteriorating situation
in Latin America and the seeming inability of the CIA to recognize the
dangers we face. She said in a March 14 column that the U.S.
intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton T. Armstrong, backed out
of a scheduled February 27 public appearance before the House
International Relations Committee because he feared being questioned
about the CIA�s nonchalance toward adverse political trends in Latin
America and the threat to U.S. security posed by the Chavez regime.
Senator Joseph McCarthy would never have tolerated such behavior from
U.S. officials. He was accused of bullying or browbeating witnesses
before his committee, but there can be no doubt that he was motivated by
concern about the failure of the U.S. government at the time to
recognize the communist danger we faced.
McCarthy was quite specific in his charges, having cited 59 suspected
communists in the State Department. He produced that list, plus 22
others. McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving Foreign
Service officer John Stewart Service and Philip Jaffe, the editor of
Amerasia, a pro-communist magazine. He targeted Owen Lattimore, a key
State Department adviser and a Communist. McCarthy�s charge against Mary
Jane Keeney, a Soviet agent who served as a State Department employee at
the U.N., was proven correct. McCarthy was right about Annie Lee Moss,
an army code clerk who was proven to be a member of the Communist Party.
In addition to Service, other State Department China hands who gave aid
and comfort to the Communists were John Paton Davies, Edmund Clubb and
John Carter Vincent. Soviet agents in high positions included Harry
Hopkins, who was so close to FDR that he lived in the White House,
Laughlin Currie, an economist who was a top Roosevelt aide, and Alger
Hiss, a high State Department official who was at FDR�s elbow at Yalta
and a key figure in getting the U.N. started.
On May 5, NBC News correspondent Pete Williams aired a report about the
transcripts of the closed-door McCarthy hearings. He focused on another
alleged innocent victim of the senator. Williams claimed that McCarthy
had unfairly singled out composer Aaron Copland for scrutiny. Williams
said that Copland, when asked about Soviet policies replied, �I spend my
days writing symphonies, concertos, ballads, and I am not a political
thinker.� Williams said Copland �was never called to testify in public,�
suggesting he was completely innocent of charges that he had Communist
connections.
Red Tunes
But writing in National Review, historian Ronald Radosh noted that
Copland had �a record of a vast amount of cooperation with Communist
front groups.� Radosh said that Copland was �thoroughly dishonest� in
claiming he didn�t have Communist connections and that his attendance at
a Communist �peace� conference was for the purpose of investigating the
Communists.
Radosh said that Copland, who swore under oath in 1934 that he never
knew a Communist, was in fact a member of the Composers Collective, an
affiliate of the Workers� Music League of the Communist Party. Copland
even wrote a May Day song for the Communists, �Into the Streets May
First,� whose music and text were featured on the cover of a Communist
Party cultural magazine, New Masses.
An AP story of May 10, 2003, said that FBI documents released under the
Freedom of Information Act show that the FBI �wanted to prosecute
Copland for perjury and fraud for denying he was a Communist.� No such
prosecution ever took place. It said Copland�s music was pulled from
President Eisenhower�s inaugural concert in 1953 because of concern
about his Communist ties. AP quoted Terry Teachout, a New York-based
music critic and commentator, as saying, �He was involved with the
Communist Party up to his ears. Whether or not he was an actual
card-carrying member of the party, nobody knows.�
Professor David Schiff of Reed College says that the Depression
transformed Copland �from an alienated aesthete into a politically
engaged populist. Most of his friends turned to communism for solutions
to the economic crisis. Howard Pollack reveals that on two occasions in
1934 Copland actually got on the stump to support Communist Party
candidates...�
The news stories about the five volumes of McCarthy hearings released by
the Senate were all alike, reporting that McCarthy accused people of
being Communists who were not, and saying that he bullied them. Lacking
time to peruse 5 thick volumes, reporters wrote what Donald Ritchie, the
Senate historian who edited the published hearings, told them.
M. Stanton Evans, author of a forthcoming book about McCarthy, contacted
reporters for Roll Call newspaper, the Washington Post and Reuters in a
fruitless attempt to get the name of one innocent victim of McCarthy.
They all told him to contact Ritchie. Ritchie asked Evans to send him a
letter.
Ritchie appeared on a Fox News show hosted by John Gibson, who said
McCarthy was a drunk who �went around the bend� and who had a list of
1000 alleged Communists that was �bogus, completely bogus, right?�
Ritchie said that while McCarthy did find Communists and security risks
�from time to time,� he uncovered no espionage agents or subversion.
Wes Vernon of Newsmax.com wrote a series of stories noting that
Ritchie�s criticism of McCarthy was just wrong.
But Ken Ringle, in a Washington Post story about the release of the
hearings, still insisted that Annie Lee Moss was �a frail file clerk in
the State Department [sic] who had no idea who Karl Marx was�� He and
John W. Dean, in a column posted by CNN.com, made the claim that the
derogatory term �McCarthyism� was coined by Washington Post cartoonist
Herblock, when, in fact, Romerstein points out that the term was
actually introduced by the Communists to discredit their opposition.
Joel Brinkley in the New York Times said McCarthy did not hesitate �to
destroy reputations and lives.� In fact, some in the media wanted to
destroy McCarthy. The Washington Post was preparing to publish major
allegations of illegal conduct against McCarthy until it learned at the
last minute that its source was a con man.
Defending A Cover-Up
Media blindness to the continued activities of Communists was on display
at the Washington Post annual meeting on May 8. Cliff Kincaid praised
the paper for its editorial support of the liberation of Iraq and
expressed regret over the death in Iraq of Post columnist Michael Kelly.
But he also said:
�There needs to be a time when you evaluate your coverage of the war at
home. By that I mean your coverage of the so-called anti-war protests, a
number of which were held in Washington, D.C., your area of coverage�And
it seems obvious to me that your coverage of these demonstrations was
overall deficient because of the failure to emphasize the central role
played in the Washington protests by an openly communist group, the
Workers World Party. Ironically, Michael Kelly, your columnist, had done
the best reporting in the form of a column in the Washington Post on
this very subject. He had the story that your reporters who were
covering these protests failed to uncover.�
Kincaid had sent Post chairman Donald Graham and Post publisher Bo Jones
a copy of one of his columns noting that Michael Powell, New York bureau
chief of the Washington Post, had written an April 17 story about
anti-war organizer Leslie Cagan, without saying that she is a co-chair
of a group called the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and
Socialism (CCDS), an offshoot of the old Soviet-controlled Communist
Party USA (CPUSA).
When Kincaid called Powell to ask about this omission, Powell said, �I
call her a leftist,� as if this were a complete and accurate description
of Cagan�s ideology.
Protecting A Red
Powell, a reporter for the paper that broke open the Watergate scandal,
apparently could not find it within his power or ability to reveal that
Cagan is a co-chair of a group dominated by former veteran CPUSA members
such as Angela Davis.
Powell�s article did acknowledge that International ANSWER, the Workers
World Party (WWP) front group behind several Washington, D.C. protests,
was a �Marxist-Leninist grouping that glorifies North Korea�� But he
then ignored the hard evidence of Cagan�s Communist connections and
travels to Cuba. It�s clear that Powell was trying to present Cagan, the
head of a rival anti-war group called United For Peace and Justice, as a
more responsible activist without the WWP baggage.
Powell said that, �She came of age as a radical protesting the Vietnam
War, before doing graduate agitating on issues including the nuclear
freeze, gay rights, El Salvador and the trade embargo on Cuba.� The
closest he came to acknowledging her red roots was when he noted
allegations that Insight Magazine had called Cagan a Marxist agitator
who has �roots in old Soviet . . . agitprop� and that she had been
denounced for �letting various flavors of Trotskyites and Maoists join
the antiwar marches.�
Former congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein said the CCDS has
�a close working relationship with the Stalinist remnants in the former
East Germany, called the Party of Democratic Socialism�� Romerstein said
these were the people who ran the concentration camps and the Communist
Party apparatus in East Germany. Powell said he was unaware of this.
What�s more, Romerstein cited evidence that Cagan organized the first
meetings after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America to plan
demonstrations to stop the United States from launching a military
action against those responsible. Powell said he was unaware of this,
too.
Powell�s article alluded to her work on Cuba, but carefully avoided
mentioning that Cagan is an apologist for Castro�s Communist system who
was identified as a member of the revolutionary Venceremos Brigades to
the Communist island in the early 1970s. Cagan�s bio at the CCDS Web
site points with pride to her role as the coordinator of a U.S.
delegation to Cuba for the 1997 World Festival of Youth and Students.
This was a communist-controlled affair that staged an anti-American
tribunal.
As the head of a rival anti-war group that has a more �moderate� image,
it�s understandable why Cagan would avoid the communist label. The
description of �democratic socialist� is probably something she would
accept, although Powell avoided even that. However, he told Kincaid,
�There�s nothing wrong with socialism. Much of Europe is socialist...�
Kincaid noted that the paper had run an excellent series on the Nature
Conservancy, an environmental group, based on hundreds of interviews,
internal documents, �but I have to question why you didn�t have a
comparable effort to explain the role of the Workers World Party in
organizing these anti-war protests here in Washington, D.C. and the fact
that its leaders have been investigated by Congress in the past, back in
the 70s, that they traveled to Baghdad, Pyongyang and Havana, Cuba, that
they�re openly in support of the enemies of America. I was just
astounded that with your first-rate investigative team, all the
resources at your disposal, you had to leave it to Michael Kelly, who
tragically is no longer with us, to provide your readers with some of
these critical facts.�
Don Graham responded that �Mr. Kelly�s column was part of the
newspaper,� while Post publisher Bo Jones declared that the paper
doesn�t �throw labels-like someone�s a communist-around, unless we have
the basis for saying that ourselves. We do attribute things that we
think are properly attributed to what other people think.�
Marxists Pressure Post
He said readers were informed that the protest organizers �had
left-leanings or were radicals and in fact a number of people were asked
about this� at the protests. He added, �The main criticism we�ve
actually had of our coverage of the anti-war protests was that we
minimized it...was that we didn�t cover the anti-war protests
sufficiently, rather than focusing on one aspect like that or
another...�
So the Post was more concerned about the criticism of the paper by the
Marxists and fellow travelers who wanted even more favorable and
extensive publicity for the demonstrations.
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed cards or letters of your own choosing to Maureen Dowd
of the New York Times, Mary Anastasia O�Grady of the Wall Street
Journal, and Condace Pressley of the National Association of Black
Journalists.
Gunner Asch
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>Kook koo kook koo . . .
Shrug..no big deal if you believe me or not. After all ....its your
life, not mine.
If its of no value to you..shrug....do as you please.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
Concentration camps for the dead? Whatever for????
Harold Burton
<5cae770d-02f1-474a...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Snicker.
pyotr filipivich
-0800 in misc.survivalism:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:53:55 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
><BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> >Anyone want to set up a pool on how Bret is executed?
>>>
>>> >Ill bet $5 that its done with a cordless drill and will take more than
>>> >100 holes drilled into him before he croaks.
>>>
>>> >Anyone want in on this?
>>>
>>> � � � � Nope. � I don't make a special of putting down old dogs, and the
>>> same goes for things which look human. Just put him in a shroud, add
>>> him to the mass grave.
>>
>>Is this after rightards build the concentration camps?
>>
>>
>>Bret Cahill
>
>Concentration camps for the dead? Whatever for????
Sheesh, the last time, we built strip malls over those sites.
We're not going to need any more.
pyotr
Harold Burton
<a9f796b2-334e-466e...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Is this after rightards build the concentration camps?
Actually it was DemocRAT Franklin Roosevelt who built concentration
camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Snicker.
Gunner Asch
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
><gun...@lightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:34:24
>-0800 in misc.survivalism:
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:53:55 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>><BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>> >Anyone want to set up a pool on how Bret is executed?
>>>>
>>>> >Ill bet $5 that its done with a cordless drill and will take more than
>>>> >100 holes drilled into him before he croaks.
>>>>
>>>> >Anyone want in on this?
>>>>
>>>> � � � � Nope. � I don't make a special of putting down old dogs, and the
>>>> same goes for things which look human. Just put him in a shroud, add
>>>> him to the mass grave.
>>>
>>>Is this after rightards build the concentration camps?
>>>
>>>
>>>Bret Cahill
>>
>>Concentration camps for the dead? Whatever for????
>
>
> Sheesh, the last time, we built strip malls over those sites.
>
> We're not going to need any more.
Not for at least hummmm 50 yrs.
Gunner
>
>
>pyotr
>-
>pyotr filipivich.
>Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
Bret Cahill
> leftards have been so worked up about?
To monitor Islamofascists, right wing militias, nutters and other
terrorists.
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
And of course when Republicans take back Congress and the Whitehouse in
a couple years..they will use it to monitor Islamofascists, Leftwing
Useful Idiots, nutters and other terrorists.
But then..most of the Leftwingers will be dead..so......
Gunner
Michael Price
> > > >> Harold Burton wrote:
> > > >>> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act that
> > > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
>
they
want on the basis of their beliefs not their acts. Of course the SS
could already shoot on the basis of someone's acts if such acts
require it so of course the Patriot Act wasn't about actual threats.
> Ain't that service?
>
> Don't you think a nutter's sinuses -- nutters ain't got no brains --
> exploding out of the back of his skull will make a great YouTube
> video?
>
For sociopaths like you no doubt.
> A few videos like that and NRA president Charlton Heston or whatever
> Hollywood actor they got now would have to start hissing "out of my
> live warm hands."
>
Not everyone is as big a coward as you.
> Bret Cahill
Michael Price
Depends, does Obama count as a rightist? I'm seriously
asking.
Immortalist
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:37:51 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
> >McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not
> >necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone.
>
> >During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being
> >Communists or communist sympathizers
>
> And history has shown us that the majority of those accused..and
> countless others WERE indeed communists and their sympathizers
>
> Which is fascinating..because while the charge against McCarthy is often
> posted in derision by the Left...the results of countless investigations
> are NEVER posted by the Left.
>
Hey we could just claim everyone is guity till proven innocent, mabey
we could just use constitutions as toilet paper. Don't you see that
this is a similar argument to the one your presenting? If they catch
more crooks, dam the rights of individuals right? Maybe if this
attitude was adapted to corporate crooks and business, our economy
would better.
It is sometimes assumed that the Nazis came to power in Germany by an
electoral fluke or covert coup. In fact, in 1930--just eleven years
after its founding -the Nazi Party came in second in a crowded
political field with 18 percent of the vote. In 1932 Germany held two
national elections, and the Nazis came in first in both, getting 37
and 33 percent of the vote (the runner-up, the Social Democrats,
received 21 and 20 percent). And in the famous election of 1933 the
Nazis received 44 percent of the vote, as much as the next three
parties put together, and was asked to form the government. The Weimar
Republic, established in Germany after World War I, was a well-
designed democracy with a free press and fair elections. The Nazi
Party made full use of the democratic process to organize and spread
into small towns and cities. As Germany was wracked by one crisis
after another in the 1920s and 1930s, the traditional institutions of
government lost credibility. Liberalism and constitutionalism seemed
hollow phrases in the face of an increasingly desperate reality.
Reeling from the effects of the Depression and hyperinflation,
Germany's masses and middle classes grasped at Hitler's promise of
bold leadership that would make the nation strong again. The more
extreme Hitler's rhetoric, the more popular he got. In his careful
study of democratization, the political scientist Jack Snyder
concluded, "Racist authoritarian nationalism triumphed at the end of
the Weimar Republic not despite the democratization of political life
but because of it."
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
Bret Cahill
> >> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >To monitor Islamofascists, right wing militias, nutters and other
> >terrorists.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> And of course when Republicans take back Congress and the Whitehouse in
> a couple years..they will use it to monitor Islamofascists, Leftwing
> Useful Idiots, nutters and other terrorists.
That's why the Patriot Act ain't gonna be repealed until 2016.
Everyone, delusional rightards as well as normal folk, think it is a
good thing right now.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> > So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> > the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
>
> So in other words you want it so that your side can kill whoever
> they
> want on the basis of their beliefs not their acts.
Threats of violence are acts.
If a liberdope starts to fantacize out loud about using his 2nd
Amendment "pocket veto" to "check them feds" the liberdope goes to
jail.
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which is fascinating..because while the charge against McCarthy is often
>> posted in derision by the Left...the results of countless investigations
>> are NEVER posted by the Left.
>>
>
>Hey we could just claim everyone is guity till proven innocent, mabey
>we could just use constitutions as toilet paper. Don't you see that
>this is a similar argument to the one your presenting?
Actually fucktard..I posted the cites to back up both My claim and
McCarthy's
Which part of that did you miss?
Or are you such a fuckin dweeb that you simply started spewing your
buffoonery despite it being counter to the fucking Facts?
Yah..Ill vote for you being a buffoonery spewing dweeb.
In fact..Im positive you are.
Gunner Asch
Gunner Asch
Shrug...all the Leftwingers will be dead, or gone by that time. So its
really a moot point, isnt it?
Gunner Asch
Really. Got any case studies to show what buffoonery you are claiming
is actually happening?
Bret Cahill
> >> >> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >> >To monitor Islamofascists, right wing militias, nutters and other
> >> >terrorists.
>
> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> And of course when Republicans take back Congress and the Whitehouse in
> >> a couple years..they will use it to monitor Islamofascists, Leftwing
> >> Useful Idiots, nutters and other terrorists.
>
> >That's why the Patriot Act ain't gonna be repealed until 2016.
>
> >Everyone, delusional rightards as well as normal folk, think it is a
> >good thing right now.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Shrug...all the Leftwingers will be dead, or gone by that time. So its
> really a moot point, isnt it?
Not if you git pushed too far.
Then they'll be taking your gun out of your warm hand.
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
My gun? Why would "they" be taking my gun? Its only for self defense
from crooks, thieves and perverts.
Ive stated many many times that Ill be at home, sitting on the porch,
playing the banjo and listening to the growing body count as the
Leftists are killed. Ill be playing cheerful riffs and having a very
good time.
You on the other hand....shrug...
So tell me Bretard...who is that "they" you keep babbling about?
Tofu armed Leftards? Hummmmm?
If they attack me..and I have reasonable cause to fear for my life, or
the life of others, I shall be forced to use deadly force in defense of
myself and any other innocents being set upon.
Im very very good at using deadly force to protect myself and other
innocents. And Ive got a reasonable amount of appropriate ammunition
to do so, and live in a very Red county in the very large Red middle of
a Blue but utterly failing state.
So Bretard..will YOU be coming to take my arms from me? Hummmm?
Is that a threat on your part? Hummmmm?
<VBG>
You do fully understand the reason when I tell you to put your ID in
your sock.before making the attempt..do you not?
All you need to tell me..is if you want a southfacing hillside, or a
north facing hillside. Ill handle everything else. Or Ill simply feed
the hogs down the road. Which will save me a significant amount of time
and fuel. And make the hogs happy. They will eat Anything.
>
>
>Bretard Cahill
So Bretard...whats it gonna be?
ornamentalmind
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:44:43 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
“Reality has a liberal bias.” – Al Franken
Bret Cahill
> >> > > > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >> > So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> >> > the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
>
> >> So in other words you want it so that your side can kill whoever
> >> they
> >> want on the basis of their beliefs not their acts.
>
> >Threats of violence are acts.
>
> >If a liberdope starts to fantacize out loud about using his 2nd
> >Amendment "pocket veto" to "check them feds" the liberdope goes to
> >jail.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Really.
Google "First Amendment threats violence public officials."
And it'll be another 6 months if you try to play silly looneytarian
word games with the judge like asking for a definition of "jail."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> >> >> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >> >> >To monitor Islamofascists, right wing militias, nutters and other
> >> >> >terrorists.
>
> >> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> >> And of course when Republicans take back Congress and the Whitehouse in
> >> >> a couple years..they will use it to monitor Islamofascists, Leftwing
> >> >> Useful Idiots, nutters and other terrorists.
>
> >> >That's why the Patriot Act ain't gonna be repealed until 2016.
>
> >> >Everyone, delusional rightards as well as normal folk, think it is a
> >> >good thing right now.
>
> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> Shrug...all the Leftwingers will be dead, or gone by that time. So its
> >> really a moot point, isnt it?
>
> >Not if you git pushed too far.
>
> >Then they'll be taking your gun out of your warm hand.
>
> My gun? Why would "they" be taking my gun? Its only for self defense
> from crooks, thieves and perverts.
It's too late for you to get off the short list. You've already been
profiled and located.
Everyone already knows that for hate filled bigot gun nutters "crooks
and thieves" includes "them evil feds."
IRS agents will show up to attach your motor vehicle and they will
bring a microwave beam vehicle that can take your gun out of your live
warm hands.
So you need to start practicing something different than that
Alzheimic Hollywood actor's hiss in front of the bathroom mirror.
Bret Cahill
Gunner Asch
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act that
>> >> >> >> leftards have been so worked up about?
>>
>> >> >> >To monitor Islamofascists, right wing militias, nutters and other
>> >> >> >terrorists.
>>
>> >> >> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> >> >> And of course when Republicans take back Congress and the Whitehouse in
>> >> >> a couple years..they will use it to monitor Islamofascists, Leftwing
>> >> >> Useful Idiots, nutters and other terrorists.
>>
>> >> >That's why the Patriot Act ain't gonna be repealed until 2016.
>>
>> >> >Everyone, delusional rightards as well as normal folk, think it is a
>> >> >good thing right now.
>>
>> >> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> >> Shrug...all the Leftwingers will be dead, or gone by that time. So its
>> >> really a moot point, isnt it?
>>
>> >Not if you git pushed too far.
>>
>> >Then they'll be taking your gun out of your warm hand.
>>
>> My gun? �Why would "they" be taking my gun? Its only for self defense
>> from crooks, thieves and perverts.
>
>It's too late for you to get off the short list. You've already been
>profiled and located.
Of course. Everyone knows where I live and who I am. Shrug.
>
>Everyone already knows that for hate filled bigot gun nutters "crooks
>and thieves" includes "them evil feds."
Really? Got cites?
>
>IRS agents will show up to attach your motor vehicle and they will
>bring a microwave beam vehicle that can take your gun out of your live
>warm hands.
Really? Wow..fascinating! Cool! Will they be watching their backs too?
Ive got lots of friends...<G> Might start the Great Cull in my front
yard! Wowsers!! I wonder if they will put up a Historic Marker?
>
>So you need to start practicing something different than that
>Alzheimic Hollywood actor's hiss in front of the bathroom mirror.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
Oh...which Democratic Hollywierd actor is that?
Harold Burton
<cbda3de8-7fa8-42a8...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
So it's true, lefturds are hypocrites, they didn't really object to the
Patriot act, only to the ones enforcing it.
snicker.
Harold Burton
<2dbf0922-09c1-4323...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
> >
> > > So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> > > the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
> >
> > � So in other words you want it so that your side can kill whoever
> > they
> > want on the basis of their beliefs not their acts. �
>
> Threats of violence are acts.
No, they're words.
Love how leftards try to claim words are acts (see above) and acts (like
nude dancing) are words.
Snicker.
Immortalist
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:44:43 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
> > Which is fascinating..because while the charge against McCarthy is often
> >> posted in derision by the Left...the results of countless investigations
> >> are NEVER posted by the Left.
>
> >Hey we could just claim everyone is guity till proven innocent, mabey
> >we could just use constitutions as toilet paper. Don't you see that
> >this is a similar argument to the one your presenting?
>
> Actually fucktard..I posted the cites to back up both My claim and
> McCarthy's
>
> Which part of that did you miss?
>
Your not very good at debating are you. There is hope though if you
would only be willing to get rid of all the noise that scares other
people, the other weaklings your used to intimidating I guess. Here we
use a little logic and each day if you come here you will will be put
in your place if you insist on all these side issues and comparisons
which really ad nothing to the arguments you attempt to submit.
A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is
to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's
actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to
the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's
position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical
technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it
carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's
actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat
training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the
enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is,
naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic
to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is
occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden
dummy argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting). ...The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Gunner Asch
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Or are you such a fuckin dweeb that you simply started spewing your
>> buffoonery despite it being counter to the fucking Facts?
>>
>> Yah..Ill vote for you being a buffoonery spewing dweeb.
>>
>> In fact..Im positive you are.
>>
And again..another fucking dweep proves that again..I was correct.
<VBG>
And thanks!
Gunner
Immortalist
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:01:08 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
>
> >> Or are you such a fuckin dweeb that you simply started spewing your
> >> buffoonery despite it being counter to the fucking Facts?
>
> >> Yah..Ill vote for you being a buffoonery spewing dweeb.
>
> >> In fact..Im positive you are.
>
> And again..another fucking dweep proves that again..I was correct.
>
All you did was show that even if you were right, you are disqualified
again because the logic behind you argument is generally not allowed.
Your arguments can be shown to be full of contradictions and
inconsistencies.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting). ...The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
> <VBG>
Immortalist
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:52 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>
>
>
> <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Harold Burton wrote:
>
> >> > >>> BTW, why hasn't the DemocRAT Congress repealed the Patriot act that
> >> > >>> leftards have been so worked up about?
>
> >So when a rightard gun nutter decides he's "gittin' pushed too far"
> >the Secret Service can deliver his Third Eye right to his door step.
>
>
> >Don't you think a nutter's sinuses -- nutters ain't got no brains --
> >exploding out of the back of his skull will make a great YouTube
> >video?
>
> >A few videos like that and NRA president Charlton Heston or whatever
> >Hollywood actor they got now would have to start hissing "out of my
> >live warm hands."
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> You know..thats a Great idea! Whenever the People kill a Leftwinger,
> they do a Youtube video and post it on the net.
>
> Why..Ill bet the 15million killers will go to any lenghts to out do the
> next guy. One group hangs a Leftist, the next group hangs a leftist with
> barbed wire, the following group hangs their leftist with 15lb fly line
> and times it to see how long it is before the head pops off....
>
> This is going to be fucking Marvelous! Gory as hell but absolutely
> entertaining!
>
> Ill bet folks are already digging around on the net for old books
> describing how the Romans and Ferro-Urics and proto-vandals executed
> their enemies.
>
> Glorious! Absofuckinlutely GLORIOUS!
>
> Anyone want to set up a pool on how Bret is executed?
>
So you like the idea of establishing a society where anyone or group
can kill other individuals or groups that they don't like? So by your
twisted rule of law, if someone pops a slug between your eyes, your
last words would be, now we live in a fair society becuse anyone can
kill anyone!
Imagine representatives negotiating a social contract, with the
requirement that they do not know how well they will be endowed in
that contract - including such attributes as intelligence, beauty and
energy. It is a philosophical idea related of method of two people
dividing a cake: one cuts, the other chooses first.
In the veil of ignorance, a person does not know who they are in the
real world! That is, a person does not know; their class position or
social status, their natural talents, abilities, intelligence or
strength, and what their plan for a good life is.
A veil of ignorance role (more briefly a "veil role") is a role that
suppresses self-interested behavior on the part of decisionmakers; it
does so by subjecting the decisionmakers to uncertainty about the
distribution of benefits and burdens that will result from a
decision.
A practice is just if it is in accordance with the principles all who
participate in it might reasonably be expected to propose or to
acknowledge before one another when they are similarly circumstanced
and required to make a firm commitment in advance.
-----------------------------
The veil of ignorance is a concept introduced by John Rawls in A
Theory of Justice. It is a method of determining the morality of a
certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle:
imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and
redistributed, and that from behind your veil of ignorance you do not
know what role you will be reassigned. Only then can you truly
consider the morality of an issue. For example, whites in the pre-
Civil War south did indeed condone slavery, but they most likely would
not have done so had there been a re-fashioning of society because of
which they would not know if they would be the ones enslaved. It is a
philosophical idea related of method of two people dividing a cake:
one cuts, the other chooses first (see pie method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
---------------------------
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a
totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so
fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your
personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least
to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an
original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you
know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position
in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or
individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are
simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do
know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety
in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that
there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will
distinguish groups of people from each other.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/stories/2002/07/18/theVeilOfIgnorance.html
------------------------------
It's something that, to some extent, we do routinely and intuitively.
"Put yourself in my shoes", "I wouldn't do that if I were you", "I'd
do the same in your situation". When considering a play in a game,
it's a common tactic to ask oneself "if I were the opponent, where
wouldn't I want me to play?" It has even been suggested that there is
an evolved, biological basis for the brain's ability to process such
questions (and arrive at correct answers)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22veil+of+ignorance%22
----------------------------
By what procedure can self-interested persons with legitimate
competing claims adopt principles for just institutions and practices?
Rawls's answer is to appeal to a contract process constrained by
certain assumptions. Several of the more important assumptions include
the following: (1) that human cooperation is both possible and
necessary; (2) that the contractees adhere to the principles of
rational choice; (3) that all contractees desire certain primary goods
that can be broadly characterized as rights and liberties,
opportunities and powers, income and wealth-in other words, general
goods that are necessary to the attainment of any other individual
goods persons may desire; (4) that the contract process be constrained
by a minimal morality which stipulates that principles adopted by the
contractees be general, universal in application, public, and the
final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral
persons; (5) that the parties to the contract are capable of a sense
of justice and will adhere to the principles adopted.
The force of these five conditions is to put moral limits on the kind
of contract that can be produced. With these five conditions acting as
constraints, Rawls's strategy is to ask us to conduct a thought
experiment. What principles of justice would we come up with if we
were placed behind a veil of ignorance with all other rational agents
and instructed to devise a set of principles of organizing society so
that justice in the society would be achieved? The key to
understanding how the principles of justice are to be selected is the
veil of ignorance, or ignorance principle. The ignorance principle
states that the contract makers are to act as if they did not know
their place in society. Such ignorance guarantees impartiality and
prevents us from arguing on selfish rather than general grounds. This
veil of ignorance would exclude knowledge of one's class position or
social status, one's fortune in the distribution of natural assets and
abilities, one's intelligence, one's physical strength, the nature of
one's society, and one's individual conception of the good. Operating
in this way, none of the contract makers would have any special
interests to defend nor would they have any reasons to form alliances
to adopt principles that work to the disadvantage of a minority of
other contract makers. In effect, as Rawls applies it, the ignorance
principle tells us to act as if our enemy were to assign our place in
society. For example, suppose the issue were the distribution of
income. Since the veil of ignorance prevents you from knowing how
wealthy you are or will be and it prevents you from knowing your
occupation and talents, what strategy would it be rational to adopt?
Surely, Rawls argues, you would want to protect the position of the
least well-off. Similar thought experiments would assure that there
would be no racist principles for the organization of social
institutions. After all, you cannot be sure that you would not be a
member of the race that would be discriminated against. Since the
contract makers are like rational egoists operating from behind a veil
of ignorance, they would adopt the general principle of seeking to
minimize their losses. We can now see how unanimous agreement on the
principles of justice is possible. Since everyone agrees that it is
rational to reduce one's losses and since no one knows what position
they hold in society, the following two principles would be adopted
unanimously: (1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a
similar system of liberty for all: (2) Social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices
and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity. These principles which are the result of the contract are
just because the procedure which produced them is just. Rawls's
hypothetical contract is an example of pure procedural justice.
These are the principles that self-interested persons would choose
when constrained by the ignorance condition. Since they do not know
particular facts about themselves, they have no specific interests to
protect. Rather, the concern is with those goods Rawls calls primary
goods-general goods that are necessary to the attainment of any other
individual goods persons may desire.
One of the most important of these primary goods is liberty. Since no
one will know his or her place, it is in one's interest to adopt
principle one, which provides an equal system of liberty for all.
To the question "What are the constituent liberties that comprise the
system of liberty?", Rawls provides a list of basic liberties. This
list includes:
political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public
office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of
conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with
the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary
arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law.
The second principle is concerned with the primary goods of
opportunities and power, income and wealth. What Rawls does is to
consider his principle in contrast to several competing ones and then
ask which principles would be chosen by self-interested persons
constrained by the ignorance principle. Rawls first considers a system
of natural liberty. In such a system, positions are open to those able
and willing to strive for them. The principle governing the
distribution of wealth in such a system is called the principle of
efficiency. In terms of his theory Rawls defines the position as
follows:
Thus we can say that an arrangement of rights and duties in the basic
structure is efficient if and only if it is impossible to change the
rules, to redefine the scheme of rights and duties so as to raise the
expectations of any representative man (at least one) without at the
same time lowering the expectations of some (at least one) other
representative man.
Rawls argues that this principle of efficiency within a system of
natural liberty would be rejected, however. If, after the initial
distribution, someone has vastly more wealth than others, nothing
could be done to correct the situation that would not run afoul of the
efficiency principle. Moreover, the distribution of wealth at any
given time has been strongly influenced by the cumulative effect of
the natural and social contingencies of past distributions. Accident
and good fortune play an important role as to who is wealthy at any
given time. Since the veil of ignorance prevents us from knowing our
own fortune and since, according to Rawls, it is rational to seek to
minimize our losses, the principle of efficiency would not be accepted
in the contract. Rational contractors would seek to avoid the risk of
turning out to be on the bottom in the efficient society.
Rawls has more positive reactions to the principle of equal
opportunity. This principle asserts that people with the same ability,
talents, and expenditures of effort should have roughly the same
prospects of success in given fields of endeavor. One's family
background, race, religion, sex, or social background should not act
as impediments to success. To assure equality of opportunity, society
imposes heavy inheritance taxes, offers a broad public education, and
passes antidiscrimination legislation. To the extent that such
societal measures are successful, the distribution of goods and
services depends upon ability, talent, and effort.
In Rawls's view the principle of equal opportunity is still not
sufficient. Rawls argues that the distribution of talent, ability, and
capacity for effort is just as arbitrary from the moral point of view
as the distribution of sex, family wealth, and social class. Jones has
no more of a right to more money because he is smarter than Smith than
he has a right to more money because he is of a certain religion.
Distribution is only fair in Rawls's view if human assets are treated
as collective social goods. The distribution of goods and services is
a cooperative effort on the part of all. Given the cooperative effort,
the only fair principle is the one that accepts inequalities only if
the inequalities work to the advantage of the least well-off:
It seems to be one of the fixed points of our considered judgments
that no one deserves his place in the distribution of native
endowments, any more that one deserves one's initial starting place in
society. The assertion that a man deserves the superior character that
enables him to make the effort to cultivate his abilities is equally
problematic; for his character depends in large part upon fortunate
family and social circumstances for which he can claim no credit. The
notion of desert seems not to apply to these cases. Thus the more
advantaged representative man cannot say that he deserves and
therefore has a right to a scheme of cooperation in which he is
permitted to acquire benefits in ways that do not contribute to the
welfare of others. There is no basis for his making this claim. From
the standpoint of common sense, then, the difference principle appears
to be acceptable both to the more advantaged and to the less
advantaged individual.
Strictly speaking, such considerations do not influence Rawlsian
contractors deliberating behind the veil of ignorance. Vicious
circularity would be involved if, on one hand, justice was defined in
terms of the outcome of such deliberations and, on the other hand,
parties to the deliberations voted on the basis of their views on
justice. Rather, the people in the original position behind the veil
would reject liberal equality of opportunity in order to insure
themselves against the possibility of turning out to be a relatively
untalented person in a liberal society.
What the quoted passage does show, Rawls would maintain, is that his
principles of justice conform to our own considered judgments about
justice, those judgments in which we place the most confidence.
Perhaps what ultimately justifies the Rawlsian contract procedure is
its ability to explain, support, systematize, and provide grounds for
reconsideration of our intuitive sentiments about social justice.
When fully spelled out, then, the Rawlsian argument is that the two
principles of justice are justified because they and they alone would
emerge from a fair procedure of rational choice. The procedure itself
is warranted because of its coherence with our most firmly held
considered judgments about justice and fairness. Finally, Rawls would
maintain that were his principles actually applied, then, because of
their emphasis on wealth as a product of cooperation, a stable well-
ordered society would result.
For much of the remainder of his book, Rawls then applies his theory
to the task of creating social institutions in accordance with the two
principles of justice. The details of Rawls's analysis takes us beyond
the scope of this study, but we should point out that liberty is
secured in the writing of a constitution and the implementation of the
difference principle is accomplished through the legislature.
To get a better idea of how a pure procedural theory of justice works,
let us contrast a libertarian market analysis of economic justice with
a more egalitarian view like that of Rawls. We will then evaluate each
theory and provide the outline of a procedural theory of our own.
The Individual & the Poliical Order
An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
-Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
> Ill bet $5 that its done with a cordless drill and will take more than
> 100 holes drilled into him before he croaks.
>
> Anyone want in on this?
>
Gunner Asch
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 6:30�pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:01:08 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Or are you such a fuckin dweeb that you simply started spewing your
>> >> buffoonery despite it being counter to the fucking Facts?
>>
>> >> Yah..Ill vote for you being a buffoonery spewing dweeb.
>>
>> >> In fact..Im positive you are.
>>
>> And again..another fucking dweep proves that again..I was correct.
>>
>
>All you did was show that even if you were right, you are disqualified
>again because the logic behind you argument is generally not allowed.
>Your arguments can be shown to be full of contradictions and
>inconsistencies.
<snip defintion of adhom>
and Again you dweebs rack up more credit for me!
Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!
Id like to thank the folks on the wierd newsgroups for this award....
Gunner Asch
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Glorious! �Absofuckinlutely GLORIOUS!
>>
>> Anyone want to set up a pool on how Bret is executed?
>>
>
>So you like the idea of establishing a society where anyone or group
>can kill other individuals or groups that they don't like? So by your
>twisted rule of law, if someone pops a slug between your eyes, your
>last words would be, now we live in a fair society becuse anyone can
>kill anyone!
Fair? When did I ever use the term Fair? Or Just? Rightious? Holy?
Nope..sorry fuctard..but the coming Great Cull will really be an
unlawful bloodbath where the majority of Leftists are murdered
(see..unlawful homicde) by the very people they have been fucking over
since FDR was in charge.
It wont be pretty, it wont be nice, and it wont be legal.
But..it will be necessary.
Shrug..you gotta kill a Leftist to keep the Nation alive. In fact..many
many thousands of leftists have to die, so we can return to the
Constitutional Default settings and get this country back out of the
toilet bowl..where Leftists have placed it.
Shrug.. you sure as hell wont like it...for as long as you last..and I
wont like it...I do believe in murder being a crime.
Shrug..and you will be dead, Ill be playing riffs on the banjo and
chearing the upcoming body counts.
Was there any other stupid questions you wished to pose?