HBO to air "Waco: Rules of Engagement" on Apr 19!
inver...@my-dejanews.com
award-winning film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
murdered at Mt. Carmel, the media can demonize any of
of us. If the government can use helicopters and tanks
against what was in fact a religious commune, it can
use this sort of force against ANYBODY who, for whatever
reason, falls out of the government's favor. And if we,
the American people, can tolerate and ignore this deadly
military assault on innocent people, we have lost our own
moral and spiritual moorings. This film can help us to
recover our spiritual directions and our humanity. The
film inspires: it demonstrates that truth cannot remain
buried forever.
Charlie
To LOVE imagination, freedom and truth is to know boundless j-o-y!
Discover! ... http://www.freeamerican.com/
Critique! ... http://www.spotlight.org/
Innovate! ... http://www.jbs.org/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rich Travsky
= [...]
= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
and multinational.
= [...]
rockdog
It is an excellent film. It should be required viewing
in all the government indoctrination gulags.
See the real Chuckie Schumer. Puke.
See the real Socialist jack boot thugs in action.
See Barbecue Reno lie, lie, and lie...
See why the liberals are Fascists in Socialist clothing!!!
See a rare glimpse of TRUTH from the media.
Watch it!!!
inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> On April 19, 1999, HBO will broadcast the important
> award-winning film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
>
> This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
Rich Travsky
= Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
=
= >inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
= >= [...]
= >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
= >= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
= >= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
= >
= >Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
= >you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
= >and multinational.
=
= This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
= Buddhists might understand.
These weren't buddhists. They claimed to be kristians.
= It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
= both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they practice.
Taking care of one's kids does not include having sex with them.
= As far as I am aware similar attitudes are enshrined in the Bill of
= Rights.
Where in the BoR does it say anything about having sex with kids?
RT
Rich Travsky
= I don't believe its the governments job to monitor how they have sex
= or how they pray.
=
= Don't like their doings?
=
= Convert them to your religion.
Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
"doings".
RT
rockdog
Rich Travsky,being zapped by his brain implant wrote:
>
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> = [...]
> = This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> = about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> = intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>
> Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
> you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
> and multinational.
That is a bunch of lies.
Of course, you are used to believing all of the
bullshit the socialists in the government feed you.
If you ever had an original thought you would
probably go to your DR. and demand zoloft.
But I doubt there is any worry of that happening.
Keep getting your " news " from CNN and ...
Go fuck yourself, lying scum bag.
SuperVice
inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7cljhv$54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> On April 19, 1999, HBO will broadcast the important
>award-winning film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
I think you could post a note that just said "waco" and the libloons like
Kennemur and Travesty
would crawl out of the woodwork squealing.
Ted Holden
<rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>= [...]
>= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
>= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
>= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>
>Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
>you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
>and multinational.
You're missing the point; the real question is the basic logic of
protecting kids from abuse by firebombing them.
How's that supposed to work?
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
SuperVice
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36f1e6c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>
>Q. What are the main two types of Dividiots called?
>
>A. Regular and Krispy!
>
> Jim
And hilariously, they respond as predicted. Absolutely Pavlovian. Ha ha ha
ha!
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:34:41 -0600, rockdog <pc...@iname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I saw this documentary at the Hot Springs Documentary Fest.
>>>It is an excellent film. It should be required viewing
>>>in all the government indoctrination gulags.
>>>See the real Chuckie Schumer. Puke.
>>>See the real Socialist jack boot thugs in action.
>>>See Barbecue Reno lie, lie, and lie...
>>>See why the liberals are Fascists in Socialist clothing!!!
>>>See a rare glimpse of TRUTH from the media.
>>>Watch it!!!
>>
>>Then read the real truth:
>
>[URL pointer to lies snipped]
>
>Jimbo, you almost never tell the truth. You are surpassed in your
>tendency to lie by very few people...Slick Willie Clinton comes to mind...
Don't forget his IDEOLOGICAL SOURCE, the neo-Nazis of the National
Alliance.
M.Simon
<rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>= [...]
>= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
>= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
>= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>
>Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
>you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
>and multinational.
This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
Buddhists might understand.
It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they practice.
As far as I am aware similar attitudes are enshrined in the Bill of
Rights.
M.Simon
Run out of arguments?
>Gun Whore extremists love a nice mass suicide.
>
> Jim
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
>
>==========================================================================
>"I do not believe in a God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
>
> --Albert Einstein
>===========================================================================
M.Simon
I don't believe its the governments job to monitor how they have sex
Don't like their doings?
Convert them to your religion.
Simon
==================================================
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:10:09 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky
><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>= [...]
>>= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
>>= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
>>= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>>
>>Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
>>you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
>>and multinational.
>
>Not to mention offering 14 year old girls the Body of Vern!
iroqu...@my-dejanews.com
rockdog <pc...@iname.com> wrote:
thanks for the heads-up! you would have thought lessons
would have been learned from the 'limited rules of engagement'
that were initiated (thanks for the word Al) at ruby ridge.
as one might recall, the state of idaho was not happy with the
way the federal coverup went, so they indicted the crackshot
assassin lon horiuchi in state court. Janet and her DOJ
(should be DOW) intervened and had a federal judge installed
who presided over the proceedings like the lemming he is.
could anyone give a brief rundown of what schumer did
regarding waco? i have heard a lot of references to
his scummy behaviour in this case. imagine all these democrats
who are involved in something that they would decry - if they
were victims of it.
> I saw this documentary at the Hot Springs Documentary Fest.
> It is an excellent film. It should be required viewing
> in all the government indoctrination gulags.
> See the real Chuckie Schumer. Puke.
> See the real Socialist jack boot thugs in action.
> See Barbecue Reno lie, lie, and lie...
> See why the liberals are Fascists in Socialist clothing!!!
> See a rare glimpse of TRUTH from the media.
> Watch it!!!
>
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > On April 19, 1999, HBO will broadcast the important
> > award-winning film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
> >
> > This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> > about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> > intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
> > murdered at Mt. Carmel, the media can demonize any of
> > of us. If the government can use helicopters and tanks
> > against what was in fact a religious commune, it can
> > use this sort of force against ANYBODY who, for whatever
> > reason, falls out of the government's favor. And if we,
(some clipped in the interest of space)
henry jackson
inver...@my-dejanews.com
Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
> Where in the BoR does it say anything about having
> sex with kids?
Tenth Amendment. Moreover, Texas allows sex with
a girl as young as 14 when it's part of a common law
marriage and the parents approve, so Koresh was
technically within the law.
If you really cared about CHILDREN, you would
be outraged by the government's actions: using a
helicopter to fire down on women and children,
using tanks to knock down buildings and crush
them alive, using poison gas against them, gas
so poisonous and inflammable its use is banned
in wartime. You would also look at how the
children were being raised: were they happy?
were they well-behaved?
In reality, you DON'T give a DAMN about the
children. You just want to USE them to cover your
government's bloody behind. This is just what
Schumer did in the House "investigation" (i.e.,
whitewash). This is a cynical propaganda
technique, not an argument.
The Mt. Carmelites don't threaten me. Your
trigger-happy gangsters do. Christ said "What
you do to the least of these, you do also to
me." When your government gangsters trashed
the Mt. Carmelites and their rights, you also
trashed ME and MY rights. Fortunately, what
goes around comes around. Fascists like you
will end up devouring one another.
I'm sorry if I have judged you incorrectly.
To LOVE imagination, freedom and truth is to know boundless j-o-y!
Discover! ... http://www.freeamerican.com/
Critique! ... http://www.spotlight.org/
Innovate! ... http://www.jbs.org/
Navigate! ... http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Meditate! ... http://www.reason.com/
Dialogue! ... http://boards.lycos.com/
inver...@my-dejanews.com
msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
>
> I don't believe its the governments job to monitor how they have sex
> or how they pray.
>
> Don't like their doings?
>
> Convert them to your religion.
>
> Simon
Thanks for offering this intelligent comeback.
It points to the essence of the problem, which
is that the government no longer knows HOW to
"convert", or "dialogue" or "talk" to Americans.
It has adopted the methods of a totalitarian
police state: shoot first and ask questions later,
or, in practice, not at all. Well, in the
physical realm, these gangster methods may
prevail, but in the spiritual realm, the Mt.
Carmelites stand triumphant.
In the Middle Ages, we burnt heretics at the
stake. In the Reformation, we burnt witches.
In the Cold Holy War, we tried to burn the
godless Soviets (indeed the entire world) at
a nuclear stake. And now we burn American
citizens.
Seems like we have been hiding from a dark
side of ourselves for the last 500 years.
We really need to get to know ourselves better.
"Love others as you love yourself" said Christ.
Once we confront the devil within, we gain the
power to dialogue with a whole world of people
who were formerly seen as Enemies to be Killed.
Charlie
Art Vandelay
>>>Waco Crisps (tm) . . . a tempting taste-treat containing a healthy
>>>blend of gun nuts, battered and smoked kid, and chunks of genuine
>>>imitation Lamb of God.
>>
>>>Another quality snack the makers of Jonestown Jambalaya.
>>
>>It's one thing to recognize the idiocy of a religious loon. It's entirely
>>another to mock the death of innocent children. If you did it in the same room
>>as me, I'd beat the crap out of you.
>
>Doubtful, Rog.
>
>Got your gun whore dander up, Rog?
>
>Blame the man who refused to allow those children to leave as offered
>by the US government.
If true, that still makes the children victims and your joke of
"battered and smoked kid" is still sick.
Roger Shouse
>>>>>Waco Crisps (tm) . . . a tempting taste-treat containing a healthy
>>>>>blend of gun nuts, battered and smoked kid, and chunks of genuine
>>>>>imitation Lamb of God.
>>>>
>>>>>Another quality snack the makers of Jonestown Jambalaya.
To which I said:
>>>>It's one thing to recognize the idiocy of a religious loon. It's entirely
>>>>another to mock the death of innocent children. If you did it in the same room
>>>>as me, I'd beat the crap out of you.
To which he responds:
>>>Doubtful, Rog.
To which I say, yes, you're right. It is extremely doubtful that you'd dare
repeat your remark in a room with me unless you enjoyed eating apple sauce
through a straw for a few weeks.
In fact, it's doubtful that you'd repeat the remark anywhere in front of
decent people, or where you had to come out from behind your cowardly pen name.
Hate mongers like you need to be outed.
The coward went on to comment:
>>>Got your gun whore dander up, Rog?
As if anyone could understand what he was talking about. Then he added:
>>>Blame the man who refused to allow those children to leave as offered
>>>by the US government.
I do. But I don't celebrate the death of innocent children.
Roger Shouse
rose...@idt.net
>
>>>>Juan Liberale wrote advocating burning children in message
>>>><4B660F72B53BB812.582FF22F...@library-proxy.airnews.
>>ne
>>>>t>...
>>>>>
>>>>>I love the smell of burning Koresh in the morning!
You're right ! !
Never roast Koresh until after sunup.
Art Vandelay
>>>Blame the man who refused to allow those children to leave as offered
>>>by the US government.
>
>>"battered and smoked kid" is still sick.
>
>the walls of their compound.
And you still find it funny that those kids burned to death?
BOB
>
>Is its governments job to assist suicide?
Or kill people on death row?
HAHA gotcha didn't i!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Simon
>======================================
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:06:05 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:54:22 -0800, "octapi" <oct...@liberty.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Advocating murdering women and children again Juan? How liberal of you.
>>
>>No. We are laughing at you fools who make a hero out of a man who led
>>a mass suicide.
>>
>>Then there is your other hero, his disciple Timmy McVeigh.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>>Juan Liberale wrote in message
>>><4B660F72B53BB812.582FF22F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>>>t>...
>>>>
>>>>I love the smell of burning Koresh in the morning!
>>
>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/waco.html
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>Ecrasons l'infame
>>
>>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>
>>========================================================================
>>"America is not ready to ban abortions."
>>
>> -- George W. Bush, in a fit of honesty.
>>
>>========================================================================
>
>Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
------------------------------------
"I have sex with my mother often.." (EmptySoot)
Hay, if people can attribute quotes to clinton he never spoke, so can I !!
--------------------------------------
monogamy and the missionary position - 2 things that should be outlawed immediatley!
--------------------------------------------------------
Saint John
Saint John
"M.Simon" wrote:
> As far as I'm aware the gun charges were spurious as well.
>
> Simon
> ==============================================
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:52:35 GMT,
> dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust)
> wrote:
>
> >Volt...@geocities.com wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:21:24 GMT:
> >
> >>>You're missing the point; the real question is the basic logic of
> >>>protecting kids from abuse by firebombing them.
> >>
> >>The Dividiots spread fuel oil on the walls of their own compound.
> >>That is called mass suicide by religious fanatics.
> >>It happens from time to time.
> >
> >Here it could have been prevented. Koresh knew the local sheriff; if
> >the feds had worked with local law enforcement, the odds are strong
> >that the Koresh would've surrendered quietly.
> >
> >Furthermore, the "Apocalypse Now" approach taken throughout the siege
> >is hardly the way to encourage end-of-the-world types to come out
> >peaceably. Indeed, last semester I took a course from criminal
> >defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, the Branch Davidian's lawyer;
> >according to him, the helicopters, tanks, etc. only hardened their
> >resolve that the last days were upon them.
> >
> >This is NOT something that was unforeseeable. The ATF/FBI was just
> >dumb, dumb, dumb in the way it handled the whole situation. Plus, it
> >seems likely that the reason the ATF took the "gung-ho" route was in
> >part to justify their funding, which was up for review at the time
> >(they even named the operation "Showtime"). That's wrong, wrong,
> >wrong.
> >
> >None of this is a defense of David Koresh. While the much of the
> >allegations of child abuse and drug use seem to be demonstrably false,
> >they *did* violate federal gun laws. And yes, they deserved to be
> >prosecuted for that offense (and the child abuse/drug use if it could
> >be proven). After all, you needn't love the defendant in order to
> >care about government overreaching and abuse.
> >----------------------------------------
> >Damien Falgoust
> >University of Texas School of Law -- 3L
> >1998-99 Admin. Editor - The Review of Litigation
> >dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
> >http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
> >
> >**************************************
> >Visit my page for Law School Outlines &
> > Debunking Conspiracy Myths!
> >**************************************
>
> Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
Saint John
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:16:18 -0900, Saint John <ars...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >This is a great documentary, I would recommend anyone watching it.
> >Saint John
>
> Brought to you by religious fanatics, child molesters and gun whores
> everywhere.
>
> Q. Why did David Koresh think he was Moses?
>
> A. God spoke to him through a burning building.
>
> Jim
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
>
> ==========================================================================
> "I do not believe in a God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
>
> --Albert Einstein
> ===========================================================================
He he. What a stupid comment. Thanks for the laugh. he he he he he ha ha ha
Saint John
Lisa Rochwarg
site on the Internet since I don't get HBO.
There's the information on the 'Net, and the information in Jack
Anderson's book,
and they're not at all alike. There's no
mention of the hand grenades or semis
that were stored in the compound.
I also noticed that the Rules of Engagement site was linked to a Ruby
Ridge site, and someone named James
Bovard was highly critical of the way
the BATF and the federal marshals handled the Weaver family.
What he didn't mention however, was how
long the law had to wait for Randy to cooperate, and the incredible
amount of
firepower the Weavers had.
Now really...if the BATF comes knocking
at my door and they know I've got 10 Remington 700s and four grenade
launchers, are they obligated to coo nursery rhymes at me, or do they
just kick in the door and confiscate my illegal weapons?
Lisa
Rich Travsky
= Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
= >= >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
= >= >= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
= >= >= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
= >= >
= >= >Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
= >= >you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
= >= >and multinational.
= >=
= >= This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
= >= Buddhists might understand.
= >
= >These weren't buddhists. They claimed to be kristians.
=
= What difference would it make what they called themselves?
Then why did you bring up the comparision?
= >= It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
= >= both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they
practice.
= >
= >Taking care of one's kids does not include having sex with them.
=
= Is there proof or just allegations used to cover up the child
= barbeque?
Try the testimony of the survivors and former cult members.
= >= As far as I am aware similar attitudes are enshrined in the Bill of
= >= Rights.
= >
= >Where in the BoR does it say anything about having sex with kids?
= >
= You have proof? Or did the government burn the evidence?
Try the testimony of the survivors and former cult members.
RT
Rich Travsky
= >Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
= >underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
= >"doings".
=
= Unproven allegations as far as I am aware. Poffered to justify
= murdering children.
=
= Of course if you have proof I would be glad to revise my views
= accordingly.
octapi
So is it guilty until proven innocent in your world? How about the dead
children? What were they guilty of?
Christopher Morton
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:54:22 -0800, "octapi" <oct...@liberty.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Advocating murdering women and children again Juan? How liberal of you.
>
>No. We are laughing at you fools who make a hero out of a man who led
>a mass suicide.
Kennemur likes it when Black children burn to death.
M.Simon
Well no actually. I don't believe its governments job to execute
people except in case of war.
To many accidents possible.
Look at Illinois.
Simon
====================================================
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:19:16 GMT, diaper...@hotmail.com (BOB)
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 02:10:45 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
>
>>
>>Is its governments job to assist suicide?
>
>Or kill people on death row?
>
>HAHA gotcha didn't i!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>>
>>Simon
>>======================================
>>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:06:05 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:54:22 -0800, "octapi" <oct...@liberty.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Advocating murdering women and children again Juan? How liberal of you.
>>>
>>>No. We are laughing at you fools who make a hero out of a man who led
>>>a mass suicide.
>>>
>>>Then there is your other hero, his disciple Timmy McVeigh.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>>Juan Liberale wrote in message
>>>><4B660F72B53BB812.582FF22F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>>>>t>...
>>>>>
>>>>>I love the smell of burning Koresh in the morning!
>>>
>>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/waco.html
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>Ecrasons l'infame
>>>
>>>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>>
>>>========================================================================
>>>"America is not ready to ban abortions."
>>>
>>> -- George W. Bush, in a fit of honesty.
>>>
>>>========================================================================
>>
>>Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
>
>------------------------------------
>"I have sex with my mother often.." (EmptySoot)
>
>Hay, if people can attribute quotes to clinton he never spoke, so can I !!
>--------------------------------------
>monogamy and the missionary position - 2 things that should be outlawed immediatley!
>--------------------------------------------------------
M.Simon
And you complain of Right Wing Hate.
Shame on you.
Simon
===============================================
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:05:30 GMT, rose...@idt.net wrote:
>msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>Juan Liberale wrote advocating burning children in message
>>>>><4B660F72B53BB812.582FF22F...@library-proxy.airnews.
>>>ne
>>>>>t>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I love the smell of burning Koresh in the morning!
>
>You're right ! !
>
>Never roast Koresh until after sunup.
>
>
Damien Falgoust
GMT:
>>>How can we make public schools better?
>>
>>Actually, conservatives generally think that school choice and voucher
>>systems will greatly improve education. We also generally think that
>>local control is superior to "cookie cutter" solutions from D.C.
>
>School vouchers are a byproduct of school desegregation. The
>conservative democrats championed them in the 60's and now
>that those racists are republicans they still want the US
>to pay for their segregated christian schools.
The key question that you avoid, however, is this: would vouchers make
schools *better*? I don't particularly care about the history of the
idea, nor do I care about the motivations of its proponents. I want
to know what effect vouchers will *actually have.* If it ends up
benefitting all students, then it's good. If it hurts students --
including minority students -- then it's bad. Don't talk about
motivations; talk about *results.*
>>>What should we do about people who cannot afford health care?
>>
>>More to the point: what should we do, and *what are the costs of doing
>>it*? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Is it worth guaranteeing
>>every last man, woman, and child health care (which is probably
>>impossible anyway) if that means a geometrically expanding bureaucracy
>>and a general reduction in the quality of care?
>
>I guess your answer was, "It is too expensive, let them die"?
A callous way of putting it, but yes. If it cost the entire GNP of
the US to reach one additional person, would you say that is a cost
worth bearing? If the *quality* of health care declined rapidly as a
result, is socialized medicine a good idea? Liberals always want to
avoid dicussing the harsh trade-offs that life presents...
>>>We have to do something to reduce racism.
>>
>>Silly boy. Conservatives agree that racism is a problem; we just
>>don't think there's much beyond adopting a color-blind attitude and
>>antidiscrimination laws that government can do about it. And we
>>*definitely* think that quota systems only exacerbate an
>>already-serious problem.
>
>Eliminate conservatives and you will have, by default,
>eliminated racism. Republicans say they want a color blind
>society, what they mean is they don't wish to hire niggers.
Nice ad hominem, which really doesn't address the argument. Another
disturbing facet of liberalism: rather than intelligently discuss
solutions to racial problems, liberals would rather just call their
opponents "racists."
>>>Let's investigate republicans too.
>>
>>Indeed, lets. I want to know if my representatives are perjurers.
>>
>Oh yeah! Thes groups have been filled with repug calls for
>an investigation into DeLay.
Let 'em investigate, I say. (And I haven't seen anyone opposed to an
investigation, just people proclaiming his innocence).
>>>Personal rights are more important than corporate rights.
>>
>>Actually, this is a hallmark of conservatism -- that the individual's
>>ability to thrive is more important than collective "group" rights.
>
>Bull shit. The republican agenda has long been to get
>government off the backs of business and into the bedroom.
Hey, *your* side is the one that favors "group rights" based on skin
color, gender, etc. *Our* side is the one that favors opportunity for
*individuals* regardless of such externalities.
>>Oh, by "corporate" did you mean business? Well, conservatives don't
>>hold your visceral hatred of corporations because they recognize that
>>they provide jobs.
What, no answer here?
>>>Why did those millionaires pay no taxes?
>>
>>Actually, this kind of thing is the result of a complex,
>>loophole-ridden tax code. You know, the thing conservatives want to
>>simplify?
>
>Yes, they would like for even fewer millionaires to pay taxes.
Most millionaires pay an ample portion of their income in taxes. And
those who don't generally do so by exploiting loopholes in an
overly-complex tax regime. Simplification would go a long way to
eliminating such loopholes.
>>>There should never be a hungry child in America.
>>
>>Of course, no conservative actually believes there should be a hungry
>>child anywhere. The problem again comes down to costs: if it costs a
>>billion dollars to reduce hunger by some negligible amount, is that a
>>cost worth incurring? And, of course, there is the problem of poor
>>incentives: do we want to make it more attractive for poor women to
>>have more children? If not, how do we feed the child without paying
>>the mother?
>
>Too expensive. Let the little bastards starv.
Nice catchphrase, but it doesn't address the real problem of costs
versus benefits, and it *certainly* doesn't address the problem of
negative incentives.
>>>How can we keep guns out of the hands of children?
>>
>>Actually, my younger cousins are active hunters. I'd trust them with
>>a gun before I'd trust you with same. And the answer is the same:
>>parental responsibility.
>
>Repugs favor child gun deaths?
No, they favor responsibility. Conservatives don't favor
skiing-accident related deaths, either, but they don't want to outlaw
skiing because of them.
>>>Why do so many people feel they must hit their children?
>>
>>Oh please. Is this really a conservative/liberal issue?
>>Conservatives are every bit as horrified at child abuse as you are.
>
>Conservatives are the ones who stand on their bible and
>say, spare the rod, spoil the child.
Oh please. Corporal punishment is NOT tantamount to child abuse, and
you don't have to be particularly religious to recognize its value.
>>>Who is more insane, Dan Burton or Bob Barr?
>>
>>Neither is as insane as Maxine Waters.
Again, no response?
>>>Why are criminals like Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy so popular?
>>
>>Good question. Why not ask Bill Clinton the same question regarding
>>his own popularity?
>
>Ollie and G. are convicted criminals. Clinton is guilty
>only in the purile mind of the Scaife suckophants.
And in the minds of Democratic senators like Chuck Schumer (he
committed perjury, but it's not impeachable) and Robert Byrd (he did
it, it's impeachable, but the economy is too good to boot him.)
>>>You know, that gay employee is one of our best workers.
>>
>>Outside of the Christian Coalition (who, despite their visibility, are
>>not the end-all, be-all of conservatism) I don't think this is really
>>a problem (though special protection probably isn't warranted, most
>>conservatives would value an employee because he is a good worker
>>regardless of orientation).
>
>The christian reich controls the GOP. Religious bigots choose
>the platform and the candidates.
I prefaced my remarks with "outside of the CC," so you must admit my
statement is true. And there are ample genuine conservatives who feel
this way, like Mary Matalin and the late Barry Goldwater.
>>>Women should have equality in the workplace.
>>
>>Of course they should. And they do to a very large extent. For
>>example, the law firm at which I will begin my legal career hired more
>>females than males; we will all start at the same salary.
>>Conservatives just think that women can succeed in the workplace on
>>their own merits, without the need for special treatment.
>
>What a stupid statement. Women are still making 78 cents to
>a mans dollar. Your new law firm is throwing away their
>money on an idiot.
That 78 cents figure fails to take a lot of things into account, like
the fact that many women are more family-oriented than career-oriented
(many female associates at my firm aren't interested in making
partner; they just want to earn their salary and make it home in time
to see their kids) as well as differing levels of education,
experience and skill.
Lemme ask you this: can you name one major law firm (just to pick an
example that's close to home for me) that offers its starting
associates a different salary based on gender?
Juan Liberale
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER says...
>
>JLib...@hotmail.com (Juan Liberale) wrote on 17 Mar 1999 17:27:55
>GMT:
>
>>>>How can we make public schools better?
>>>
>>>Actually, conservatives generally think that school choice and voucher
>>>systems will greatly improve education. We also generally think that
>>>local control is superior to "cookie cutter" solutions from D.C.
>>
>>School vouchers are a byproduct of school desegregation. The
>>conservative democrats championed them in the 60's and now
>>that those racists are republicans they still want the US
>>to pay for their segregated christian schools.
>
>The key question that you avoid, however, is this: would vouchers make
>schools *better*? I don't particularly care about the history of the
>idea, nor do I care about the motivations of its proponents. I want
>to know what effect vouchers will *actually have.* If it ends up
>benefitting all students, then it's good. If it hurts students --
>including minority students -- then it's bad. Don't talk about
>motivations; talk about *results.*
There are a finite amount of dollars available for public
education. The GOP wants to take those dollars out of
public schools and give them to the likes of Jerry Falwell
and Jim Baker.
No one has said that a voucher could get you into a private
school, only that you couls apply the amount. Poor kids
(read minority) will not have access. They will be left in
the public schools while those same schools have their funding
drained. Sounds like even a conservative could understand
how this works. Buy Falwell another Rolls with your own
money.
>
>>>>What should we do about people who cannot afford health care?
>>>
>>>More to the point: what should we do, and *what are the costs of doing
>>>it*? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Is it worth guaranteeing
>>>every last man, woman, and child health care (which is probably
>>>impossible anyway) if that means a geometrically expanding bureaucracy
>>>and a general reduction in the quality of care?
>>
>>I guess your answer was, "It is too expensive, let them die"?
>
>A callous way of putting it, but yes. If it cost the entire GNP of
>the US to reach one additional person, would you say that is a cost
>worth bearing? If the *quality* of health care declined rapidly as a
>result, is socialized medicine a good idea? Liberals always want to
>avoid dicussing the harsh trade-offs that life presents...
I hope that some day you are in the process of changing jobs when
you discover your child has cancer. Your opinion of the role of
society may change as you watch her die.
>
>>>>We have to do something to reduce racism.
>>>
>>>Silly boy. Conservatives agree that racism is a problem; we just
>>>don't think there's much beyond adopting a color-blind attitude and
>>>antidiscrimination laws that government can do about it. And we
>>>*definitely* think that quota systems only exacerbate an
>>>already-serious problem.
>>
>>Eliminate conservatives and you will have, by default,
>>eliminated racism. Republicans say they want a color blind
>>society, what they mean is they don't wish to hire niggers.
>
>Nice ad hominem, which really doesn't address the argument. Another
>disturbing facet of liberalism: rather than intelligently discuss
>solutions to racial problems, liberals would rather just call their
>opponents "racists."
In the 60's democrats had a lock on racists. Now they have
fled to the open arms of the GOP. Don't try to be coy and
pretend the GOP is not the party of bigotry. The repug
buildup in the south was 90% about racism.
>>>>Personal rights are more important than corporate rights.
>>>
>>>Actually, this is a hallmark of conservatism -- that the individual's
>>>ability to thrive is more important than collective "group" rights.
>>
>>Bull shit. The republican agenda has long been to get
>>government off the backs of business and into the bedroom.
>
>Hey, *your* side is the one that favors "group rights" based on skin
>color, gender, etc. *Our* side is the one that favors opportunity for
>*individuals* regardless of such externalities.
Explain that stupid statement. Just what are group rights? Your
side wants an end to affirmative action so they practice their
racist ways unfettered.
>
>>>Oh, by "corporate" did you mean business? Well, conservatives don't
>>>hold your visceral hatred of corporations because they recognize that
>>>they provide jobs.
>
>What, no answer here?
Yeah, I just love the way the senile old fool, Ronnie Raygun,
got governemnt off the backs of the S&L business. It really
worked out nice. Neal Bush made millions. Clinton made
nothing. Guess which one the GOP has crawled up the ass of.
>
>>>>There should never be a hungry child in America.
>>>
>>>Of course, no conservative actually believes there should be a hungry
>>>child anywhere. The problem again comes down to costs: if it costs a
>>>billion dollars to reduce hunger by some negligible amount, is that a
>>>cost worth incurring? And, of course, there is the problem of poor
>>>incentives: do we want to make it more attractive for poor women to
>>>have more children? If not, how do we feed the child without paying
>>>the mother?
>>
>>Too expensive. Let the little bastards starv.
>
>Nice catchphrase, but it doesn't address the real problem of costs
>versus benefits, and it *certainly* doesn't address the problem of
>negative incentives.
Stupid greedy little assholes like you don't mind a bit when
even more of your taxes go to pay for McDonalds advertising
in other countries.
>
>>>>How can we keep guns out of the hands of children?
>>>
>>>Actually, my younger cousins are active hunters. I'd trust them with
>>>a gun before I'd trust you with same. And the answer is the same:
>>>parental responsibility.
>>
>>Repugs favor child gun deaths?
>
>No, they favor responsibility. Conservatives don't favor
>skiing-accident related deaths, either, but they don't want to outlaw
>skiing because of them.
>
>>>>Why do so many people feel they must hit their children?
>>>
>>>Oh please. Is this really a conservative/liberal issue?
>>>Conservatives are every bit as horrified at child abuse as you are.
>>
>>Conservatives are the ones who stand on their bible and
>>say, spare the rod, spoil the child.
>
>Oh please. Corporal punishment is NOT tantamount to child abuse, and
>you don't have to be particularly religious to recognize its value.
Hitting a child is abuse. Unless you think it Ok for your
wife's boss to spank her also.
>
>>>>Who is more insane, Dan Burton or Bob Barr?
>>>
>>>Neither is as insane as Maxine Waters.
>
>Again, no response?
I did notice that you pick a black to insult.
>
>>>>Why are criminals like Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy so popular?
>>>
>>>Good question. Why not ask Bill Clinton the same question regarding
>>>his own popularity?
>>
>>Ollie and G. are convicted criminals. Clinton is guilty
>>only in the purile mind of the Scaife suckophants.
>
>And in the minds of Democratic senators like Chuck Schumer (he
>committed perjury, but it's not impeachable) and Robert Byrd (he did
>it, it's impeachable, but the economy is too good to boot him.)
So I guess you are willing to accept EVERY statement Schumer
makes now?
>>>>Women should have equality in the workplace.
>>>
>>>Of course they should. And they do to a very large extent. For
>>>example, the law firm at which I will begin my legal career hired more
>>>females than males; we will all start at the same salary.
>>>Conservatives just think that women can succeed in the workplace on
>>>their own merits, without the need for special treatment.
>>
>>What a stupid statement. Women are still making 78 cents to
>>a mans dollar. Your new law firm is throwing away their
>>money on an idiot.
>
>That 78 cents figure fails to take a lot of things into account, like
>the fact that many women are more family-oriented than career-oriented
>(many female associates at my firm aren't interested in making
>partner; they just want to earn their salary and make it home in time
>to see their kids) as well as differing levels of education,
>experience and skill.
I just fucking dare you to show this to the female attys
in your office. You are just a stupid little asshole, bigot
right wing facist.
>
>Lemme ask you this: can you name one major law firm (just to pick an
>example that's close to home for me) that offers its starting
>associates a different salary based on gender?
Can you name one law firm where they have an equal number
of women as partners?
>----------------------------------------
>Damien Falgoust
>University of Texas School of Law -- 3L
>1998-99 Admin. Editor - The Review of Litigation
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
>http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
>
>**************************************
>Visit my page for Law School Outlines &
> Debunking Conspiracy Myths!
>**************************************
--
Top 10 problems facing a conservative today:
10. His stupid ass wife got herself pregnant again.
9. They said he needed a GED for the job but he knew it
was really an affirmative action thing.
8. High payroll taxes are killing his dream of some
day owning a double-wide.
7. His wife is going to find out he spent the rent
money on that new gun.
6. Those godless commies at the UN are tapping his phone.
5. His kids aren't too bright. He knows it's his wifes fault.
It makes him wish he'd married his other cousin.
4. Cockroach infestation of his home.
3. Clinton has a 70% approval rating.
2. Getting government off his back.
1. The FBI is showing his composite around Atlanta!
rose...@idt.net
>
>And you complain of Right Wing Hate.
>
>Shame on you.
No,no
I "complain" of right wing stupidity, ignorance, bigotry.
But not hatred.
M.Simon
Explain how this differs from Left Wing bigotry.
The class of people you want to toast?
Simon
====================================
M.Simon
Sure thing. You have a URL or a search phrase.
Still doesn't justify the barbque.
Or is this the American version of "we had to destroy the church to
save the children?"
Simon
==========================
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:07:51 -0700, Rich Travsky
<rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>M.Simon wrote:
>= >Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
>= >underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
>= >"doings".
>=
>= Unproven allegations as far as I am aware. Poffered to justify
>= murdering children.
>=
>= Of course if you have proof I would be glad to revise my views
>= accordingly.
>
>Try the testimony of the survivors and former cult members.
>
>RT
M.Simon
If this is the case did any one complain?
When did child abuse become a Federal matter?
Why didn't the local sheriff bring charges?
Simon
=============================================
Juan Liberale
>
>
>Sure thing. You have a URL or a search phrase.
>
>Still doesn't justify the barbque.
>
>Or is this the American version of "we had to destroy the church to
>save the children?"
>
>Simon
Your hero is the one destroyed the children. It is time
separate yourself from his charred dick.
>==========================
>
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:07:51 -0700, Rich Travsky
><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>M.Simon wrote:
>>= >Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
>>= >underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
>>= >"doings".
>>=
>>= Unproven allegations as far as I am aware. Poffered to justify
>>= murdering children.
>>=
>>= Of course if you have proof I would be glad to revise my views
>>= accordingly.
>>
>>Try the testimony of the survivors and former cult members.
>>
>>RT
>
>Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
--
slav...@hotmail.com
art@vandelay_industries.com (Art Vandelay) wrote:
> >
> >>>Waco Crisps (tm) . . . a tempting taste-treat containing a healthy
> >>>blend of gun nuts, battered and smoked kid, and chunks of genuine
> >>>imitation Lamb of God.
> >>
> >>>Another quality snack the makers of Jonestown Jambalaya.
> >>
> >>another to mock the death of innocent children. If you did it in the same
room
> >>as me, I'd beat the crap out of you.
> >
> >
> >Got your gun whore dander up, Rog?
> >
> >by the US government.
>
> If true, that still makes the children victims and your joke of
> "battered and smoked kid" is still sick.
No, it's funny. It is best that your enemies kids are killed before they grow
up to be monsters. The fucking kids in that compound were being trained to be
gunloving, hatemongers. Best that they were killed off before they were old
enough to vote. I piss on their graves.
slav...@hotmail.com
msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky
> <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>
> >inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >= [...]
> >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> >
>
> This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
>
> It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
>
I don't remember the Bill of Rights saying you can rape 5 year old children
and then train them to be gun toting, hate monger, killers.
slav...@hotmail.com
were a bunch of religious wackos who killed themselves. Who cares? I only
wish every religious nut would kill themself. We should celebrate whenever
there is a religious mass suicide and then make that day a national holiday
every year.
Art Vandelay
>
>
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:16:18 -0900, Saint John <ars...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This is a great documentary, I would recommend anyone watching it.
>> >Saint John
>>
>> Brought to you by religious fanatics, child molesters and gun whores
>> everywhere.
>>
>> Q. Why did David Koresh think he was Moses?
>>
>> A. God spoke to him through a burning building.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Ecrasons l'infame
>>
>> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>> "I do not believe in a God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
>>
>> --Albert Einstein
>> ===========================================================================
>
>He he. What a stupid comment. Thanks for the laugh. he he he he he ha ha ha
>Saint John
>
Jim ranks up their with Gary Lantz and Juan Liberale for trully stupid
yet hilarious comments.
Pete Goudreau
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:16:18 -0900, Saint John <ars...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >This is a great documentary, I would recommend anyone watching it.
> >Saint John
>
> Brought to you by religious fanatics, child molesters and gun whores
> everywhere.
I had no idea that you're a stockholder in Time-Warner, jimmy.
We're *so* proud of you...
Have an armed day,
Pete
--
"If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it
invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To
declare that in the administration of criminal law, the end justifies
the
means...would bring terrible retribution."
(Justice Brandeis, J., dissenting) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S.
438, 485 (1928)
Damien Falgoust
GMT:
>>The key question that you avoid, however, is this: would vouchers make
>>schools *better*? I don't particularly care about the history of the
>>idea, nor do I care about the motivations of its proponents. I want
>>to know what effect vouchers will *actually have.* If it ends up
>>benefitting all students, then it's good. If it hurts students --
>>including minority students -- then it's bad. Don't talk about
>>motivations; talk about *results.*
>
>There are a finite amount of dollars available for public
>education. The GOP wants to take those dollars out of
>public schools and give them to the likes of Jerry Falwell
>and Jim Baker.
No, we want to take those dollars and give them to parents to decide
where to send their kids. If some parents prefer parochial schools,
fine. Other parents won't, and their kids will go to nonsectarian
schools.
>No one has said that a voucher could get you into a private
>school, only that you couls apply the amount. Poor kids
>(read minority) will not have access. They will be left in
>the public schools while those same schools have their funding
>drained. Sounds like even a conservative could understand
>how this works. Buy Falwell another Rolls with your own
>money.
For starters, I think any voucher proponent would adamantly say that
the vouchers could only be used at schools that do not discriminate;
that certainly ought to go without saying. Furthermore, what makes
you think poor parents care so little about their children as to force
them to stay in a declining public school? And if the issue is
underperforming students -- certainly the market will account for
that; schools that deal with such students will arise where there is a
need.
At any rate, it's better than what we have now: choice for the rich,
and no choice for everyone else.
>>>I guess your answer was, "It is too expensive, let them die"?
>>
>>A callous way of putting it, but yes. If it cost the entire GNP of
>>the US to reach one additional person, would you say that is a cost
>>worth bearing? If the *quality* of health care declined rapidly as a
>>result, is socialized medicine a good idea? Liberals always want to
>>avoid dicussing the harsh trade-offs that life presents...
>
>I hope that some day you are in the process of changing jobs when
>you discover your child has cancer. Your opinion of the role of
>society may change as you watch her die.
Nice emotional response. That's a convenient way of avoiding the
harsh realities of life, kind of like opposing involvement in WWII by
saying "wait until your son comes home in a bag." It's true that both
a dying child and a deceased serviceman are tragic results, and
painful for the families that must deal with them. But that doesn't
change the fact that there are harsh tradeoffs that simply have to be
made. This is not a world of unlimited resources, and so decisions
must be made on allocating those resources. You simply have to pay
attention to the cost of things.
>>>Eliminate conservatives and you will have, by default,
>>>eliminated racism. Republicans say they want a color blind
>>>society, what they mean is they don't wish to hire niggers.
>>
>>Nice ad hominem, which really doesn't address the argument. Another
>>disturbing facet of liberalism: rather than intelligently discuss
>>solutions to racial problems, liberals would rather just call their
>>opponents "racists."
>
>In the 60's democrats had a lock on racists. Now they have
>fled to the open arms of the GOP. Don't try to be coy and
>pretend the GOP is not the party of bigotry. The repug
>buildup in the south was 90% about racism.
Again, rather than intelligently discuss racial problems, you'd rather
just cast them with the scarlet letter "R." The vast majority of
conservatives are *not* racists; they just see different solutions to
racial problems.
>>Hey, *your* side is the one that favors "group rights" based on skin
>>color, gender, etc. *Our* side is the one that favors opportunity for
>>*individuals* regardless of such externalities.
>
>Explain that stupid statement. Just what are group rights? Your
>side wants an end to affirmative action so they practice their
>racist ways unfettered.
"Group rights" refers to the typical liberal policy of looking at some
arbitrarily-defined group's performance rather than looking at
individuals. Ergo, rather than looking at an individual's
qualifications for, let's say, law school admissions, they'd rather
only look at those qualifications in relation to the relevant group.
It's called identity politics, and it's sickening.
An example: In Austin, there is a BBQ joint called Mr. Bones. It is
owned and run by a black man. He was denied renewal on a city
contract because he refused to check the "minority" box and the city
had to maintain a certain percentage of minority owned businessess.
When asked why, he replied he'd rather be judged on the quality of his
BBQ than on his skin color. And THAT, my friend, is the difference
between conservatives and liberals.
>>>>Oh, by "corporate" did you mean business? Well, conservatives don't
>>>>hold your visceral hatred of corporations because they recognize that
>>>>they provide jobs.
>>
>>What, no answer here?
>
>Yeah, I just love the way the senile old fool, Ronnie Raygun,
>got governemnt off the backs of the S&L business. It really
>worked out nice. Neal Bush made millions. Clinton made
>nothing. Guess which one the GOP has crawled up the ass of.
....Which doesn't explain your apparent visceral hatred of
corporations generally.
>>>Too expensive. Let the little bastards starv.
>>
>>Nice catchphrase, but it doesn't address the real problem of costs
>>versus benefits, and it *certainly* doesn't address the problem of
>>negative incentives.
>
>Stupid greedy little assholes like you don't mind a bit when
>even more of your taxes go to pay for McDonalds advertising
>in other countries.
Hey, I (and most other conservatives, and liberals too) are opposed to
government propping up business. This is a problem of politics, of
pleasing campaign contributors, and it pretty much runs across party
lines.
Furthermore, you neatly sidestep the issue on hunger: how do you
address the problems of costs versus benefits, and the problem of
negative incentives?
>>>>>How can we keep guns out of the hands of children?
>>>>
>>>>Actually, my younger cousins are active hunters. I'd trust them with
>>>>a gun before I'd trust you with same. And the answer is the same:
>>>>parental responsibility.
>>>
>>>Repugs favor child gun deaths?
>>
>>No, they favor responsibility. Conservatives don't favor
>>skiing-accident related deaths, either, but they don't want to outlaw
>>skiing because of them.
No answer here?
>>>Conservatives are the ones who stand on their bible and
>>>say, spare the rod, spoil the child.
>>
>>Oh please. Corporal punishment is NOT tantamount to child abuse, and
>>you don't have to be particularly religious to recognize its value.
>
>Hitting a child is abuse. Unless you think it Ok for your
>wife's boss to spank her also.
Depends on what you mean by "hit." If you mean giving a child a
couple of good open-handed smacks on his backside, then I think you've
got a difficult case to make that that's abuse. I think even most
liberals would disagree with you on that.
As for the "wife's boss" -- there is a difference between adults and
children; an act done to a child has different consequences for the
simple reason that they are a child. This works the other way as
well: killing a child usually carries a heightened penalty compared to
killing an adult.
>>>>>Who is more insane, Dan Burton or Bob Barr?
>>>>
>>>>Neither is as insane as Maxine Waters.
>>
>>Again, no response?
>
>I did notice that you pick a black to insult.
Just because she's black doesn't mean she's immune to criticism; she
earned her nickname 'Kerosene Maxine' after all.
>>>Ollie and G. are convicted criminals. Clinton is guilty
>>>only in the purile mind of the Scaife suckophants.
>>
>>And in the minds of Democratic senators like Chuck Schumer (he
>>committed perjury, but it's not impeachable) and Robert Byrd (he did
>>it, it's impeachable, but the economy is too good to boot him.)
>
>So I guess you are willing to accept EVERY statement Schumer
>makes now?
No, but it does disprove your statement that "Clinton is guilty only
in the puerile mind of the Scaife suckophants." Unless Schumer and
Byrd are included in the phrase " Scaife suckophants."
>>>What a stupid statement. Women are still making 78 cents to
>>>a mans dollar. Your new law firm is throwing away their
>>>money on an idiot.
>>
>>That 78 cents figure fails to take a lot of things into account, like
>>the fact that many women are more family-oriented than career-oriented
>>(many female associates at my firm aren't interested in making
>>partner; they just want to earn their salary and make it home in time
>>to see their kids) as well as differing levels of education,
>>experience and skill.
>
>I just fucking dare you to show this to the female attys
>in your office. You are just a stupid little asshole, bigot
>right wing facist.
1. Nice ad hominem. Are you totally incapable of discussing an issue
like a civilized person?
2. The comments regarding female associates at my firm are there
because, gee, actual female associates at my firm have told me as
much. Of course, not *all* female associates have such plans; many
seek to make partner. But a substantial number of them do. It'd be
silly to suggest otherwise.
>>Lemme ask you this: can you name one major law firm (just to pick an
>>example that's close to home for me) that offers its starting
>>associates a different salary based on gender?
>
>Can you name one law firm where they have an equal number
>of women as partners?
They exist. Pick up a copy of "The Insider's Guide to the Law Firms"
(favorite reading for 2Ls going through the interview process); it
contains such data.
But let's face it: making partner is a funny thing. You can be a
great lawyer and not make partner. Making partner is about one thing,
and that's bringing in money. If you can bring in big clients, you'll
make partner regardless of any externalities; if not, you probably
won't.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
slav...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I don't remember the Bill of Rights
> saying you can rape 5 year old children
> and then train them to be gun toting,
> hate monger, killers.
The Bill of Rights exists to limit government,
not to limit you. Read the Tenth Amendment.
By the way, where do you read that "5-year-old
children" were raped? Where do you read that
children were trained to be "gun-toting",
"hate-mongering", or "killers"? Do you just make
this stuff up? If so, why? Perhaps you are doing
a little "hate mongering" yourself. Not a pretty
sight.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> Now really...if the BATF comes knocking
> at my door and they know I've got 10
> Remington 700s and four grenade launchers,
> are they obligated to coo nursery rhymes
> at me, or do they just kick in the door
> and confiscate my illegal weapons?
>
> Lisa
Would you say the same thing if you lived
in Stalin's USSR and the NKVD came knocking at
your door in the middle of the night?
Would you say the same thing if you lived
in Pinochet's Chile? or Franco's Spain? or
Hitler's Germany?
The reason we have a Fourth Amendment, Lisa,
is that people are judged innocent until
proven guilty. Before we let government storm
troopers trash you and your home, we have to
determine whether you are really GUILTY of the
crime you are accused of.
Be careful what you wish for. Totalitarian
governments have a way of turning on their friends.
Charlie
Michael Ejercito
<7AE9F1CE48015DDA.BFFB9E1D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <36ef4dc1....@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>,
> dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER says...
> >
> >JLib...@hotmail.com (Juan Liberale) wrote on 17 Mar 1999 06:20:28
> >GMT:
> >
> >'Scuze me, Juan, but I take issue with your .sig:
> >
> >>Things you won't EVER hear a conservative say:
> >>==============================================
> >>How can we make public schools better?
> >
> >Actually, conservatives generally think that school choice and voucher
> >systems will greatly improve education. We also generally think that
> >local control is superior to "cookie cutter" solutions from D.C.
>
> School vouchers are a byproduct of school desegregation. The
> conservative democrats championed them in the 60's and now
> that those racists are republicans they still want the US
> to pay for their segregated christian schools.
Do you have any proof,Shawnie?
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
Red) wrote:
> In article <36eee6be....@news1.deniz.com>,
> Ted Holden <med...@ix.deniz.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky
> ><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>
> >>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>= [...]
> >>= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> >>= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> >>= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>
> >>Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
> >>you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
> >>and multinational.
>
>
> >You're missing the point; the real question is the basic logic of
> >protecting kids from abuse by firebombing them.
> >
> >How's that supposed to work?
>
>
> I dunno.
>
> You'll have to ask the Branch Davidians who set fire to the compound
> and shot some of the kids in the head insteading of releasing them.
Do you have any proof this is what exactly happened?
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:33:57 GMT, art@vandelay_industries.com (Art
> Vandelay) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>>>Waco Crisps (tm) . . . a tempting taste-treat containing a healthy
> >>>>blend of gun nuts, battered and smoked kid, and chunks of genuine
> >>>>imitation Lamb of God.
> >>>
> >>>>Another quality snack the makers of Jonestown Jambalaya.
> >>>
> >>>It's one thing to recognize the idiocy of a religious loon. It's entirely
> >>>another to mock the death of innocent children. If you did it in the
same room
> >>>as me, I'd beat the crap out of you.
> >>
> >>Doubtful, Rog.
> >>
> >>Got your gun whore dander up, Rog?
> >>
> >>Blame the man who refused to allow those children to leave as offered
> >>by the US government.
>
> >If true, that still makes the children victims and your joke of
> >"battered and smoked kid" is still sick.
>
> Their 'Daddy' refused to let them leave and then poured fuel oil on
> the walls of their compound.
Do you have any proof,KKKennemanure?
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 02:09:22 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
>
> >
> >Proof that Democrats are as blood thirsty as Republicans.
> >
> >I think Americans are tiring of blood sport.
> >
> >I see from both sides a mere lusting after power. And their main use
> >for the power: smiting their enemies. War without end.
> >
> >The more I see the more I am sure that third parties stand a very good
> >chance in '00.
>
> That gun barrel up your but must have cut off circulation to your
> brain.
>
> Happens all the time among Looneytarian gun whores.
>
> Jim
there yuou go again with your insults and name-calling. Like I've
said,Kennemanure happens.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
Michael Ejercito
art@vandelay_industries.com (Art Vandelay) wrote:
> >>>Blame the man who refused to allow those children to leave as offered
> >>>by the US government.
> >
> >>If true, that still makes the children victims and your joke of
> >>"battered and smoked kid" is still sick.
> >
> >Their 'Daddy' refused to let them leave and then poured fuel oil on
> >the walls of their compound.
>
> And you still find it funny that those kids burned to death?
He does. Especially the Black kids.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
<123AEE9ED57392A8.1BE7D77A...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <36f06423....@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>,
> dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER says...
> >The key question that you avoid, however, is this: would vouchers make
> >schools *better*? I don't particularly care about the history of the
> >idea, nor do I care about the motivations of its proponents. I want
> >to know what effect vouchers will *actually have.* If it ends up
> >benefitting all students, then it's good. If it hurts students --
> >including minority students -- then it's bad. Don't talk about
> >motivations; talk about *results.*
>
> There are a finite amount of dollars available for public
> education. The GOP wants to take those dollars out of
> public schools and give them to the likes of Jerry Falwell
> and Jim Baker.
>
> No one has said that a voucher could get you into a private
> school, only that you couls apply the amount. Poor kids
> (read minority) will not have access. They will be left in
> the public schools while those same schools have their funding
> drained. Sounds like even a conservative could understand
> how this works. Buy Falwell another Rolls with your own
> money.
>
Why won't poor kids get vouchers? Vouchers were made to go to poor families.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Art Vandelay
>>
>>I do. But I don't celebrate the death of innocent children.
>
>Bull. You worship Jesus of Waco and his #1 Disciple Timmy McVeigh.
Now who is the one using strawman tactics? Where did anybody say
anything about Timothy McVeigh?
>
>Why do you think we call you gun whores, Rog?
Because you can't think of anything intelligent to say?
>
>Q: How did they identify David Koresh's body in the remains of
>the Mt. Carmel compound?
>
>A: By the charcoal pants and smoking jacket!
Keep posting, bitch.
LQuest
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky
><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>= [...]
>>= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
>>= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
>>= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>>
>>Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
>>you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
>>and multinational.
>
>Not to mention offering 14 year old girls the Body of Vern!
As usual voltie, you a liar. No thinking person here takes you seriously.
You really do need a load of chlorine dumped into your gene pool.
But please don't go away. Your infantile, thought free postings perform
enormous service to your ideological betters.
--Mike
LQuest
wrote:
>"M.Simon" wrote:
>= I don't believe its the governments job to monitor how they have sex
>= or how they pray.
>=
>= Don't like their doings?
>=
>= Convert them to your religion.
>
>Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
>underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
>"doings".
Correct. So what does that have to do with the subject at hand?
--Mike
LQuest
>
>>Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
>>underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
>>"doings".
>
>Unproven allegations as far as I am aware. Poffered to justify
>murdering children.
Indeed -- they were "molested" so let's just fry 'em.
"Wooppee! We can't burn niggers any more so we'll just burn kids." --ATF
--Mike
Rich Travsky
= Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
=
= >"M.Simon" wrote:
= >= I don't believe its the governments job to monitor how they have sex
= >= or how they pray.
= >=
= >= Don't like their doings?
= >=
= >= Convert them to your religion.
= >Uh, scuse us, but there are laws against having sex with
= >underage kids. It has nothing to do with liking their
= >"doings".
=
Look at the subject line.
RT
Mitchell Holman
A thought free post complaining about thought free posts?
LQuest
Thanks for making my point.
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
>tongue out of his butt.
Those were his tanks and guns outside the compound?
>I love the smell of a burning lamb of god in the morning.
True. But that doesn't justify our actions.
Now to take a quiz and see if I (self-identified
libertarian) am conservative.
>Things you won't EVER hear a conservative say:
>==============================================
>How can we make public schools better?
I struggle with this one. Public education appears
wrong in principle, but without it there would be less class
mobility.
>What should we do about people who cannot afford health care?
Let them die. Got any better ideas?
>We have to do something to reduce racism.
I'm all for reducing racism; I just don't approve of
doing it by threatening people with guns.
>Let's investigate republicans too.
This I agree with. Both parties need more accountability.
>Personal rights are more important than corporate rights.
I think there should be no LLCs. I can see that corporations
may be necessary, but we don't need limited liability.
>Why did those millionaires pay no taxes?
And how do I do the same?
>There should never be a hungry child in America.
How can you disagree with this? There should never be a
hungry child in America, but it is unconscionable to rob one man
to feed another man, or his family.
>How can we keep guns out of the hands of children?
With locked cabinets. Some people will leave loaded
guns out, but some people will not fasten their kids' seat belts.
>Why do so many people feel they must hit their children?
Because it works. It's immediate and makes an impression, so
it is the perfect reprimand for small children who are starting to get
into imminently dangerous situations. Anything not imminently hazardous
is better handled with timeouts of appropriate, consistent, and clearly
communicated duration.
>Who is more insane, Dan Burton or Bob Barr?
Good question.
>Why are criminals like Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy so popular?
Liddy is popular because he's ballsy. He's seen as a stand-
up guy. I don't know why North is popular.
>You know, that gay employee is one of our best workers.
I'd never refer to an employee as "that gay employee".
Surely he or she has a name.
>Women should have equality in the workplace.
Sure, that's a great idea. Or were you also proposing that
we create this equality by interfering with the individual employers'
hiring practices?
>The bible is NOT a text book.
I'm with you there.
>Checkmate!
I don't say it as often as I like -- I can't find opponents.
I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
--
/----------------------+---------------+-----------------------------\
| Rev. E. Lloyd Olson | (406)582-1636 | rep...@honors.montana.edu |
\----------------------+---------------+-----------------------------/
* WHO is the one more trustworthy than all the buddhas and sages? *
inver...@my-dejanews.com
hoping someone there would be able to provide more
information about grenades. Two people were kind
enough to reply. Their replies appear in separate
posts under this thread.
I wonder, have you read or seen Arthur Miller's
_The_Crucible? Have you read or seen Nathaniel
Hawthorne's _The_Scarlet_Letter? Incidents such
as those described in these stories actually
happened here in America, so the question is not
academic.
Let's say the whole town "KNOWS" a certain woman
is a "witch" -- just as the BATF "knows" the
Davidians are about to start World War III. You're
arguing that the town should go over to the woman's
house, kick in her door, drag her off, and hang her?
It's all very "democratic": EVERYONE in the town
knows the woman is doing something wrong. Why
should town members waste time "cooing" at the
woman's door? While the town is cooing, the woman
could be hiding her evil charms! No, better to just
break the door in. That's the sort of system you're
advocating, Lisa, but it's not the sort of system
America used to be!
Many things in the U.S. have become illegal that
shouldn't be illegal. That's why we have more people
in prison than almost any other country. Doesn't this
bother you? Soon, tobacco may be illegal, and, after
that, coffee. So let's say we have a grandmother
surrepititiously drinking a cup of coffee in her
kitchen. Do you think it's proper for the BATF to
break down her door and drag her away, before she has
time to pour the evidence down the sink? Or do you
think the woman has a right to be safe in her own home?
Think of Iran under Khomeini. Do you think it's
right for the Iranian secret police to break into the
homes of people who may be practicing Bahai or some
other unapproved religion? Let's say the majority of
Iranians agree that the Bahai's should be executed.
That's democratic -- but is it right?
Government is a machine, and machines need to be
controlled. That's what the Bill of Rights is for.
Without controls or limits, government becomes like
a car without brakes. That's what happened under
Stalin in the USSR. Stalin began by having "just a
few" rivals murdered. Then, to cover up the crime,
"it was necessary" to murder a few more. Then the
murderers themselves had to be murdered. The death
toll eventualoly rose to the millions. In this
century, government has murdered about a hundred
million people. I agree that we need government, but
we also need to keep government firmly under control.
Charlie
In article <23006-36...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> I took a look at the Rules of Engagement
> site on the Internet since I don't get HBO.
>
> There's the information on the 'Net, and the
> information in Jack Anderson's book, and
> they're not at all alike. There's no
> mention of the hand grenades or semis
> that were stored in the compound.
>
> I also noticed that the Rules of Engagement
> site was linked to a Ruby Ridge site, and
> someone named James Bovard was highly critical
> of the way the BATF and the federal marshals
> handled the Weaver family.
>
> What he didn't mention however, was how
> long the law had to wait for Randy to cooperate,
> and the incredible amount of firepower the
> Weavers had.
>
> Now really...if the BATF comes knocking
> at my door and they know I've got 10 Remington
> 700s and four grenade launchers, are they
> obligated to coo nursery rhymes at me, or do they
> just kick in the door and confiscate my illegal
> weapons?
>
> Lisa
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
inver...@my-dejanews.com
from someone named "Charlie" (not me) on
In Reply to: Did the Mt. Carmelites have grenades?
posted by Charlie on March 18, 1999 at 18:17:03:
I was informed that Davidians used the EMPTY grenade
cases to make novelty placks that they sold at gun
shows (I was informed of this by a Davidian)
If the ATF/FBI had a video of a Davidian throwing a
grenade the ATF/FBI would have LOVED that, it would
have been used in the trial and we all would have
seen that video everywhere on the news. There is NO
SUCH video. The only people throwing live explosive
devices were in fact the ATF and the FBI.
Another thing which people seem to forget when they
rant as this woman Lisa has, why didn't the Davidians
USE the alleged devices on the tanks? 50 caliber
bullets can penetrate a tank, as they are armor
piercing.
I also wonder if Lisa is not an ATF or FBI agent. In
the least she is probably a friend or relative of
someone.
Wow Lisa, the Weavers had all that fire power. Is that
why the FBI sniper shot and killed the thirteen year
old boy and his dog? As well as a unarmed mother
holding her baby? Sounds justified to me. What do
you think Lisa?
Please cut and paste my reply and send it with my
regards to 'LISA'
- - -
In article <23006-36...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> I took a look at the Rules of Engagement
> site on the Internet since I don't get HBO.
>
> There's the information on the 'Net, and the information in Jack
> Anderson's book,
> and they're not at all alike. There's no
> mention of the hand grenades or semis
> that were stored in the compound.
>
> I also noticed that the Rules of Engagement site was linked to a Ruby
> Ridge site, and someone named James
> Bovard was highly critical of the way
> the BATF and the federal marshals handled the Weaver family.
>
> What he didn't mention however, was how
> long the law had to wait for Randy to cooperate, and the incredible
> amount of
> firepower the Weavers had.
>
> Now really...if the BATF comes knocking
> at my door and they know I've got 10 Remington 700s and four grenade
> launchers, are they obligated to coo nursery rhymes at me, or do they
> just kick in the door and confiscate my illegal weapons?
>
> Lisa
>
>
To LOVE imagination, freedom and truth is to know boundless j-o-y!
Discover! ... http://www.freeamerican.com/
Critique! ... http://www.spotlight.org/
Innovate! ... http://www.jbs.org/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
inver...@my-dejanews.com
I posted on
It's from fred mrozek:
Posted by fred mrozek on March 18, 1999 at 21:41:09:
In Reply to: Did the Mt. Carmelites have grenades?
posted by Charlie on March 18, 1999 at 18:17:03:
The Davidians sold plaques at gunshows with
the dummy casings mounted. The BATF KNEW that
the Davidians sold them that way yet desired to use
some stretched reasoning to suggest that they were
being made into the real thing.
Ada Coddington recently faxed me a few SOF
back issues and just last night I was reading
an article about the search warrant the BATF drafted.
It was filled with errors and legal experts in
D.C. that went through it carefully point out a
plethora of errors, lies and "stretches" as
I mentioned above.
The Davidians sometimes received shotgun powder
and other supplies that one may rightfully use
to load ones own shells. This is legal. One may
also buy unfinished grenade casings. This is legal.
But if you are the BATF, you view the universe
such that anyone who you wish to attack, who has
a water spigot in their house, has the materials
necessary for the extraction of dueterium which
can be used to make an H-bomb. Since having the
raw materials around must certainly prove a
criminal intent, the BATF writes it up.
Another example from the Waco warrants was
the parts that the BATF alleged were being
manufactured to convert guns to full-auto: The
BATF, at the time of the writing was still
alleging that such conversions were taking place
when even the FBI (just days before the raid)
in an internal memo concerning the impending
BATF raid, stated that as yet no probable cause
had been shown and that the points in the
warrant were still unsupported by facts.
If I were a gun buff, I could have fleshed out
these examples with lots of details, but since
I am not up on gun jargon, the details do
not really register with me.
I do wish to warn you though, that the
impression one is left with in reading this
article dedicated entirely to the bogus search
warrant, is that if you have ever bought fertilizer
for your lawn and oil for your lawn mower, the
BATF, if it applies the same reasoning as at Waco,
has all the grounds they think they need to
attack you on sunday morning and kill as many
in your neighborhood as they can until they
run out of ammunition... (Fertilizer and Oil
could hypothetically be made to explode...)
I know I am exagerating here, but only a
little. If you did have 10 Remington 700's
and four grenade launchers, I would opine they
would be safer in the hands of about any american
civilian than in the hands of the BATF or FBI.
Average citizens are supposed to hold the power
in this country and when the authorities
"accidentally" kill almost a hundred folks and
then conduct saturation lying to cover it up, distract
attention from the issues, demonize the victims,
and deny the obvious motives they had for finishing
a job that got too messy, I would bet my security
on the averaging effects of an armed citizenry
rather than on an agency whose members have
good'ole boys round-ups where they sold "nigger-hunting
licenses."
Random armed loons and criminals may pose a threat
on one level, but giant government agencies are necessary
to build Gulag Archipelagoes and industrial sized
genocide machines. And gun control is the pre-amble
to both those governmental enterprises. I will
always favor the small scale risks of an armed populace
since it is the only REAL insurance against the
scale of evil that governments seem to naturally
devolve toward - especially in this century with
Hitler and Stalin.
There are no American Genes that prevent these
historical nightmares. Germany was Christian
and highly educated. Russia was consumed by a
pro-people ethic which they expressed by imprisoning
and killing roughly thirty million people...
Affirmative Action Diversity would be to require
every Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple to have
mandatory firearms training and then to have building
codes for the buildings designed by exploiting everything
learned at Waco. And a commensurate legal measure
would be to force the FBI and BATF to remain
unarmed in every action unless expressly authorized by the
local sherriff. I think these would be major improvements
and would teach these agencies a lesson they should
be forced to think about for fifty years.
Easy to get distracted.
rose...@idt.net
that's NOT name calling, it's labeling.
When the tag fits, you gotta wear it.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
> I also noticed that the Rules of Engagement
> site was linked to a Ruby Ridge site, and
> someone named James Bovard was highly critical
> of the way the BATF and the federal marshals
> handled the Weaver family.
James Bovard wrote a mainstream book called
_Lost_Rights. I've read parts of it: excellent.
It's a thick book. It lists many cases where
government attempts to impose absurd contradictory
edicts have led to tragic or unfortunate results.
Maybe you work for government, maybe you don't
care how many people are harmed by unjust actions.
But you need to see that you are also a citizen.
When the government abuses the rights of fellow
citizens, it also abuses YOUR rights, and someday
you may find the BATF at YOUR door.
> What he didn't mention however, was how
> long the law had to wait for Randy to cooperate,
> and the incredible amount of firepower the
> Weavers had.
>
> Now really...if the BATF comes knocking
> at my door and they know I've got 10 Remington
> 700s and four grenade launchers, are they
> obligated to coo nursery rhymes at me, or do they
> just kick in the door and confiscate my illegal
> weapons?
>
> Lisa
I'm not terribly familiar with the Randy Weaver
incident, so I can't give you an adequate reply. My
impression is that Weaver lived on top of a remote
mountain -- thus he was no threat to anybody. I
don't know what a "Remington 700" is. I'm pretty
sure Weaver had no "grenade launchers".
What YOU didn't mention is WHY the government attacked
Weaver. It's not because of the dozen or so weapons his
family had. The attack was an act of retalliation,
because Weaver refused to serve as a BATF snitch.
There's another question you are avoiding, namely, HOW
the victim plans to USE weapons. Is the intent DEFENSIVE
or OFFENSIVE? There's a difference! And if the BATF
were really interested in public safety, it would take
this difference into account. Instead, the BATF
has criminalized self-defense. Why? Because tyrannical
government prefers that its subjects be defenseless and
helpless. That's the real reason for the attacks on these
harmless, innocent people! If the government were decent
and law-abiding itself, it wouldn't NEED to fear an armed
or partially armed populace!
Charlie
inver...@my-dejanews.com
slav...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Why the fuck are we still making a big deal
> about the Wackos at Waco.
I make a big deal about it because the
wackos of Washington are still in power, running
around with their tanks and helicopters, now
staging "mock" military exercises in cities in
Texas, Alabama, Massachusetts, etc., ignoring
the wishes of the mayor and the local police
chief, setting fire to buildings, using live
ammunition and live explosives.
In other words, the firebrands who torched
Mt. Carmel are still on the loose. That's one
reason we make a big deal of it.
The second reason is that innocent people
were tortured and murdered, and the survivors
are still in prison. Davidian beliefs, I
admit, were rather silly, even comical. But
I much prefer THEIR beliefs to YOURS. They were
peaceable people. They did NOT believe in using
tanks, helicopters and poison gas to attack their
neighbors. You obviously do. Which is the
lunatic, Koresh or you? I'll let you figure it
out for yourself.
Charlie
> They were a bunch of religious wackos who
> killed themselves. Who cares? I only
> wish every religious nut would kill themself.
> We should celebrate whenever there is a
> religious mass suicide and then make that
> day a national holiday every year.
Art Vandelay
wrote:
>In article <36f1e83f...@news.supernews.com>, art@vandelay_industries.com
>says...
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:41:36 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>> On April 19, 1999, HBO will broadcast the important
>>>award-winning film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
>>
>>Even the Hollywood liberals could not deny the power of this Oscar
>>nominated film. During their review, Siskel and Ebert said that the
>>real nuts were the guys outside the compound. Reasonable people see
>>Waco for what it was: a terrible tragedy at best, a government led
>>mass murder at worse. The only people who still rejoice at the Waco
>>tragedy are some of the more extreme nut cases on usenet.
>
>The mass murder was conducted by Son of God Koresh. Get your
>tongue out of his butt.
>
>I love the smell of a burning lamb of god in the morning.
Do you and Kennemur have any sick James Byrd jokes to go along with
your buring children jokes?
Lisa Rochwarg
According to Anderson, a United Parcel
Service driver reported to a local sheriff
that the Davidians were receiving deliveries of grenade casings and
explosives.
As it turned out, it was an accurate lead.
I don't think BATF agents kicking down doors is ideal, but you have to
look at it
from the other side. ATF agents have
a dangerous job. When gun laws are violated, they have to remove them
from
a potentially dangerous citizen. When
a clinic is bombed, they have to show up
and investigate how it was done. When
someone goes postal, they're on the scene. And when an unstable person
is likely to be harboring illegal weapons,
somehow, they have to confiscate them for the good of the greater
community.
Now an ATF agent is only a man, probably with a family, and a meagre
death benefit. Whatever else he may want, he also wants to live, and he
also
wants his co-workers to live. It's a fine
line he walks, and sometimes he oversteps it. But it also brings up the
question: just how much danger is he supposed to expose himself to?
Should he follow the rules knowing that he is almost certain to get shot
(and cause
his co-workers to get shot?) Should 10
ATF agents die so the rules of engagement can be puncitiliously
observed?
You can get Congress to rake the BATF
over the coals, and apparently that's exactly what happened. If the
case was
so black-and-white, and if the BATF was
so murderous, then why did one woman
interfere with the rescue of the children?
And why did the NRA put plants in the
investigation?
I'm not at all persuaded that it was a simple case of the law running
amok,
even if they did botch the whole thing.
Lisa
inver...@my-dejanews.com
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> If coffee ever becomes illegal, I'm on Death Row.
Thanks for the bit of humor! I want to tell you
how much I appreciate your posts. I hope I never
become "one of the people you can safely ignore".
I often don't agree with you, but I am sensitive to
your very legitimate concerns.
> According to Anderson, a United Parcel
> Service driver reported to a local sheriff
> that the Davidians were receiving deliveries
> of grenade casings and explosives.
>
> As it turned out, it was an accurate lead.
I agree, people had reason for concern. The
problem is, the government lost sight of this
central concern and used the situation as an
opportunity to play soldier. If the concern
about weapons had been uppermost, the BATF
would have accepted Koresh's invitation to
investigate. If they feared putting themselves
in danger, they could have asked the local
sheriff to investigate. In addition, the BATF
should have listened to their own informant.
They KNEW there would be no "element of surprise",
yet they proceeded anyway. They KNEW there were
women and children quartered on the upper floors,
yet they fired down on the complex anyway. They
showed essentially NO regard for human life.
It's like one commander said about Vietnam:
we had to destroy the village in order to save
it. Or it's like the drug war: the cure is worse
than the disease! Such trigger-happy policies are
insane. I also believe they're deliberate: the
people who run our government are not stupid.
It doesn't take much courage to be a BATF / FBI
sniper, but I'm sure there are decent people in
both organizations who DO show great courage. I
don't question THEIR courage. What I question the
sanity of the policies that put them in harms way,
the sanity of the whole militaristic BATF/FBI
approach to "law-enforcement"! This is a country,
not a war zone! (Though the government is now
conducting maneuvers involving life ammunition and
live explosives in the middle of diverse American
cities -- so SOMEBODY at the top is very eager to
turn the country INTO a war-zone!)
I'm going to leave the rest of your message
unanswered for the time being, because I don't want
to monopolize the conversation. Let someone else
have a chance. Again, thanks for talking.
Charlie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
inver...@my-dejanews.com
bw...@webworldinc.com wrote:
> The HBO version of WROE is highly edited and
> is much kindler and gentler to the feds. Most
> of the FLIR footage and commentary is omitted
> along with most of the interview with the Sheriff.
> It is only 1 1/2 hours compared to the video of
> just over 2hours and theatrical release of 2 3/4
> hours.
I KNEW it was too good to be true. Once again
we see how heavily the supposedly free "media" in
the U.S. rely on outright CENSORSHIP.
Maybe some Americans will wonder why it is that
HBO felt compelled to cut the very portions of the
video that are most newsworthy. Then again, how
will Americans even know that what they're seeing
is not the real thing? Well, at least the people
who saw WTROE in theaters and on videotape will know
they're being lied to.
Charlie
Lisa Rochwarg
That's not only a bad idea, it's downright illegal.
Lisa
inver...@my-dejanews.com
Saint John <ars...@usa.net> wrote:
> bw...@webworldinc.com wrote:
> > The HBO version of WROE is highly edited
> > and is much kindler and gentler to the
> > feds. Most of the FLIR footage and commentary is
> > omitted along with most of the interview
> > with the Sheriff. It is only 1 1/2 hours
> > compared to the video of just over 2hours
> > and theatrical release of 2 3/4 hours.
> I knew there had to be something wrong with a
> mainstream station playing the tape.
> Saint John
For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
footage, taken by the government itself, shows
repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
stationed outside the burning complex. The footage
confirms reports from other sources which said that
one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
Juan Liberale
says...
>
Boy, I sure hope they don't leave out the part where we
get to watch Koresh go up like a roman candle.
--
Top 10 problems facing a conservative today:
10. His stupid ass wife got herself pregnant again.
9. They said he needed a GED for the job but he knew it
was really an affirmative action thing.
8. High payroll taxes are killing his dream of some
day owning a double-wide.
7. His wife is going to find out he spent the rent
money on that new gun.
6. Those godless commies at the UN are tapping his phone.
5. His kids aren't too bright. He knows it's his wifes fault.
It makes him wish he'd married his other cousin.
4. Cockroach infestation of his home.
3. Clinton has a 70% approval rating.
2. Getting government off his back.
1. The FBI is showing his composite around Atlanta!
mw4...@my-dejanews.com
slav...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <36ef09b7...@news.megsinet.net>,
> msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky
> > <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >= [...]
> > >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> > >= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> > >= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
> > >
> > >Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
> > >you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
> > >and multinational.
> >
> > Buddhists might understand.
> >
> > It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
> > both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they practice.
> >
> > As far as I am aware similar attitudes are enshrined in the Bill of
> > Rights.
>
> I don't remember the Bill of Rights saying you can rape 5 year old children
> and then train them to be gun toting, hate monger, killers.
If 5-year-olds were being raped (and that's a big "if"), is the appropriate
government response to kill the 5-year-olds? Use your brain, Slavelle.
- Mark -
Michael Ejercito
KKKennemanure wears his tag proudly.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
Whiplash_P.E.#1
It's the first time I've seen you right more than
three lines. Stick to the short answers that you think
are witty. The more that you write, the more of your
ignorance is exposed. UB1 stupid JAP.
Lisa Rochwarg wrote:
>
> According to Jack Anderson, whom I consider a reliable source, the
> investigation of Waco by the House Oversight Committee was a real sham.
With Socialist Jew Chuckie Schumer the chief sham man.
>
> At one point, some congressional staffers
> went to the site with a firm called Failure
> Analysis Association, to see if the 48
> guns found in the ashes had really been converted from semiautomatic to
> automatic. It turned out that Failure Analysis was really staffed by
> NRA plants!
Well??? Where there any auto weapons found???
Are you interested in the truth???
Get PaPa to pay a good Dr. to remove the implant.
>
> Waco was just another opportunity for the
> NRA to trash the BATF yet again.
Waco was a crime committed by the Clinton Administration
and the Justice Department and the Congress,
against innocent AMERICAN MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN !!!
They killed the children to save them.
And you come up with -" Waco was just another opportunity for the
> NRA to trash the BATF yet again."
You are one pathetic cunt.
A disgrace to any race.
>
> Lisa
George and Martha Ann
[snip]
> The footage
> confirms reports from other sources which said that
> one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
> snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
Was there anything about a child sacrifice by the Branch Davidians in
the origional tape??
Old George down on the bayou
>
> Charlie
gpa...@bayou.com
art@vandelay_industries.com (Art Vandelay) wrote:
> On 17 Mar 1999 18:03:50 GMT, JLib...@hotmail.com (Juan Liberale)
> wrote:
> >I love the smell of a burning lamb of god in the morning.
>
> Do you and Kennemur have any sick James Byrd jokes to go along with
> your buring children jokes?
Some people in the past thought that God was pleased with the aroma
produced by the burning of some sacrificial offerings. The death by
the fire at "Waco" was thought by some to be a Christian sacrifice
and therefore a victory rather than a defeat for the Branch Davidians.
You will notice that some still beleave Koresh's teachings. I am sure
there are some followers of Rev. Jim Jones still alive. David Duke
is not the only kook who did not learn from history.
BTW, if David Duke celebrates April 20th again this year,
I bet he don't let the public know it.
Old George down on the bayou
Michael Zarlenga
: For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
: footage, taken by the government itself, shows
: repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
: confirms reports from other sources which said that
: one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
: snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
1995 as a result of these government actions against
American civilians.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"[Bill Clinton is a] much bigger liar than I ever thought."
Monica Lewinski, 20/20, 3/3/99
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
> slav...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
>> > >= [...]
>> > >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
>> > >= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
>> > >= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>> > >Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
>> > >you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
>> > >and multinational.
>> > This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
>> > Buddhists might understand.
>> > It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
>> > both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they practice.
Having sex with 13 yos under coercive circumstances goes beyond the bounds
of parental rights.
>> > As far as I am aware similar attitudes are enshrined in the Bill of
>> > Rights.
>If 5-year-olds were being raped (and that's a big "if"),
I recall nothing about that.
>is the appropriate government response to kill the 5-year-olds?
I'm sorry I missed the evidence that the gov't killed 5 yos. The
gov't botched big time and the result was 5 yos being killed but
that is not the same.
Juan Liberale
says...
>
>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
>: footage, taken by the government itself, shows
>: repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
>: stationed outside the burning complex. The footage
>: confirms reports from other sources which said that
>: one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
>: snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
>
>The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
>
>Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
>Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
>1995 as a result of these government actions against
>American civilians.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
Is there some place we can buy a piece of Koresh's charred
remains? I'd like to be able to take a sniff of roasted
diety from time to time.
Michael Zarlenga
: Having sex with 13 yos under coercive circumstances goes beyond the bounds
: of parental rights.
The BATF has no jurisdiction whatsoever over that alleged crime.
By the way, Texas DCF investigated the charges of child abuse and
sex with minors.
Do you what they found? Do you care?
inver...@my-dejanews.com
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> mw4...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >is the appropriate government response to
> >kill the 5-year-olds?
>
> I'm sorry I missed the evidence that the
> gov't killed 5 yos. The gov't botched big
> time and the result was 5 yos being killed
> but that is not the same.
First, on Feb. 28, the BATF used three
helicopters to fire down on women and children
known to reside on the second floor.
Second, the FBI prevented outsiders from giving
milk to the Mt. Carmelites, despite the infants
inside who needed it.
Third, on Apr. 19, the FBI used tanks to knock
down the building, thereby crushing people under
the debris.
Fourth, on Apr. 19, the FBI injected into the
complex enormous quantities of poisonous and highly
flammable CS gas, the use of which is banned even
in war.
Fifth, on the WTROE video, there is some evidence,
though I think still inconclusive, that tanks armed
with flame-throwers set the fire. (There IS evidence
that the government expected a fire and prepared for
it.) Another possibility is that the fire started
when tanks knocked over lit lanterns inside the complex.
The least likely possibility is that the Davidians
started the fire themselves, since their aim all along
was to preserve the evidence of the initial helicopter
attack.
Sixth, the WTROE video uses the government's own
FLIR footage to shows, conclusively I believe, that
government snipers repeatedly fired on fleeing Davidians
as the complex burned.
Seventh, tanks and explosives destroyed the bunker
where many women and children had taken refuge.
If an ordinary citizen did all of these things, it
would be deemed heinous murder. But because the government
did it, it's called a "botched operation". In fact, from
the the government's perspective, the operation was a near
total success: the evidence was destroyed and the Davidians
were "taught a lesson": Don't mess with Big Brother.
Juan Liberale
says...
>
>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:56:11 -0600, "Whiplash_P.E.#1"
><irseat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Damn Ms. Warthog,
>>It's the first time I've seen you right more than
>>three lines. Stick to the short answers that you think
>>are witty. The more that you write, the more of your
>>ignorance is exposed. UB1 stupid JAP.
>>
>>Lisa Rochwarg wrote:
>>>
>>> According to Jack Anderson, whom I consider a reliable source, the
>>> investigation of Waco by the House Oversight Committee was a real sham.
>
>>With Socialist Jew Chuckie Schumer the chief sham man.
>
>
>What is it with fascists and gun worship?
Guns are cheaper than dick implants.
>
> Jim
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"America is not ready to ban abortions."
>
> -- George W. Bush, in a fit of unusual honesty.
>========================================================================
Lisa Rochwarg
28, the BATF, possessing a search warrant, kicked in the door to the
compound. They had been given a solid lead that there was a cache of a
few hundred firearms stored there, including semiautomatics. Koresh and
his followers knew they were coming, and opened fire.
The BATF and the FBI spent 51 days trying to get Koresh to surrender.
He was waiting for a sign, and they just got tired of waiting.
On April 19, Koresh told Robert Rodriguez, an undercover Treasury agent,
that "neither the ATF nor the National
Guard will ever get me." Sounds suicidal
to me.
The feds wanted to save the children.
An FBI agent named James McGee risked
his life by entering a flaming building to rescue a woman. She fought
him off. When he asked her where the children were, she refused to tell
him.
Koresh and his followers were expecting
Armageddon. They had been preparing for it for years. Why is this so
hard to accept?
Lisa
Christopher Morton
>On 23 Mar 1999 00:17:45 GMT, JLib...@hotmail.com (Juan Liberale)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4QvJ2.1792$BG6....@news12.ispnews.com>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
>>says...
>>>
>>>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>: For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
>>>: footage, taken by the government itself, shows
>>>: repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
>>>: stationed outside the burning complex. The footage
>>>: confirms reports from other sources which said that
>>>: one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
>>>: snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
>>>
>>>The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
>>>
>>>Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
>>>Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
>>>1995 as a result of these government actions against
>>>American civilians.
>
>>>-- Mike Zarlenga
>>
>>Is there some place we can buy a piece of Koresh's charred
>>remains? I'd like to be able to take a sniff of roasted
>>diety from time to time.
>
>Little Mikie Zarlenga shows why he is Timmy McVeigh's #1 Fan!
Jim Kennemur is John William King's #1 fan.
Christopher Morton
>The lesson is don't pay much attention to you whacked out Timmy
>McVeigh types.
The lesson is if Black children are burned or crushed to death, Jim
Kennemur and Shawn Smith will dance gleefully on their graves.
del Valles
Michael Zarlenga wrote in message ...
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> Having sex with 13 yos under coercive circumstances goes
>>beyond the bounds of parental rights.
>
>The BATF has no jurisdiction whatsoever over that alleged crime.
Yep. Meanwhile morphis, like a good Democrat sycophant,
repeats the clinton/Reno mantra "We had to destroy the
village in order to save it."
>By the way, Texas DCF investigated the charges of child abuse
>and sex with minors.
>
>Do you what they found? Do you care?
Oh, the clinton apologists don't care about reality.
Janet Reno has long been a fanatic for leading
child abuse witchhunts -- for the last several years
cases she prosecuted while Dade County FL District
Attorney have been acquitted by juries or thrown out
by judges. The preponderance of the evidence is that
the whispered child abuse accusations (not proved,
doesn't that sound like familiar music to clinton
excuse makers? naah, that mantra is for their boy
only... other perverts need not apply...) were phony.
We already know Janet Reno didn't give a damn
about evidence in such cases, just accusations,
as her Florida track record shows.
---
Liberals are those who lack the courage
to believe the truth.
Rush Limbaugh, political commentator.
Juan Liberale
>Oh, the clinton apologists don't care about reality.
>
>Janet Reno has long been a fanatic for leading
>child abuse witchhunts --
You sound like a good conservative kiddie fucker who hates
the attorney general for seeking you out. Was it your
daughter or your son?
>---
> Liberals are those who lack the courage
> to believe the truth.
>
> Rush Limbaugh, political commentator.
"The media likes to call you people "dittoheads."
The next time somebody says YOU can't think for yourself,
here's what you tell them..." -Rush Limbaugh
Whiplash_P.E.#1
Your ignorance is astounding.
You have performed intellectual Kangaside.
You're a disgrace to any race.
< snipped because of bullshit >
Whiplash_P.E.#1
BOB wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 02:10:45 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
>
> >
> >Is its governments job to assist suicide?
>
> Or kill people on death row?
>
> HAHA gotcha didn't i!!!!!!!!!!
No psycho boy. Save your socialist psycho dance.
People on death row have been convicted in a court of law.
People at Waco were convicted of nothing.
You are pathetic.
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}People on death row have been convicted in a court of law.
}
...mistakenly, as is frequently becoming apparent.
Michael Ejercito
> mw4...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > slav...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:46:30 -0700, Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> > >inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> > >= [...]
> >> > >= This film is NOT about David Koresh. This film is
> >> > >= about US. If the media can demonize the diverse,
> >> > >= intelligent, multiracial, multinational group of people
>
> >> > >Yeah, requiring your followers wives to have sex with
> >> > >you is a sure hallmark of being intelligent, multiracial,
> >> > >and multinational.
>
> >> > This sort of thing is not unheard of in human nature. Tantric
> >> > Buddhists might understand.
>
> >> > It was their religion and their kids. As long as they take care of
> >> > both and don't force themselves on me I don't care how they practice.
>
> Having sex with 13 yos under coercive circumstances goes beyond the bounds
> of parental rights.
Was that under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Sexual abuse would fall under the jurisdiction of the Texas attorney
general,not the United States Attorney General.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
Michael Ejercito
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
> : footage, taken by the government itself, shows
> : repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
> : stationed outside the burning complex. The footage
> : confirms reports from other sources which said that
> : one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
> : snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
>
> The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
>
> Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
> Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
> 1995 as a result of these government actions against
> American civilians.
I agree. Thjere was no reason for the snipers to shoot people as they
fled the burning building. Even if Koresh had started the fire,that does
not excuse the government's actions. And people wonder why Timothy McVeigh
blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Michael Ejercito
<B92CF1312787EB48.F57ED0FC...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <4QvJ2.1792$BG6....@news12.ispnews.com>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
> says...
> >
> >inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >: For those who haven't seen the video, the FLIR
> >: footage, taken by the government itself, shows
> >: repeated gunfire coming from government snipers
> >: stationed outside the burning complex. The footage
> >: confirms reports from other sources which said that
> >: one or two dozen Mt. Carmelites were gunned down by
> >: snipers outside as they fled from the flames.
> >
> >The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
> >
> >Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
> >Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
> >1995 as a result of these government actions against
> >American civilians.
> >
> >--
> >-- Mike Zarlenga
>
> Is there some place we can buy a piece of Koresh's charred
> remains? I'd like to be able to take a sniff of roasted
> diety from time to time.
if you want to do that,Shawnie,just sniff the remains of Nathan
Beddford Forrest. He is YOUR deity.
Michael Ejercito
> On 23 Mar 1999 00:17:45 GMT, JLib...@hotmail.com (Juan Liberale)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4QvJ2.1792$BG6....@news12.ispnews.com>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
> >says...
> >>The unedited tape can be rented at your local video store.
> >>
> >>Rent the tape and you may understand why the Alfred P.
> >>Murrah federal building in OKC was blown up on April 19,
> >>1995 as a result of these government actions against
> >>American civilians.
>
> >>-- Mike Zarlenga
> >
> >Is there some place we can buy a piece of Koresh's charred
> >remains? I'd like to be able to take a sniff of roasted
> >diety from time to time.
>
> Little Mikie Zarlenga shows why he is Timmy McVeigh's #1 Fan!
>
> Jim
Mikie Zarlenga is a bigger man than you can ever hope to be,Klansman.
Whiplash_P.E.#1
BOB
<irseat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What's your point?
Yeah! Who cares if 10% are fried and are later found not guilty..
Yeah, who gives a shit anyway!
GOP MOTTO "Better to fry some innocent ones than let one guilty person
go free"
Whiplash_P.E.#1
BOB wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:32:07 -0600, "Whiplash_P.E.#1"
> <irseat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What's your point?
>
> Yeah! Who cares if 10% are fried and are later found not guilty..
> Yeah, who gives a shit anyway!
Yo, yo Kangaside brain,
It is just incredible that you brain dead idiots think it's
OK if your Liberal fucking heroes (Clintoon + Barbecue Reno),
murder innocent men, women and children (where this thread began).
You buy their lies, (hook, line, and sinker) that the Waco people
committed suicide and then you compare it to murderers in prison.
You are a pathetic, disgusting worm. Go fuck yourself.
>
> GOP MOTTO "Better to fry some innocent ones than let one guilty person
> go free"
Here's three murders that are free:
OJ simpson
Ted Kennedy
Bill Clintoon
LIBERAL MOTTO " Better to bomb aspirin factories, better to
fry innocent women and children (to save them), than to let
the Rapist Terrorist in the White House pay for his crimes."
Whiplash_P.E.#1
You are a pathetic, disgusting worm. Go fuck yourself.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <36F828CD...@hotmail.com>, "Whiplash_P.E.#1" <irseat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> }
> }
>
> }You are a pathetic, disgusting worm. Go fuck yourself.
> }
>
> Do your mommie and daddy know your are
> posting this stuff on the family computer when
> they are asleep? Better be careful - this kind of
> thing can get your Tellytubbie priviledges revoked.
Typical dumbass liberal. Can't even tell time.
I guess, growing up in your welfare household,
paid for by us tax payers, it was common for your
mommie (daddy who?) to be asleep at 5:50 PM.
Not mine, Hole-man.