!Sorry Libs: Coulter book beats Hillary
molly
kurtn...@aport2000.ru says...
> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message news:<sll4fvc4hfhh7gu2l...@4ax.com>...
> > Oh, look. Five kopek hubby is back.
>
> And how are things in Mt. Shasta, Brian? Still providing a suitable
> place for you to hide from reality?
>
> <Snicker>
>
> > So do you think that Antrax will sell 600,000 copies in the first few
> > days, like Hillary's has?
>
> Hillary and her army of ghosters, you mean? In any case, we can keep
> track of the standings right here:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref%3Dpd%5Fts%5Fa%5Fhot/002-5301966-6700847
>
> > Don't forget, Newsmax says YOU can pray for WEALTH!
>
> It can't hurt, Brian. You might try it sometime.
>
> Kurt Nicklas
Well, my goodness. An unapologetic bible-belt boob, who thinks
that every checker-suit flim-flam artist coming through his town
selling bibles to homeys is a Reverand.
NewsMax gets money from you by telling you to pray for wealth.
You believe them.
NewsMax gets votes from you by telling you that George Bush is an
honest man.
You believe them.
I think we've reached the core of Conservatism, here:
Invincible stupidity caused by wanting something for nothing that
you didn't earn and don't deserve.
molly
Kurt Nicklas
Sad, Milt, sad. Has it really come to this? All the politics in the
world to talk about and you have to use it to work out your id-driven
regional prejudices, bigotry and ignorance.
Kinda sad, really. There's so much more to the world than you know,
Milton.
Really.
Paul Duca
Paul
molly
kurtn...@aport2000.ru says...
> Biff Alcatraz<mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.195e5fa8c...@altnews.sonic.net>...
> > In article <81676ec2.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> > kurtn...@aport2000.ru says...
> >
> > > "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message news:<sll4fvc4hfhh7gu2l...@4ax.com>...
> > > > Oh, look. Five kopek hubby is back.
> > >
[snip]
> > >
> > > > Don't forget, Newsmax says YOU can pray for WEALTH!
> > >
> > > It can't hurt, Brian. You might try it sometime.
> > >
> > > Kurt Nicklas
> >
> > Well, my goodness. An unapologetic bible-belt boob, who thinks
> > that every checker-suit flim-flam artist coming through his town
> > selling bibles to homeys is a Reverand.
> >
> > NewsMax gets money from you by telling you to pray for wealth.
> >
> > You believe them.
> >
> > NewsMax gets votes from you by telling you that George Bush is an
> > honest man.
> >
> > You believe them.
> >
> > I think we've reached the core of Conservatism, here:
> >
> > Invincible stupidity caused by wanting something for nothing that
> > you didn't earn and don't deserve.
> >
> >
> > molly
>
> Sad, Milt, sad. Has it really come to this? All the politics in the
> world to talk about and you have to use it to work out your id-driven
> regional prejudices, bigotry and ignorance.
>
> Kinda sad, really. There's so much more to the world than you know,
> Milton.
>
> Really.
You're partly right. I have very little use for anything from
the South. A little; but damned little.
I don't know which is worse -- Southerners going to war in order
to defend their "right" to actually OWN OTHER PEOPLE; their
subsequent seventy-five year history of repressing blacks and
actually passing SEPARATE LAWS FOR THEM in their States, and
then calling it "separate but equal" ...
.... or their towering, immense hypocracy concerning all this
shameful, disgusting rigidly enforced cultural cowardice,
involving even their Christian religious traditions.
Mint Juleps, Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote just don't
seem to balance the scales.
Nazi Germany lasted only twelve years. Germans have reformed,
matured, and feel real remorse for what Hitler did to German
minorities in the 30s and 40s. In contrast, this Southern Culture
has lasted 400 years. Southerners are as childish, violent and
hypocritical and beligerant toward blacks, jews, Catholics,
immigrants and "outsiders" as they ever were. You guys are
world-class crazies, as the current Administration (composed
mostly of Southern Republicans) shows.
"Dixie," indeed. You have a lot to live down.
molly
CB
"molly" <mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.195f91b3d...@altnews.sonic.net...
Because your stereotype has been shaped by Liberal propaganda
>
> I don't know which is worse -- Southerners going to war in order
> to defend their "right" to actually OWN OTHER PEOPLE; their
> subsequent seventy-five year history of repressing blacks and
> actually passing SEPARATE LAWS FOR THEM in their States, and
> then calling it "separate but equal" ...
Your speaking of Southern Dixiecrats when you refer to "going to war in
order to..." Racist Dixicrats were booted out of the party and created the
Democrat part you know and love today. The dixiecrat Party was shamed into
extinction but few know they're legacy resides in the DNC.
Those who fought against the Equal Rights Amendment in our time were
Democrats like Byrd, Gore Sr. and Alabama Governor George Wallace. Always
remember it was Lincoln who freed Blacks and Joseph Story, a Republican in
1845 who pioneered the movement to make all people equal. Finally it was
President Kennedy who signed Equal Rights into law. A man today is denied
his contribution to spurring economic growth with tax cut trickle down.
Al Gore senior voted against the civil rights bill as did the MAJORITY of
DemocRATs. It was only by Rebublicans and fair minded centrist Dems that
gave Blacks equal rights.
>
> .... or their towering, immense hypocracy concerning all this
> shameful, disgusting rigidly enforced cultural cowardice,
> involving even their Christian religious traditions.
God Himself segregated people in Genesis 10 when Nimrod and his world
theocracy was broken up. The people of the known world were scattered across
the world.
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every
one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
GENESIS CHAPTER 11
1 ś And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
...
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from
them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there
confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter
them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
> Mint Juleps, Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote just don't
> seem to balance the scales.
>
> Nazi Germany lasted only twelve years. Germans have reformed,
> matured, and feel real remorse for what Hitler did to German
> minorities in the 30s and 40s. In contrast, this Southern Culture
> has lasted 400 years. Southerners are as childish, violent and
> hypocritical and beligerant toward blacks, jews, Catholics,
> immigrants and "outsiders" as they ever were. You guys are
> world-class crazies, as the current Administration (composed
> mostly of Southern Republicans) shows.
German text books deny the Holocaust from what I've heard. Blacks are moving
back from the northern states and re-establishing their families in cities
like Atlanta.
Trying to stir up hatred is a loser attitude. When are you going do for your
self rather than look for scapegoats and phantom conspiracies? Listen to
Jesse Peterson, a uniter, not a divider like Jesse Jackson.
>
> "Dixie," indeed. You have a lot to live down.
Democrats indeed, left overs from racist Dixiecrats, still fighting Justice
for all.
______________________
Please read this part below:
Joseph Story expressed his strong antislavery sentiments in several
judgments that ordered the repatriation to Africa of blacks brought into
U.S. ports by slavers. In 1829, Story became the first Dane professor of law
at Harvard. For the remainder of his life he sat on the Supreme Court and
taught at Harvard.
In 1805 he was elected a representative of Salem in the legislature, where
he was a vigorous and accomplished debater, and became the acknowledged
leader of the Republican party.
http://www.famousamericans.net/josephstory/
Scott Erb
"Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
dust...
>
>
> Paul
I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
Coulter is a nobody, I don't know why she'd be in this comparison.
S. S.
Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
8. Treason by Ann Coulter
Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
internationally.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
surprised.
--
Google searching a few things brought up some more
Lochner gems...
"those losses when the current is travelling through
450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving
them around.."
-Kurt Lochner's theory on DC transmission line reactive
..losses being produced by wind blowing on the conductors..
"You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission
lines aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing
winds, Porker?"
-Kurt Lochner demonstrating his vast education in physics.
RCMan
> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> dust...
> >
> >
> > Paul
>
> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
> Coulter is a nobody, I don't know why she'd be in this comparison.
She's not. Rodham and Rowling both write FICTION.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
>"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
>> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
>> dust...
>> >
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
>> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
>
>At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
another paid GOP lie?
>
>> Coulter is a nobody, I don't know why she'd be in this comparison.
>
>She's not. Rodham and Rowling both write FICTION.
Ah. And you're a nut.
1. Do you believe it’s good for America that racists and neo-nazis overwhelmingly support George Bush and the GOP?
2. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that almost all Congressional draft dodgers are Republicans?
3. Do you think that Tom DeLay’s psychotic behavior is related to his previous occupation as an exterminator?
4. Do you believe that Tent Lott is capable of telling the truth?
5. If an elected leader said: "I can support the troops without supporting the President", do you believe he/she should be shot for treason?
6. If desecrating the flag should be a capital offense, she we be allowed to shoot on site anyone driving around with a tattered one?
7. In the Pledge of Allegiance are the lines: "one nation under God" and "with liberty and justice for all". Since these phrases are mutually exclusive, which one should we eliminate?
--Simple questions from the Notorious Doctor Groovy
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the best in liberal/leftist commentary, visit
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_...@yahoogroups.com/join
Scott Erb
"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpldfv879qp9o6udv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:38:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
> surprised.
The Laura Ingalls Wilder collection of children's books is the best,
however. I re-read them every few years. It's amazing as an adult to read
them and realize how poor and hard the life was that Laura describes, yet
how the love of family and the joy of living made it seem magical to read
them as a child. A lot of good values there. The Harry Potter books are
enjoyable reads as well, though I still put them behind Laura's collection.
In general, children's books and movies are fun, though my favorite remains
the adult cartoon, "The Simpsons."
RCMan
> On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
>
> >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> dust...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >>
> >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
> >
> >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
>
> Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
> another paid GOP lie?
Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
http://suntimes.com/output/books/cst-nws-clin09.html
http://www.lonsberry.com/writers/BPage/index.cfm?story=2824
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqltr163334346jun16,0,7933290.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive
> >
> >> Coulter is a nobody, I don't know why she'd be in this comparison.
> >
> >She's not. Rodham and Rowling both write FICTION.
>
> Ah. And you're a nut.
And I'll add you to the list of FICTION writers, Zappo.
You're just not as highly paid.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bpldfv879qp9o6udv...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:38:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>
>> Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
>> surprised.
>
>The Laura Ingalls Wilder collection of children's books is the best,
>however. I re-read them every few years.
ROTFLOL... Why am I not surprised....
> It's amazing as an adult to read
>them and realize how poor and hard the life was that Laura describes, yet
>how the love of family and the joy of living made it seem magical to read
>them as a child. A lot of good values there. The Harry Potter books are
>enjoyable reads as well, though I still put them behind Laura's collection.
>In general, children's books and movies are fun, though my favorite remains
>the adult cartoon, "The Simpsons."
>
That figures too....
molly
C...@prayforme.com says...
>
> "molly" <mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.195f91b3d...@altnews.sonic.net...
> > In article <81676ec2.03062...@posting.google.com>,
[snip]
> > .... or their towering, immense hypocracy concerning all this
> > shameful, disgusting rigidly enforced cultural cowardice,
> > involving even their Christian religious traditions.
numbuns defends Christian Slavery:
> God Himself segregated people in Genesis 10 when Nimrod and his world
> theocracy was broken up. The people of the known world were scattered across
> the world.
> 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every
> one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
>
> GENESIS CHAPTER 11
> 1 ś And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
> ...
> And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
> language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from
> them, which they have imagined to do.
> 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
> may not understand one another's speech.
> 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
> earth: and they left off to build the city.
> 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there
> confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter
> them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
My goodness.
Every time I think somebody in the South might have turned a
corner; a Southern Colonel like you shows up.
You are actually quoting a Bible passage that you say endorses
Slavery, and standing by it yourself, and it's 2003.
My God, My God.
Have you people no shame?
molly
klystron
> news:MPG.195f91b3d...@altnews.sonic.net...
> > In article <81676ec2.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> > kurtn...@aport2000.ru says...
[snip]
> >
> > Nazi Germany lasted only twelve years. Germans have reformed,
> > matured, and feel real remorse for what Hitler did to German
> > minorities in the 30s and 40s.
> > In contrast, [American] Southern Culture
> > has lasted 400 years. Southerners are as childish, violent and
> > hypocritical and beligerant toward blacks, jews, Catholics,
> > immigrants and "outsiders" as they ever were. You guys are
> > world-class crazies, as the current Administration (composed
> > mostly of Southern Republicans) shows.
>
> German text books deny the Holocaust from what I've heard.
Once again, more wisdom from a Southerner.
German "textbooks" do *not* deny the holocost.
Germans themselves do not deny the holocost.
Germans don't excuse themselves by saying that "they" didn't
personally kill any Jews. Germans have grown up. They shoulder
their responsibility by admitting it. ... and they have taken
their country back.
In contrast, most Southern whites are quick to claim that they
are utterly innocent of their racist krap because they didn't
personally keep any slaves. It is a childish, hypocritical
argument; and that's my point.
Most White Southerners (and all Southern Republicans) are
useless, childish, violent hypocrites when it comes to their
political, religious and economic beliefs.
> Trying to stir up hatred is a loser attitude. When are you going do for your
> self rather than look for scapegoats and phantom conspiracies?
You mean like Limbaugh, Hannity, North, Regan, Savage, Ashcroft,
Starr, Strom Thurmond, Richard Mellon Scaife, Jesse Helms, Dick
Nixon, Joe McCarthy, and hundreds of other National Republican
personalities and commentators?
All I've said is that Southerners are dangerously hypocritical
and culturally useless. I haven't called them traitors, godless
humanists or criminals, or lobbied to fire them from employment,
or to lock them up without due process.
... and you paranoid Dixiecrats are the guys who invented
conspiracy theories and see black heliocopters everywhere. Its a
Southern LoonBug thing. Too many snakebites in Church.
kly
Kurt Nicklas
Which god is that, Biff?
> Have you people no shame?
Nah. We're feeding the North Koreans GPS info to target Silicon Valley.
We'll make sure they get it right the FIRST time.
<snicker>
Kurt Nicklas
Rico
Hmmm stereo typing on the basis of a few people, say is't that like saying
'a black person robbed the bank, therefore all black people must be bank
robbers'?
molly
rcma...@excite.com says...
> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<l8defvsh0vmk8am8h...@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
> >
> > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> > dust...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul
> > >>
> > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
> > >
> > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
> >
> > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
> > another paid GOP lie?
>
> Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
You don't know much about how Publishers publish books.
All rough drafts are rewritten. All first drafts are edited and
verified, and often rewritten again. All authors have editors.
All editors have researchers. Many books also have illustrators,
photographers, reviewers, programmers and other specialists who
also contribute to your personal crayola-driven reading
experience.
Your Republican friends want to disingenuously claim that some
low-paid researcher working on ten books at once, actually had
the time to write Hilary's book from scratch.
Your Republican friends carefully ignore the modern book
production process in order to feed a little imaginary raw
rattlesnake meat to the gullible dittohead masses.
This is hooey.
You've been had, Ace.
Are you part of the gullible dittohead masses, Ace?
molly
kodiak
> > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
> >
> > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> > dust...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul
> > >>
> > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
> > >
> > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
> >
> > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
> > another paid GOP lie?
>
> Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
You want a 24-karat liar; look at Rush Limbaugh. He didn't write
a word of the book attributed to him, but claimed he did.
Fact is; Limbaugh can talk; but he can't write well at all.
That's why he failed on TV:
He couldn't script his show. It is laughable that he has claimed
authorship of anything.
kk
woof woof
> > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
> >
> > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> > dust...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul
> > >>
> > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
> > >
> > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
> >
> > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
> > another paid GOP lie?
>
> Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
There are books -- lots of 'em, especially authored by Hollywood
personalities and Conservative politicians, that add a new person
to the mix: The Ghost Writer. That person writes either the
rough draft or the first draft and makes more than a ten percent
change in the final draft, AFTER the "author" has finished
working on the project.
On some projects, the "author" even signs away rights to
determine the contents of the book that will carry his/her name.
This is what Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura did. This is NOT what
Brock, Moore, Blumenthal, Gore, or what Hilary Clinton did.
In contrast; what Hilary did was to write the rough draft -- then
the first draft -- then several subsequent drafts -- then
micromanage everything that her Publisher's editors and
researchers were doing; then redline the final galleys for the
printer. This is pretty much the opposite of what you're
claiming.
You *do* know what a 'galley' is, don't you, Ace?
kly
molly
steven...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:41:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:bpldfv879qp9o6udv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:38:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> >
> >> Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
> >> surprised.
> >
> >The Laura Ingalls Wilder collection of children's books is the best,
> >however. I re-read them every few years.
>
> ROTFLOL... Why am I not surprised....
... so you're not mature enough to re-read them?
molly
robx...@nowhere.com
>In article <3776526f.03062...@posting.google.com>,
>rcma...@excite.com says...
>> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<l8defvsh0vmk8am8h...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
>> >
>> > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
>> > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
>> > dust...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Paul
>> > >>
>> > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
>> > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
>> > >
>> > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
>> >
>> > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
>> > another paid GOP lie?
>>
>> Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
>
>
>You want a 24-karat liar; look at Rush Limbaugh. He didn't write
>a word of the book attributed to him, but claimed he did.
And your cite for proof is????
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
>In article <3776526f.03062...@posting.google.com>,
>rcma...@excite.com says...
>> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<l8defvsh0vmk8am8h...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
>> >
>> > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
>> > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
>> > dust...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Paul
>> > >>
>> > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
>> > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
>> > >
>> > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
>> >
>> > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
>> > another paid GOP lie?
>>
>> Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
Poor little chuckles doesn't understand that the burden's on him to
prove that Hilairy is falsely claiming authorship.
And if a shitball outfit like Newsmax is his only source, he would
lose everything in a suit;
>
>
>You want a 24-karat liar; look at Rush Limbaugh. He didn't write
>a word of the book attributed to him, but claimed he did.
>
>Fact is; Limbaugh can talk; but he can't write well at all.
>That's why he failed on TV:
>
>He couldn't script his show. It is laughable that he has claimed
>authorship of anything.
>
>
>kk
>
>
1. Do you believe it’s good for America that racists and neo-nazis overwhelmingly support George Bush and the GOP?
Ace (Steve Canyon)
I generally try to stay out of the children's section unless I'm
shopping for my grandchildren.
Dave Simpson
> > You're partly right. I have very little use for anything from
> > the South. A little; but damned little.
> Because your stereotype has been shaped by Liberal propaganda
The South as an entire region is politically incorrect and anyone in
the South who's to the right of Joe Stalin politically is the
objective of rabid hatred by the Left. Why are they so
discriminatory, hateful, and reactionary toward the South and
Southerners? (They're a bunch of hypocrites as well as losers.)
Meanwhile, the population, economic, and political shift southward
and westward continues, decade by decade.
What's interesting is that the Northeast, and especially New
England, at one time considered the core of US development, is now the
most liberal and anti-American in its politics, full of reactionary
left-wing brownshirts who are copied by losers elsewhere. "Let's bash
the South, let's bash Bush, let's bash the USA ... recently, "Let's
take back America!" (* scowl *)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Every time I think somebody in the South might have turned a
> corner; a Southern Colonel like you shows up.
You are too lazy or stupid to capitalize your own name, and you
engage in the most stupid stereotyping, exactly what CB is referring
to, and you dare waste other people's time wrongly critizing them?
Stick to comic books, Molly, if you can even read those. Or grow up
and learn something; it's up to you, and we're not holding our breath.
Dave Simpson
Puggie_the_Porkrind
<robx...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3ef8caca...@news.nj.comcast.giganews.com...
to get to the egg first.
>
>
>
>
>
righ...@nutty.com
>You've been had, Ace.
>
>Are you part of the gullible dittohead masses, Ace?
Ace has been had by everyone
Ace is also the product of Buttmaster Dana and Tazmanian Idiot.
---------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.
No, MORTONLOON
All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, ass-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.
>Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus.
Cotton Mather Strikes Again!
> Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
>
> 6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
>
> 8. Treason by Ann Coulter
>
> Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
> internationally.
At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected as every Dragon,
Wizard and Poobah throughout the land has ordered the faithful to buy,
buy, buy. The only people who will buy the book are 1) Nazis, 2)
Freepers 3) Media Whores jumping on the bandwagon. Hillary's book
will be cited for it's anecdotes long after Coulter's is forgotten.
And over the long run Hill's book will sell much better. So let the
Freezis have their fun, they KNOW it can't last.
Cotton Mather Strikes Again!
> You want a 24-karat liar; look at Rush Limbaugh. He didn't write
> a word of the book attributed to him, but claimed he did.
> Fact is; Limbaugh can talk; but he can't write well at all.
> That's why he failed on TV:
> He couldn't script his show. It is laughable that he has claimed
> authorship of anything.
Personally I think it would make a great celebrity deathmatch.
Hillary would win, she'd use Rush's own weight to smother him.
Eagle Eye
Ace (Steve Canyon) <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:41:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:bpldfv879qp9o6udv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:38:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>>> Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
>>> surprised.
>>The Laura Ingalls Wilder collection of children's books is the best,
>>however. I re-read them every few years.
>ROTFLOL... Why am I not surprised....
There's nothing wrong with an adult reading children's literature
now and then. I read one of Wilder's books about a year ago, for
the first time. It was a nice interlude.
What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
paying taxes.
He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
knows who inspired it.
=====
EE
Celebrate mentem sibi conscia rationis.
molly
rico...@hotmail.com says...
CB actually quotes the Bible to support Slavery.
I object to it.
You overlook CBs odious stand and his implication that the entire
South agrees with HIM; to object to ---- > ME? What a twerp.
... so tell me, twerp; where do YOU stand on Slavery? Where do
you stand on the "separate but equal," doctrine, which is nothing
but Slavery, Version Two? What would Jesus say? ... what WOULD
Jesus say?
***
... The South is an exercise in political pornography. Can you
list ANY predominantly Southern political view or cultural more
that is of redeming value?
molly
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <t90ffv8o3sbpt7ja2...@4ax.com>
>Ace (Steve Canyon) <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:41:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bpldfv879qp9o6udv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:38:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>>>> Erb is a fan of children's books like Harry Potter... Why am I not
>>>> surprised.
>>>The Laura Ingalls Wilder collection of children's books is the best,
>>>however. I re-read them every few years.
>>ROTFLOL... Why am I not surprised....
>
>There's nothing wrong with an adult reading children's literature
>now and then. I read one of Wilder's books about a year ago, for
>the first time. It was a nice interlude.
NOthing wrong with it, indeed, especially for someone whose job has to
do with dealing with children. I can see where it's important for Erb
to keep his mind from maturing to much so he would have trouble
relating to the people he has to deal with every day.
>What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
>reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
>paying taxes.
>
>He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
>songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
>knows who inspired it.
I can understand that to some extent. For instance I really do enjoy
some of the Beetles music towards the end of their career, including
Lenin's "imagine," although I abhor the message behind it. I think
the fact that Erb doesn't make that distinction is what is really
ironic.
> =====
> EE
>
> Celebrate mentem sibi conscia rationis.
--
Ace (Steve Canyon)
Mather Strikes Again!) wrote:
>"S. S." <bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FrzJa.66968$vq.14784@sccrnsc04>...
>> Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
>>
>> 6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
>>
>> 8. Treason by Ann Coulter
>>
>> Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
>> internationally.
>
>At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
>Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected as every Dragon,
>Wizard and Poobah throughout the land has ordered the faithful to buy,
>buy, buy.
Irony anyone? I heard that they made sure that all of HRC's fan
groups were buying her book in bulk made sure that they bought them
from one of the retailers instead of directly from the publisher so
the purchases would show up as "scanned" purchases...
>The only people who will buy the book are 1) Nazis, 2)
>Freepers 3) Media Whores jumping on the bandwagon. Hillary's book
>will be cited for it's anecdotes long after Coulter's is forgotten.
>And over the long run Hill's book will sell much better. So let the
>Freezis have their fun, they KNOW it can't last.
--
RCMan
> In article <3776526f.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> rcma...@excite.com says...
> > "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<l8defvsh0vmk8am8h...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 23 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0700, rcma...@excite.com (RCMan) wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zKtJa.17116$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > >> "Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3EF5EB70...@attbi.com...
> > > >> > In terms of units moved, Harry Potter has left both of them in the
> dust...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Paul
> > > >>
> > > >> I got Hillary's book. It's pretty good. But if I had to choose between
> > > >> Hillary and Harry Potter, I'm afraid I'd go with reading about the wizard.
> > > >
> > > >At least Rowling actually WROTE the book with her name on it.
> > >
> > > Can you prove Hillary did otherwise, or are you just engaging in
> > > another paid GOP lie?
> >
> > Will 4 cites be enough, Zeppaloony?
> > http://suntimes.com/output/books/cst-nws-clin09.html
> > http://www.lonsberry.com/writers/BPage/index.cfm?story=2824
> > http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqltr163334346jun16,0,7933290.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive
>
> You don't know much about how Publishers publish books.
And you, apparently, don't know much about the difference between an
editor, a researcher,an illustrator and a ghost writer.
Here are even MORE cites to buttress the ones above(you deleted them,
I restored them):
http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3064
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/new/042.html
http://www.anu.org/news_shorttermHillary.html
> All rough drafts are rewritten. All first drafts are edited and
> verified, and often rewritten again. All authors have editors.
> All editors have researchers. Many books also have illustrators,
> photographers, reviewers, programmers and other specialists who
> also contribute to your personal crayola-driven reading
> experience.
>
> Your Republican friends want to disingenuously claim that some
> low-paid researcher working on ten books at once, actually had
> the time to write Hilary's book from scratch.
>
> Your Republican friends carefully ignore the modern book
> production process in order to feed a little imaginary raw
> rattlesnake meat to the gullible dittohead masses.
>
> This is hooey.
>
> You've been had, Ace.
Not by YOU, Milt.
Get a life.
Get a JOB.
-----
RCMan -
An ACE of a different color
RCMan
Not only do I know what a GHOST writer is, Milt, I ALSO know that
'Hillary' is spelled like 'galley'...with 2 LLs...AND I know you
deleted my cites refering to Hillary's ghost writers. I'm hereby
restoring them for your further edification:
http://suntimes.com/output/books/cst-nws-clin09.html
http://www.lonsberry.com/writers/BPage/index.cfm?story=2824
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqltr163334346jun16,0,7933290.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive
--------
Your editing of the post you're responding to in order to delete facts
contrary to your position is noted. You have a LOT to answer for,
Milt.
Get a life.
---------------------
RCMan, an ACE with a life AND a JOB.
righ...@nutty.com
>molly<mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.196245bfb...@altnews.sonic.net>...
>> Your Republican friends want to disingenuously claim that some
>> low-paid researcher working on ten books at once, actually had
>> the time to write Hilary's book from scratch.
>>
>> Your Republican friends carefully ignore the modern book
>> production process in order to feed a little imaginary raw
>> rattlesnake meat to the gullible dittohead masses.
>>
>> This is hooey.
>>
>> You've been had, Ace.
>
>Not by YOU, Milt.
By everyone, RCLOON
>
>Get a life.
Like the miserable, pathetic, sleazy example of yours?
>Get a JOB.
Kicking your dumb ass seems to be going pretty good, LOONBOY
>-----
>RCMan -
> An ACE of a different color
Shit-brown?
=============================================================================
The Reagan Years:
How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,
Peacenik
Remember that there are right-wingers. As soon as the name "Clinton" is
attached to something, they suddenly raise their standards of what
classified as good or ethical to ridiculous levels, far above the
exceedingly low standards of expectation they reserve for their own people.
They would probably claim that if an editor changed some words and
correxcted some punctuation here and there, that it was not written by
Hillary. However, if one of their own people had something truly
ghostwritten, they would completely ignore it when that fact is pointed out,
and go right back to condemning something related to "Clinton".
--
Chris
Robin*
"Cotton Mather Strikes Again!" <screwt...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:3721ad2d.03062...@posting.google.com...
You're living in the 1980s dude. Hitlery is a fat pig, and Rush has slimmed
down. Wonder why ya never see the ice bitch in skirts or dresses? She has
legs like an elephant. You can hear her coming from a block away... her
pantsuit legs scraping together when she walks
Dave Simpson
> You're living in the 1980s dude. Hitlery is a fat pig, and Rush has slimmed
> down. Wonder why ya never see the ice bitch in skirts or dresses? She has
> legs like an elephant. You can hear her coming from a block away... her
> pantsuit legs scraping together when she walks
What if she were spray silicone or Teflon on her pantsuit legs?
Here she comes, "Stealth" Hillary.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> All I've said is that Southerners are dangerously hypocritical
> and culturally useless. I haven't called them traitors, godless
> humanists or criminals, or lobbied to fire them from employment,
> or to lock them up without due process.
You are still wrong.
And as someone, I believe Shelby Foote wrote, if you go to the South
and you don't want to stay, "Delta is ready when you are."
As a real American and a realist who enjoyed escape from the misfits
that crammed into that city, I enjoyed my long road trips OUT OF
Atlanta while I lived there. It is an excellent central location in
the South, but the city itself has been invaded and trashed by
Yankees, as any Southerner will softly admit if pressed on the issue.
It's not the South that formed the Rust Belt and is the locus of
most failed old cities full of Democrats and corruption. It's in the
North where these are largely found. And while the Northeast and
especially New England formed the core of U.S. development (at one
time, in the nineteenth century, the South and Midwest were viewed
with cynicism based on reality as colonies or extensions of New York),
the Northeast and particularly New England are now the most liberal
and most alien and even anti-American in their politics. Any
stereotypical liberal Massachusetts Democrat rightfully will be
rejected by real Americans, and won't get strong support except in the
most left-wing alien cancer pocket small places in the USA, where
"progressive" politics flourish.
On a more true as well as realistic note on this issue than your
statements:
The North and South always were different, and the Civil War did
resemble Roundheads vs. Cavaliers. The South had every right to
secede, but lost to Manifest Destiny. (It's ironic that the losers of
that war are now much more American than the winners often.) If you
don't like it, why don't liberals cluster even more densely in the
northernmost areas of the nation (especially in New England and the
Pacific Northwest littoral zone, i.e., west of the Cascades), then
secede and join Canada. Democrats or Greens-New Democrats would then
rule that nation for at least another generation unchallenged.
Be it the Hudson, or the Delaware, the Susquehanna, or the Potomac
(the James could work, too, but that's somewhat overreaching), the
Siskiyous, or the Golden Gate (or a canal south of San Francisco):
"Let's Ditch Dixie"
The Case for Northern Secession
http://slate.msn.com/id/102291/
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> > You're partly right. I have very little use for anything from
> > the South. A little; but damned little.
> Because your stereotype has been shaped by Liberal propaganda
The idiots probably say the only good thing the South is for is tax
revenue and perhaps laborers to become soldiers to restore Aristide to
power in Haiti, but who in the future would be converted to social
workers.
(* snicker *)
Meanwhile, real people, if they are curious, visit the South and
travel in it to see for themselves what the region is like. This
nation and this continent are NOT homogeneous; regionalism is alive
and thrives in this country, despite any vapid "we are one" bullshit
that would have us conceive ourselves as simply one ant hill or
beehive. (With "liberty" and "justice" from Queen Hillary)
Dave Simpson
chris_holt
> There's nothing wrong with an adult reading children's literature
> now and then. I read one of Wilder's books about a year ago, for
> the first time. It was a nice interlude.
You should read the others (if you haven't done so). It's an
interesting exercise in seeing how people grew up back then.
> What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
> reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
> paying taxes.
I think you've misread them if you think that was the reason
they kept moving.
> He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
> songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
> knows who inspired it.
The only Ayn Rand I've been able to finish is Fountainhead.
--
Scott Erb
> On 25 Jun 2003 04:35:53 -0000, Eagle Eye
> >What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
> >reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
> >paying taxes.
> >
> >He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
> >songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
> >knows who inspired it.
>
> I can understand that to some extent. For instance I really do enjoy
> some of the Beetles music towards the end of their career, including
> Lenin's "imagine," although I abhor the message behind it. I think
> the fact that Erb doesn't make that distinction is what is really
> ironic.
Actually, I agree with most of the Rush lyrics, and I find a lot in Ayn Rand
I agree with, even though I don't buy her objectivist philosophy because,
well, it's not logical or philosophically sound.
I also oppose big government and government control of individual choice.
Left libertarianism is something people who think in narrow two dimensional
terms can't comprehend. As long as they aren't doing something important
like teaching, they're harmless.
Scott Erb
<chris holt> wrote in message news:bdculf$2hn$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
> Eagle Eye wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with an adult reading children's literature
> > now and then. I read one of Wilder's books about a year ago, for
> > the first time. It was a nice interlude.
>
> You should read the others (if you haven't done so). It's an
> interesting exercise in seeing how people grew up back then.
>
> > What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
> > reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
> > paying taxes.
>
> I think you've misread them if you think that was the reason
> they kept moving.
Indeed! Sad to say the town that Pa help build, De Smet, South Dakota (from
near where I grew up and my family still lives) was hit hard by a tornado
last night. (The town's founding story is in "The Long Winter," "Little
Town on the Prairie" and "These Happy Golden Years")
> > He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
> > songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
> > knows who inspired it.
>
> The only Ayn Rand I've been able to finish is Fountainhead.
She has some inspirational stuff, and does understand the need for
individuals to take responsibility for their destiny and their choices. But
she tries to turn it into a moral and political philosophy, and in doing so
comes up with something really weak philosophically, and unworkable
practically. It's sort of like Lenin and Marx who had understanding of the
influence of social structure and class on the human condition, and then
tried to turn that into a moral and political philosophy. The two are more
alike than different, in that they go in opposite extremes, and end up with
something that cultists find appealling, but which doesn't work in the real
world colored by shades other than black and white.
Rico
You can object all you want, it is in the Bible. I'm guessing you never
took anything but 7th grade US history while in school. Surprise, there was
a lot of hostory before the New World was discovered by westerners.
Consider reading something about a fellow named Constantine and the Eastern
Roman Empire. Really interesting and a good starting point for
understanding the Christian Bible.
>
>You overlook CBs odious stand and his implication that the entire
>South agrees with HIM; to object to ---- > ME? What a twerp.
>
>.... so tell me, twerp; where do YOU stand on Slavery?
I'm inclined against it, but that is largely a function of my bias as
reflected by the times in which I live.
> Where do
>you stand on the "separate but equal,"
I have always felt Pleasey was wrong, not that I ma that old. And of course
Marshall was eventually able to get that decission reversed.
> doctrine, which is nothing
>but Slavery, Version Two? What would Jesus say? ... what WOULD
>Jesus say?
Probably very little given he said very little in his time. I am sure he
would have found the middle passage a horror and would have spoken out
against it. But that was not Southerners, the black birders were largely
New Englanders.
>
>***
>
>.... The South is an exercise in political pornography. Can you
>list ANY predominantly Southern political view or cultural more
>that is of redeming value?
Yes, plenty, the Declaration of Independance (Jefferson was a Southerner
and a slave holder), the Constitution, Arthur Middleton was also a
Southerner and slave holder. Rock'n'Roll music, Jazz, a huge contribution
to literature. But you please keep telling all your neighbors how terrible
the south is, truth is we are being overrun by Northerners who have about
had it with the north. Fastest growing areas are in the South, not in the
north.
>
>molly
>
>
vonroach
Again!) wrote:
>At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
>Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected
I agree who wants to read ghost written lies. Hilliary and company's `book' will
continue to slip. Coulter's will continue to rise.
Buy Hilliary & Co's `book' ? Why do you need to induce vomiting?
vonroach
<steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Irony anyone? I heard that they made sure that all of HRC's fan
>groups were buying her book in bulk made sure that they bought them
>from one of the retailers instead of directly from the publisher so
>the purchases would show up as "scanned" purchases...
Like all left wing politicians and their ghost-written epic, they will end up
giving them away. Or hiding bribes by some `volume sales' - remember Ft.
Worthless Jim Wright?
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1crifvomaguka812o...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Jun 2003 04:35:53 -0000, Eagle Eye
>
>> >What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
>> >reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
>> >paying taxes.
>> >
>> >He also likes the Canadian rock band Rush, though many of their
>> >songs are anti-socialism. I wonder if he likes "Anthem" or
>> >knows who inspired it.
>>
>> I can understand that to some extent. For instance I really do enjoy
>> some of the Beetles music towards the end of their career, including
>> Lenin's "imagine," although I abhor the message behind it. I think
>> the fact that Erb doesn't make that distinction is what is really
>> ironic.
>
>Actually, I agree with most of the Rush lyrics, and I find a lot in Ayn Rand
>I agree with, even though I don't buy her objectivist philosophy because,
>well, it's not logical or philosophically sound.
In your humble opinion......
>I also oppose big government and government control of individual choice.
>Left libertarianism is something people who think in narrow two dimensional
>terms can't comprehend. As long as they aren't doing something important
>like teaching, they're harmless.
>
<chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb, just like
there was no such thing as non-statist socialism. It's just another
attempt by the socialist morons who think they can mask their agenda
by calling it by some new name.
The left, by definition, demands a government controlled economy and
you can't do that with the minimal government that is defined by
libertarianism.
Dave Simpson
> And you, apparently, don't know much about the difference between an
> editor, a researcher,an illustrator and a ghost writer.
There is a lot Molly (or is it Milt?) does not know.
Leave it to the Democrats and the exploitation of their vast
"ignorance vote" bloc.
Dave Simpson
Scott Erb
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
You need to study some political theory, kid, you don't know what you're
talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
problems. The emerging modern left sees individual responsibility and
self-reliance as attributes to be revered and fostered in society, with
government involvement to counter structural inequities and abuses of power,
both public and private.
But stay in your simple world of two sides defined so basically -- perhaps
for you ignorance is bliss.
robx...@nowhere.com
Did a six year old write this "reasoned" response?
>
Martin McPhillips
It certainly appears to be in your case.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
>
>You need to study some political theory, kid,
I'm not a kid, Erb, That's part of your big problem on Usenet, isn't
it. People on Usenet don't have to nod "yes" to what you say in order
to maintain a grade....
>you don't know what you're
>talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
>should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
>that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
>problems. The emerging modern left sees individual responsibility and
>self-reliance as attributes to be revered and fostered in society, with
>government involvement to counter structural inequities and abuses of power,
>both public and private.
"left-libertarian" is just another attempt by the socialists to run
away from the socialist tag because they know it's the kiss of death.
They know that they can't quell individualism and self reliance
without a big powerful government, but they try to pretend they can..
Even in disagreement, Erb attests to how "government involvement
would be used to keep people in line with the stated goal, which is,
of course, equal outcome....
>But stay in your simple world of two sides defined so basically -- perhaps
>for you ignorance is bliss.
>
Irony anyone/
Scott Erb
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:35:33 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> >> <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
> >
> >You need to study some political theory, kid,
>
> I'm not a kid, Erb,
Sounds like Nixon, "I"m not a crook." But you can hold your silly
simplistic beliefs about political ideology if you want. You're not in a
position to do harm.
Isle Of The Dead
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EFA809C...@hotmail.com...
>
> As you might have already guessed, I left a lasting impression on him..
You bit Steve's penis?
I'm assuming that you had your false teeth in,
of course. Otherwise, it wouldn't have left
much of an impression.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fossil
1) A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age
3) Belonging to the past; antiquated.
You know, like Beck and Martin, I had alway
assumed that you're a bald-faced liar, but now
I'm wondering if you're just having memory
lapses.
milt brewster
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, scot...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> > <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
>
> You need to study some political theory, kid, you don't know what you're
> talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
> should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
> that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
> problems.
I don't agree with this summary of American Liberalism at all.
Modern American Liberalism grew from philosophical Pragmatism of
Charles Sanders Pierce, John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead and
others. As Philosophical Pragmatists, these philosophers argued
in general that for real-world purposes, a philosophical concept
can be defined by the effects of its actions upon its conceptual
environment.
For political purposes; that simply becomes the natural world we
live in. In this realm, a social policy is "good" if it achieves
the effect we intended it to achieve, with minimal blowback.
American Liberalism also borrowed from 19th century Science
(particularly emerging Medical Science, and particularly in
England) which showed that scientific analysis, experimental
verification, objectivity, measurement, emphasis on predictions,
and respect for aggregate individual interest were all important
factors to consider when developing a workable, practical,
efficient Social Policy dealing with a definable social issue.
In effect, American Liberals began to define a good social policy
alternative as one which produced results that were measurable
and repeatable. An appropriate policy was one which minimized
risk, respected individual rights, and worked in the most
effective way to resolve the issue it was designed to address.
American Liberals believe that Social Policies should not be
based on guesswork or preconceived moral positions; nor should
they be based on a coersive political decision divorced from
verifiable, repeatable data and logical analyses.
***
Here is where I especially disagree with you:
Even before WW1, American Liberals did NOT argue for "big"
government. Never. It did not happen.
Instead, Liberals argued for the best general solutions to the
social problems they could identify. They argued for Government
to simply be provided the authority to act where they could show
that they could provide the best resolution to a given social
problem. Liberals also argued for other social institutions to
be strengthened, modified or removed from the social policy
playing field on the same basis: Do they work? Can we
demonstrate that they work?
This "big government" argument against Liberalism is a canard and
you are perpetuating it.
****
To this day, American Liberals are political pragmatists. They
conduct studies to identify important social issues. They examine
a host of possible policy solutions before they decide upon the
policy that would most likely be successful. They are willing to
change their minds given changing conditions and new information.
They do NOT argue for "big government" at the drop of a hat.
They DO argue for effective social solutions to problems they
identify as being important, and for the most effective
government institutions to be involved in each social policy
initiative they can define.
woof woof
steven...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
> On 24 Jun 2003 20:46:06 -0700, screwt...@hushmail.com (Cotton
> Mather Strikes Again!) wrote:
>
> >"S. S." <bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FrzJa.66968$vq.14784@sccrnsc04>...
> >> Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
> >>
> >> 6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
> >>
> >> 8. Treason by Ann Coulter
> >>
> >> Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
> >> internationally.
> >
> >At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
> >Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected as every Dragon,
> >Wizard and Poobah throughout the land has ordered the faithful to buy,
> >buy, buy.
>
> Irony anyone? I heard that they made sure that all of HRC's fan
> groups were buying her book in bulk made sure that they bought them
> from one of the retailers instead of directly from the publisher so
> the purchases would show up as "scanned" purchases...
You "heard" that? Wow. That sure is proof.
Gee, I must be all wrong, then. After all; nobody would
misdirect the great John Parker, believer of all he "hears."
But the irony is all on you.
Fact is; it doesn't matter WHY those books were sold. If
individuals are buying them (and they are), then the book is
tallying righteous numbers -- and it is -- and if it is tallying
righteous numbers, it is proving Hilary to be a very, very strong
National figure that nobody in your party saw coming. NObody.
Sales are up around 700,000, showing no signs of slowing down.
Republican strategists are going nuts because it means she can
pull about 50 million votes minimum; up ten million votes from
last week.
How ya' doin, Ace? Mad at all your friends who lied to you yet?
Or are you still ego-bound and gullible?
I think I hear the soft hiss of IQ points leaking out of your
very soft head.
V.
S. S.
news:3776526f.0306...@posting.google.com...
>
>
http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/06/04/1054700276404.html =
says she was "aided" by, not that the named people wrote it instead of her.
Almost all non-professional writers get some help, so what's your point?
>
> http://suntimes.com/output/books/cst-nws-clin09.html = a book review that
mentions ghostwriters but gives no details so adds no further weight to your
argument.
>
> http://www.lonsberry.com/writers/BPage/index.cfm?story=2824 = some random
right-wing loon
>
>
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqltr163334346jun16,0,7933290.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive =
a letter to the editor
>
I guess you aren't well-educated enough to know that providing more than one
citation adds nothing to an argument when three out of four are worthless.
S. S.
"Robin*" <spri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:epiKa.64476$Io.60...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
she was always wearing a dress or a skirted suit. What big crybabies you
are.
S. S.
>
> And you, apparently, don't know much about the difference between an
> editor, a researcher,an illustrator and a ghost writer.
>
> I restored them):
>
> http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3064 = just
another Hillary hate site.
> http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/new/042.html = another
right-wing loonie site. The guy says he "gained new respect for Nixon." We
should trust his opinion or facts?
>
> http://www.anu.org/news_shorttermHillary.html = another Hillary hater
>
Okay, out of seven citations, only one could be consider unbiased, and that
one named people who "aided" her. So much for your loonie ideas.
>
> > All rough drafts are rewritten. All first drafts are edited and
> > verified, and often rewritten again. All authors have editors.
> > All editors have researchers. Many books also have illustrators,
> > photographers, reviewers, programmers and other specialists who
> > also contribute to your personal crayola-driven reading
> > experience.
S. S.
"vonroach" <vonr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vr3kfv46ih6oh001r...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Jun 2003 20:46:06 -0700, screwt...@hushmail.com (Cotton Mather
Strikes
> Again!) wrote:
>
> >At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
> >Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected
>
> I agree who wants to read ghost written lies. Hilliary and company's
`book' will
> continue to slip. Coulter's will continue to rise.
Sad commentary on our society that Coulter's hate screeds sell any copies at
all. Hillary Clinton has led a historical life. Ann Coulter is a jealous,
foaming bitch who would have no life if she didn't have Democrats to rant
about.
Eagle Eye
Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Sounds like Nixon, "I"m not a crook." But you can hold your silly
>simplistic beliefs about political ideology if you want. You're not in a
>position to do harm.
Maybe not, but you are.
=====
EE
Celebrate mentem sibi conscia rationis.
Eagle Eye
Canyon) <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:35:33 GMT, "Scott Erb"
><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>you don't know what you're talking about. Left libertarians
>>reject the idea that big government should control the economy or
>>engage in excessive regulations, and believes that the old left
>>erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
>>problems. The emerging modern left sees individual
>>responsibility and self-reliance as attributes to be revered and
>>fostered in society, with government involvement to counter
>>structural inequities and abuses of power, both public and
>>private.
>"left-libertarian" is just another attempt by the socialists to
>run away from the socialist tag because they know it's the kiss of
>death. They know that they can't quell individualism and self
>reliance without a big powerful government, but they try to
>pretend they can..
Ask him how he can reconcile his claim to want smaller, decentralized
government with his advocacy of UNIVERSAL health care and mandates
for employers to give several weeks vacation time each year.
Exactly what about the government would he "decentrailze" and
"shrink"?
He has demonstrated, countless times, that he doesn't really want
what he claims to. It simply suits his purposes to pretend that
he does.
>Even in disagreement, Erb attests to how "government involvement
>would be used to keep people in line with the stated goal, which
>is, of course, equal outcome....
It's the same recycled Marxist horseshit about government
eventually whithering away, dressed up in new terminology. Anyone
with a basic knowledge of history should know better than to take
what he's selling seriously. We've seen the end of that road
before.
Eagle Eye
<chris holt> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
[snip]
>> What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
>> reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
>> paying taxes.
>I think you've misread them if you think that was the reason
>they kept moving.
Dammit. I'm not sure where I got that notion. I probably
confused Charles Ingalls with someone else. Now that I think
about it, it doesn't make sense.
Mea culpa.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0odkfvsj9ea3ak1p3...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:35:33 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> >> <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
>> >
>> >You need to study some political theory, kid,
>>
>> I'm not a kid, Erb,
>
>Sounds like Nixon, "I"m not a crook." But you can hold your silly
>simplistic beliefs about political ideology if you want.
LOL... Says the guy that argued for "non-statist socialism."
>You're not in a
>position to do harm.
>
The irony drips off Erb's words.....
Here's a clue, Erb, all those students who take your course do so
because it's easy credits and a good share of them are probably
laughing behind your back at your ridiculous ideas.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
He already answered that. I think it involved using "government
involvement to counter structural inequities" IOW, he'll need a big
powerful government keeping the clones in line....
>He has demonstrated, countless times, that he doesn't really want
>what he claims to. It simply suits his purposes to pretend that
>he does.
>
>>Even in disagreement, Erb attests to how "government involvement
>>would be used to keep people in line with the stated goal, which
>>is, of course, equal outcome....
>
>It's the same recycled Marxist horseshit about government
>eventually whithering away, dressed up in new terminology.
Exactly... and the reason they come up with all these fancy new
names is because they know the word "socialist" is the kiss of death.
That Erb thinks he fools anyone with this horseshit shows what a
simpleton he is.
> Anyone
>with a basic knowledge of history should know better than to take
>what he's selling seriously. We've seen the end of that road
>before.
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Celebrate mentem sibi conscia rationis.
--
Ace (Steve Canyon)
wrote:
>In article <0usifv4i8j3rggcim...@4ax.com>,
>steven...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
>> On 24 Jun 2003 20:46:06 -0700, screwt...@hushmail.com (Cotton
>> Mather Strikes Again!) wrote:
>>
>> >"S. S." <bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FrzJa.66968$vq.14784@sccrnsc04>...
>> >> Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
>> >>
>> >> 6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
>> >>
>> >> 8. Treason by Ann Coulter
>> >>
>> >> Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
>> >> internationally.
>> >
>> >At this moment (11:30pm EST) Amazon shows Coulter's book in 4th and
>> >Hillary's in 9th. However this was to be expected as every Dragon,
>> >Wizard and Poobah throughout the land has ordered the faithful to buy,
>> >buy, buy.
>>
>> Irony anyone? I heard that they made sure that all of HRC's fan
>> groups were buying her book in bulk made sure that they bought them
>> from one of the retailers instead of directly from the publisher so
>> the purchases would show up as "scanned" purchases...
>
>You "heard" that? Wow. That sure is proof.
LOL... It's not proof, nor did I claim it was. What it is is a
demonstration of Hillary's people doing exactly was just attributed to
Coulter.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
wrote:
>
>Sad commentary on our society that Coulter's hate screeds sell any copies at
>all. Hillary Clinton has led a historical life. Ann Coulter is a jealous,
>foaming bitch who would have no life if she didn't have Democrats to rant
>about.
>
irony anyone?
RCMan
But with your own silly beliefs and your attitude that part of being a
teacher is to be an ADVOCATE of your own personal views you ARE in
position to do harm.
More's the pity for the good folks of Maine.
Tazmanian Weasel
wrote:
>
Robin's scared to death of women in pantsuits, and reasons that all
his fellow troglodytes will be, too.
>
"You can tune in for ten minutes and figure
out what [Rush Limbaugh] has been talking about
the past two months. Well, in this case, two years
... he's STILL talking about Clinton."
-- Gary DeWaay
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Tazmanian Weasel
wrote:
>
Well, most of them are bought up in bulk by various right-wing
"foundations" and distributed free to their nasty little
constitutency. Newsmax was giving thousands away. It creates the
impression that people actually want to pay for the book and put's it
in the top ten, usually briefly.
But you'll notice that the actual numbers sold is missing from the
propaganda. My guess is that Hillary sold 100,000 in the second week
(after 600,000 in the first week) and that Roger Ailes or someone like
him bought up 150,000 of the Anthrax screed to pass out to the
cultists.
Tazmanian Weasel
wrote:
>In article <VspKa.21445$3o3.1661073@bgtnsc05-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, scot...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>
>> "Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
>
>> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> > <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
>>
>> You need to study some political theory, kid, you don't know what you're
>> talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
>> should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
>> that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
>> problems.
"Left libertarianism" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but
in politics, that's not unusual -- i.e., "Christian Democrat")
believes the main role of government includes keeping big business and
the churches off the back of the people. Otherwise, it, like the
regular brand of libertarianism, declares that people should fight the
powers that be as individuals, rather than collectively, that being
"fairer"
"You can tune in for ten minutes and figure
Rico
Wasn't the shrubs auto biography written by a campaign staffer?
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:09:11 -0700, milt brewster <mi...@liberals.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <VspKa.21445$3o3.1661073@bgtnsc05-
>>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, scot...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>>
>>> "Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>>> > <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
>>>
>>> You need to study some political theory, kid, you don't know what you're
>>> talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
>>> should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
>>> that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
>>> problems.
>
>"Left libertarianism" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but
>in politics, that's not unusual -- i.e.,
Actually, it's called an oxymoron
"Christian Democrat")
>believes the main role of government includes keeping big business and
>the churches off the back of the people. Otherwise, it, like the
>regular brand of libertarianism, declares that people should fight the
>powers that be as individuals, rather than collectively, that being
>"fairer"
Liberals and socialists don't know even know what "individualism"
means. The key is in Erb's own words... That government, should be
used to "correct structural inequities." IOW, these people believe
that collective force in the form of the government should be applied
to keep individuals from becoming too individualistic.
The term "structural inequity" that Erb likes to toss out is simply
the idea that anybody who figures out how make the system work for him
needs to be controlled.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
But you have to remember that Zepp also guessed that Gore would win in
a landslide in 2000 and that the Democrats would make huge gains in
both houses in 2002. IOW, Zepp's guesses are nothing more than
wishfull thinking on his part. A liberal like Zepp has nothing these
days if they don't have their fantasy world to fall back on.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
She hasn't walked around with her calves in view for a long time...
I'd say that this development probably means that they've grown to
even more frightening proportions.
RCMan
> "S. S." <bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FrzJa.66968$vq.14784@sccrnsc04>...
> > Our Bestsellers, Updated Hourly June 23:
> >
> > 6. Living History by Hillary Clinton (Author)
> >
> > 8. Treason by Ann Coulter
> >
> > Coulter will drop off the charts soon and never be as popular
> > internationally.
>
> Wizard and Poobah throughout the land has ordered the faithful to buy,
> Freepers 3) Media Whores jumping on the bandwagon. Hillary's book
> will be cited for it's anecdotes long after Coulter's is forgotten.
> And over the long run Hill's book will sell much better. So let the
> Freezis have their fun, they KNOW it can't last.
10:30am EST on 6/26 and Coulter is #2 (right below Potter) and
Hillary's up a notch to 8th.
Milt Brewster must have gone out and bought another carton of Hillary.
Kurt Nicklas
> In article <vfgrpiq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rico...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > In article <MPG.1960f58d...@altnews.sonic.net>, molly<mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote:
> > >In article <bd5hc8$gtc$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
> > >C...@prayforme.com says...
> > >>
> > >> "molly" <mo...@fwtrib.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:MPG.195f91b3d...@altnews.sonic.net...
> > >> > In article <81676ec2.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> > >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >> > .... or their towering, immense hypocracy concerning all this
> > >> > shameful, disgusting rigidly enforced cultural cowardice,
> > >> > involving even their Christian religious traditions.
> > >
> > >
> > >numbuns defends Christian Slavery:
> > >
> > >> God Himself segregated people in Genesis 10 when Nimrod and his world
> > >> theocracy was broken up. The people of the known world were scattered across
> > >> the world.
> > >> 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every
> > >> one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
> > >>
> > >> GENESIS CHAPTER 11
> > >> 1 ś And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
> > >> ...
> > >> And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
> > >> language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from
> > >> them, which they have imagined to do.
> > >> 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
> > >> may not understand one another's speech.
> > >> 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
> > >> earth: and they left off to build the city.
> > >> 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there
> > >> confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter
> > >> them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
> > >
> > >
> > >My goodness.
> > >
> > >Every time I think somebody in the South might have turned a
> > >corner; a Southern Colonel like you shows up.
> > >
> > >You are actually quoting a Bible passage that you say endorses
> > >Slavery, and standing by it yourself, and it's 2003.
> > >
> > >My God, My God.
> > >
> > >Have you people no shame?
> > >
> > >
> > >molly
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm stereo typing on the basis of a few people, say is't that like saying
> > 'a black person robbed the bank, therefore all black people must be bank
> > robbers'?
>
> CB actually quotes the Bible to support Slavery.
>
> I object to it.
You object to what specifically? CB? The Bible? Slavery? The South?
Someone having an opinion contrary to yours?
What exactly do you object to?
> You overlook CBs odious stand and his implication that the entire
> South agrees with HIM; to object to ---- > ME? What a twerp.
I saw his opinion but not the 'implication', Milt. Your regional
hatreds are getting in the way of your reason again.
> ... so tell me, twerp; where do YOU stand on Slavery? Where do
> you stand on the "separate but equal," doctrine, which is nothing
> but Slavery, Version Two? What would Jesus say? ... what WOULD
> Jesus say?
'No man comes to the Father but by me.'? 'I come not to bring peace
but a sword.'? 'The poor you have with you always.'?
What would Jesus say, in your opinion, Milton?
Would he say that General Sherman didn't go far enough?
> ***
>
> ... The South is an exercise in political pornography. Can you
> list ANY predominantly Southern political view or cultural more
> that is of redeming value?
Thomas Jefferson was from Virginia, so maybe, since July 4 is coming
up, we could start with the Declaration of Independence.
What do you have against the concept of inalienable rights, Mr. B.?
> molly
RCMan
> "RCMan" <rcma...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:3776526f.0306...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> >
> http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/06/04/1054700276404.html =
> says she was "aided" by, not that the named people wrote it instead of her.
> Almost all non-professional writers get some help, so what's your point?
> >
> > http://suntimes.com/output/books/cst-nws-clin09.html = a book review that
> mentions ghostwriters but gives no details so adds no further weight to your
> argument.
Mentions multiple ghostwriters. Thanks for the confirmation.
> >
> > http://www.lonsberry.com/writers/BPage/index.cfm?story=2824 = some random
> right-wing loon
Once again, only your opinion.
> >
> >
> http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqltr163334346jun16,0,7933290.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive =
> a letter to the editor
Which again mentions ghostwriters. Thank you.
> >
>
> I guess you aren't well-educated enough to know that providing more than one
> citation adds nothing to an argument when three out of four are worthless.
For anyone who's interested: Simple go to google.com, type in 'hillary
ghostwriter' and have a look at all the hits.
Get on the job, bently, and don't give up till you've seen them all.
RCMan
So how much did she pay you to lick her feet, bently?
Scott Erb
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<7esKa.21375$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> teacher is to be an ADVOCATE of your own personal views you ARE in
> position to do harm.
Any teacher who acts in class to advocate their views, is not doing their
job, and is doing harm.
It is not a teacher's job to try to program students, or punish anyone on
the basis of the conclusion they reach on a contested political issue. Any
teacher who does so, should not teach.
Scott Erb
"Tazmanian Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:p9tlfv0log5lmh0fu...@4ax.com...
> "Left libertarianism" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but
> in politics, that's not unusual -- i.e., "Christian Democrat")
> believes the main role of government includes keeping big business and
> the churches off the back of the people. Otherwise, it, like the
> regular brand of libertarianism, declares that people should fight the
> powers that be as individuals, rather than collectively, that being
> "fairer"
Essentially left libertarians distrust big government because it easily can
abuse power and actually reinforce privilege, even while engaging in actions
claiming (sometimes well intentioned) to help the poor or unprivileged.
Unlike capitalist libertarians, they recognize that liberty is not best
served by the free market (quite the contrary), but unlike socialists, they
recognize that governments cannot be trusted to make the best decisions
either. This usually leads to political ideals of localism, cooperative
efforts, and acceptance of government projects but with accountability and
oversight increased, and local control maximized. As with anything, it's
hard to put it into practice in a way 'theoretically pure.'
I don't think this is contrary to American liberalism in any fundamental
sense, but does contradict leftist/socialist thought that more actively
embraced big government, especially in Europe. In Europe Green parties are
often referred to as 'left libertarian' by scholars making classifications.
Scott Erb
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200306260845...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <0odkfvsj9ea3ak1p3...@4ax.com> Ace (Steve
> Canyon) <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ask him how he can reconcile his claim to want smaller, decentralized
> government with his advocacy of UNIVERSAL health care and mandates
> for employers to give several weeks vacation time each year.
> Exactly what about the government would he "decentrailze" and
> "shrink"?
Increased vacation time and adequate health care enhance the liberty of
those with less power. It's all about liberty, and preventing those with
power from unduly denying liberty to those without.
A choice is not truly free if there is a significant power differential.
In any event, Bush the Younger is increasing the size, scope and power of
government unbelievably fast, and even capitalist libertarians I know are
appalled by the attack on freedom and the imperial pretensions our country
is engaged in. I find myself very often agreeing with capitalist
libertarians on a number of issues these days, even if my views on structure
and its influence on liberty is philosophically opposed to their emphasis on
agency. It's a mix of agent and structure, but how important each is in
making these decisions and determining the proper role of government is a
tough issue. Unfortunately, too many people don't recognize that people can
disagree on this and discuss disagreements. Too many prefer to just attack
those who think differently, and stifle real discussion.
chris_holt
> The left, by definition, demands a government controlled economy and
> you can't do that with the minimal government that is defined by
> libertarianism.
Showing that you don't understand the left at all. BTW, left
libertarianism preceded right libertarianism by quite a few
decades.
--
Eagle Eye
<DQFKa.22040$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Scott
Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:200306260845...@nym.alias.net...
>> In article <0odkfvsj9ea3ak1p3...@4ax.com> Ace
>> (Steve Canyon) <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote: Ask him
>> how he can reconcile his claim to want smaller, decentralized
>> government with his advocacy of UNIVERSAL health care and
>> mandates for employers to give several weeks vacation time each
>> year. Exactly what about the government would he "decentrailze"
>> and "shrink"?
>Increased vacation time and adequate health care enhance the
>liberty of those with less power. It's all about liberty, and
>preventing those with power from unduly denying liberty to those
>without.
With mandatory vacation time, I do not have the liberty to choose
to work for a company which offers less vacation time, but a higher
salary. When employers are forced to incur a greater cost with
mandatory vacation time, they will hire fewer employees and cut
salaries or other benefits. That gives me fewer options when
seeking a job and, of course, limits the options employers have.
So you have violated the rights of employees and employers, not
permitting them to make their own choices. Why on Earth do you
think you should have the authority to decide how much other people
should value vacation days?
Universal health care is simply redistribution. You're forcing
people who are happy with their health care to pay more with no
benefit to themselves. You take away choice.
In both cases, there is clearly a net loss of liberty.
NOTA BENE: I asked, "Exactly what about the goverment would [you]
'decentralize' and 'shrink'?" You didn't address that. What you
advocate would concentrate more power in the federal government and
increase its size, not to mention increasing the burden on
taxpayers as these "entitlements" inevitably mushroom in cost.
What federal programs would you eliminate? How would you
decentralize power?
>A choice is not truly free if there is a significant power
>differential.
A choice is not free when one party coerces the other. No
company has ever forced me to work for them, but the government
has always used coercion against me.
There is a significant power differential between citizens and the
government. You advocate reducing the choices available and
increasing this power differential.
Again, the net difference is exactly the opposite of what you
claim to want.
>In any event, Bush the Younger is increasing the size, scope and
>power of government unbelievably fast, and even capitalist
>libertarians I know are appalled by the attack on freedom and the
>imperial pretensions our country is engaged in.
That's right. Both Republicans and Democrats are centralizing
and expanding the federal government. Both parties are increasing
government power at the expense of our rights.
But, that's beside the point. How do you propose to change
the system to achieve your vision of smaller, more localized
government?
[snip]
Eagle Eye
<chris holt> wrote:
>Ace (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>> The left, by definition, demands a government controlled economy and
>> you can't do that with the minimal government that is defined by
>> libertarianism.
>Showing that you don't understand the left at all. BTW, left
>libertarianism preceded right libertarianism by quite a few
>decades.
Are you actually arguing that the doctrine of free will is
"left libertarianism"? It's nothing like what Erb describes.
Of course, what Erb describes is self-contradictory, but that's
another matter.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
That sounds closer to what -I- think of as "classic American
liberalism" -- Madison and Mason. (Garden variety libertarians
claimed the phrase back when their vernacular wasn't swiped to
advocate anti-democracy and anti-labor positions by the free market
types.
The standard liberal posiition is that an informed and engaged
electorate is the best impediment to government abuse of power. That
we don't have such is one main reason why things have gone so horribly
wrong for America.
Liberals, contrary to the propaganda, want to keep government on a
leash, too. But the accountability of government is more vital to the
democratic process than the size of the government.
>
1. Do you believe it’s good for America that racists and neo-nazis overwhelmingly support George Bush and the GOP?
2. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that almost all Congressional draft dodgers are Republicans?
3. Do you think that Tom DeLay’s psychotic behavior is related to his previous occupation as an exterminator?
4. Do you believe that Tent Lott is capable of telling the truth?
5. If an elected leader said: "I can support the troops without supporting the President", do you believe he/she should be shot for treason?
6. If desecrating the flag should be a capital offense, she we be allowed to shoot on site anyone driving around with a tattered one?
7. In the Pledge of Allegiance are the lines: "one nation under God" and "with liberty and justice for all". Since these phrases are mutually exclusive, which one should we eliminate?
--Simple questions from the Notorious Doctor Groovy
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the best in liberal/leftist commentary, visit
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_...@yahoogroups.com/join
Scott Erb
<ah...@no-spam-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodu1ac...@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> >>>>> chris writes:
>
> chris> Eagle Eye wrote:
> >> There's nothing wrong with an adult reading children's literature
> >> now and then. I read one of Wilder's books about a year ago, for
> >> the first time. It was a nice interlude.
>
> chris> You should read the others (if you haven't done so). It's an
> chris> interesting exercise in seeing how people grew up back then.
>
> I read them all to one of my daughters a number of years
> ago, great fun.
>
> >> What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
> >> reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
> >> paying taxes.
>
> chris> they kept moving.
>
> Yes, that does not ring a bell with me.
He liked wide open spaces, and always felt stifled by encroaching
civilization.
When they were in De Smet Ma put her foot down and said they would settle
there -- he was talking about heading on to Montana. He acquiesced, and
Carrie Ingalls was De Smet's newspaper editor in the 1930's, and I believe
they still have descendents in the area.
Scott Erb
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> In article
> With mandatory vacation time, I do not have the liberty to choose
> to work for a company which offers less vacation time, but a higher
> salary.
Sure you do. I have a friend in Germany who routinely gives up vacation
time for more money and work.
>When employers are forced to incur a greater cost with
> mandatory vacation time, they will hire fewer employees and cut
> salaries or other benefits. That gives me fewer options when
> seeking a job and, of course, limits the options employers have.
I am not convinced of that -- I believe it allows workers to have more
freedom to do things usually done by the wealthy.
> So you have violated the rights of employees and employers, not
> permitting them to make their own choices. Why on Earth do you
> think you should have the authority to decide how much other people
> should value vacation days?
Because if the people don't democratically force elites to do that, they
will have the wealth, benefits and free time, and exploit the poor. The
arguments you made are similar to ones made against a 40 hour week, worker
safety, even child labor laws. Unless you act to gain freedom for workers
and others who are not privileged or powerful, the powerful have the ability
to use their work and effort to enrich themselves.
But there has to be limits, both pragmatic (you can't try to equalize
outcomes, and certainly you have to take into account economic realities)
and moral (hard work and initiative must be rewarded).
> Universal health care is simply redistribution. You're forcing
> people who are happy with their health care to pay more with no
> benefit to themselves. You take away choice.
Odd to say that assuring all in society have health care is somehow taking
away choice. In Germany, for instance, there are a variety of plans, moving
from the basic coverage that you get from your tax money, to a number of
private plans that augment that.
> In both cases, there is clearly a net loss of liberty.
I disagree.
> NOTA BENE: I asked, "Exactly what about the goverment would [you]
> 'decentralize' and 'shrink'?" You didn't address that.
Exactly? I've gone through that in past posts, ideas and possibilities.
Obviously, it depends on the context, but in general off the top of my head
it would follow a lot of the ideas of Green parties in Europe and here for
more local control and less bureaucratization. I don't have time to go
through specific policy areas at this point.
> What you
> advocate would concentrate more power in the federal government and
> increase its size, not to mention increasing the burden on
> taxpayers as these "entitlements" inevitably mushroom in cost.
> What federal programs would you eliminate? How would you
> decentralize power?
Quite a bit, I think in general more power should go to the state (though I
agree that when individual liberties are at stake, such as in the Texas case
decided today, the court can intervene on state laws), and more authority to
implement programs should be at the state level. The worst thing is
unfunded directives to the state to do or provide things -- that forces
states to increase taxes to do what the feds tell them to do. I'd stop that
immediately, and start a long term shifting of authority and implementation
to the state level.
> >A choice is not truly free if there is a significant power
> >differential.
>
> A choice is not free when one party coerces the other.
Enforcement is more than government, it also reflects power and wealth.
Force can be subtle and involve the structuring of choices.
> No
> company has ever forced me to work for them, but the government
> has always used coercion against me.
I suggest you read up on social theory, it's a lot more complex than that --
structure is why a suburban kid can succeed with much less effort than a
ghetto kid. The wealthy and powerful are more free, even without direct
physical threat or coercion, because of how society is structured.
> There is a significant power differential between citizens and the
> government. You advocate reducing the choices available and
> increasing this power differential.
No, quite the opposite.
> Again, the net difference is exactly the opposite of what you
> claim to want.
No, you simply are rejecting by assertion. I don't think you understand the
structural issues involved, I don't think you've studied social theory and
politics, you seem to be reacting more with slogans and dichotomies. At the
very least, you don't support your assertions.
Scott Erb
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> In article <bdfcoh$3e3$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk>
> <chris holt> wrote:
> >Ace (Steve Canyon) wrote:
> >> The left, by definition, demands a government controlled economy and
> >> you can't do that with the minimal government that is defined by
> >> libertarianism.
> >Showing that you don't understand the left at all. BTW, left
> >libertarianism preceded right libertarianism by quite a few
> >decades.
>
> Are you actually arguing that the doctrine of free will is
> "left libertarianism"? It's nothing like what Erb describes.
Of course left libertarians believe in free will. One argument we make
against the traditional left is that it creates structures of dependence by
government programs that make it easier to choose not taking initiative and
succeeding. That has to be changed. But that doesn't mean simply giving in
to big money and big business.
Bob Lancaster
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:35:33 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:dl5kfvofii9qrrt16...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:41:24 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> >> <chuckle> there's no such thing as left-libertarian, Erb
> >
> >You need to study some political theory, kid,
>
> it. People on Usenet don't have to nod "yes" to what you say in order
> to maintain a grade....
>
> >you don't know what you're
> >talking about. Left libertarians reject the idea that big government
> >should control the economy or engage in excessive regulations, and believes
> >that the old left erred in seeing government as the main solution to social
> >self-reliance as attributes to be revered and fostered in society, with
> >government involvement to counter structural inequities and abuses of power,
> >both public and private.
>
> "left-libertarian" is just another attempt by the socialists to run
> away from the socialist tag because they know it's the kiss of death.
> They know that they can't quell individualism and self reliance
> without a big powerful government, but they try to pretend they can..
>
> would be used to keep people in line with the stated goal, which is,
> of course, equal outcome....
>
> >for you ignorance is bliss.
> >
>
> Irony anyone/
>
>
[snip]
I've had some friends over the years who have been VERY active in the
Libertarian Party. Very pro-capitalist, Ayn Rand lover types. If you
tried to tell them there was no such thing as 'left-libertarianism'
they would either laugh in your face or else patiently explain to you
the very long history of 'left-libertarianism', depending on their
mood. These guys were very familiar with the subject, from the
Anarchist movement in Spain to the ACLU, etc.
Strange as it may seem, folks on the 'left' and the 'right' often have
a great deal of common ground. Look at some of the friendships and
partnerships over the last few decades:
At the time of his death, Hubert Humphery's best friend in the Senate
was Barry Goldwater.
George McGovern and his old pal Bob Dole are co-chairs of a committee
to end world hunger.
Anybody remember John McCain and Russ Feingold?
I could give countless other examples. As for myself, I have often
had friends on the opposite end of the political spectrum from myself,
because we have very similar values.
-Bob Lancaster
Scott Erb
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:i7kmfvcfk007gj9hf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:14 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> That sounds closer to what -I- think of as "classic American
> liberalism" -- Madison and Mason. (Garden variety libertarians
> claimed the phrase back when their vernacular wasn't swiped to
> advocate anti-democracy and anti-labor positions by the free market
> types.
Yes -- liberals really hold the position closer to American values than the
current gang in the White House. But the demonization of "liberalism" by
certain voices obfuscates that and tries to paint liberalism as something
very different than it is. By appealling to emotion (typical fascist
tactics) the talk show types use the lies and demonization to create
ignorance.
> The standard liberal posiition is that an informed and engaged
> electorate is the best impediment to government abuse of power. That
> we don't have such is one main reason why things have gone so horribly
> wrong for America.
>
> Liberals, contrary to the propaganda, want to keep government on a
> leash, too. But the accountability of government is more vital to the
> democratic process than the size of the government.
Though I really think that 300 million is best governed in smaller
districts. Small is beautiful. :-)
Eagle Eye
> >> What I find amusing is that a socialist like Erb would enjoy
> >> reading about the Ingalls family, which kept moving to avoid
> >> paying taxes.
> chris> I think you've misread them if you think that was the reason
> chris> they kept moving.
>Yes, that does not ring a bell with me.
I screwed up on that. I'm either confusing Charles Ingalls with
someone else or, in my memory, I somehow shifted his various
conflicts with the government over land (squatting, minimum
residency requirements, etc.) to avoiding taxes.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
wrote:
I don't believe you know anybody in the libertarian party... LOL
Sorry, the left-libertarians are just ordinary old socialists trying
out a new name because the old one stinks so bad.
>Strange as it may seem, folks on the 'left' and the 'right' often have
>a great deal of common ground. Look at some of the friendships and
>partnerships over the last few decades:
>At the time of his death, Hubert Humphery's best friend in the Senate
>was Barry Goldwater.
>
>George McGovern and his old pal Bob Dole are co-chairs of a committee
>to end world hunger.
>
>Anybody remember John McCain and Russ Feingold?
>
>I could give countless other examples. As for myself, I have often
>had friends on the opposite end of the political spectrum from myself,
>because we have very similar values.
>
>-Bob Lancaster
--
Rico
Kurt expect no reply, she has been 'strangely' silent since a day or so ago
in this thread.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Tazmanian Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:p9tlfv0log5lmh0fu...@4ax.com...
>
>> "Left libertarianism" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but
>> in politics, that's not unusual -- i.e., "Christian Democrat")
>> believes the main role of government includes keeping big business and
>> the churches off the back of the people. Otherwise, it, like the
>> regular brand of libertarianism, declares that people should fight the
>> powers that be as individuals, rather than collectively, that being
>> "fairer"
>
>Essentially left libertarians distrust big government because it easily can
>abuse power and actually reinforce privilege, even while engaging in actions
>claiming (sometimes well intentioned) to help the poor or unprivileged.
>Unlike capitalist libertarians, they recognize that liberty is not best
>served by the free market (quite the contrary), but unlike socialists, they
>recognize that governments cannot be trusted to make the best decisions
>either. This usually leads to political ideals of localism, cooperative
>efforts, and acceptance of government projects but with accountability and
>oversight increased, and local control maximized. As with anything, it's
>hard to put it into practice in a way 'theoretically pure.'
LOL.... but they still need the government to control, rearrange and
distribute the wealth.....
>I don't think this is contrary to American liberalism in any fundamental
>sense, but does contradict leftist/socialist thought that more actively
>embraced big government, especially in Europe. In Europe Green parties are
>often referred to as 'left libertarian' by scholars making classifications.
>
--
Ace (Steve Canyon)
Total bullshit... The socialists (left-liberals) know that local
control will result in the most aggressive risk takers and
entrepreneurs setting up shop and becoming successful. They will need
a strong central government to prevent that. The socialists' big
problem and the one they can't get around, is that in a competitive
environment, the cream rises to the top and their dream of equal
outcome can never be reached....
Scott Erb
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
He was mad at the government for making them leave Kansas Territory (where
they had settled) due to negotiations with the Indians, I think. I doubt he
liked taxes very much, to be sure. But that was pre-income tax.
Ace (Steve Canyon)
>Ace (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>> The left, by definition, demands a government controlled economy and
>> you can't do that with the minimal government that is defined by
>> libertarianism.
>
>Showing that you don't understand the left at all.
I understand the left's agenda extremely well..... It's
collectivism, pure and simple.... You won't be happy until you've
massed everyone into your little "we're all in this together" circle
jerk>
>BTW, left
>libertarianism preceded right libertarianism by quite a few
>decades.
You mean socialism preceded libertarians.....