Guiliann's Cops, Heros? boo Hilary
brian
very deserving firemen. Soon after the attack, I wondered why I saw so
many NYPD hats instead of FDNY hats. Perhaps it was just because the
police make more hats than the firemen. The firemen charging up the
stairs to put out a 1000 degree fire stired everyone to honor firemen
everywhere. 350+ died while 20 some police died. There was heroism
from common citizens. I stand to be corrected, I just don't think the
cops who booed Hilary because she opposed Guilianni deserved to be on
the same heros' platform as the firemen.
Pat Angle
building. Hilary deserved to be booed.
Chris Nelson
news:JNEC7.35795$pb4.18...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Hilary didn't deserve to be on that stage with the heros in the same
> building. Hilary deserved to be booed.
Why?
--
Chris
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Senor Chico
Chris Nelson <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in article
<50GC7.112357$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>...
> "Pat Angle" <ang...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:JNEC7.35795$pb4.18...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > Hilary didn't deserve to be on that stage with the heros in the same
> > building. Hilary deserved to be booed.
>
> Why?
"For if there's one bright side to our current horror, it's that
we're drawn to what's better among us, what's higher,
grander, truer and soul-enlarging - not what's prunish,
greedy, grasping, cold-blooded, calculated and
completely full of it. Like her."
- Boston Globe columnist Mary Eagan – on Hillary
Chris Nelson
news:01c15faf$66b5f1c0$0fde4dd8@compac-presario...
A *real* answer would be more appreciated, not the lies and distorted
perceptions of a ClintonHater(tm). All these claims of her being greedy,
cold-blooded, etc. are merely claims made by people on the far right, with
no evidence backing them up. It's a deliberate smear campaign that's been
going on for years.
When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
claimed by those on the vicious far right.
Kurt Nicklas
You don't fit any of the characteristics commonly claimed by intelligent
persons.
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible
resolve."
-- Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,Dec. 1941
Paul A Sand
>"Senor Chico" <ch...@libusters.com> wrote in message
>news:01c15faf$66b5f1c0$0fde4dd8@compac-presario...
>> "For if there's one bright side to our current horror, it's that
>> we're drawn to what's better among us, what's higher,
>> grander, truer and soul-enlarging - not what's prunish,
>> greedy, grasping, cold-blooded, calculated and
>> completely full of it. Like her."
>> - Boston Globe columnist Mary Eagan on Hillary
It would certainly be reality-jarring to read that in the Boston
Globe. It's the Boston Herald, and it's Margery Eagan. Complete column
at http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/eagan10232001.htm
>A *real* answer would be more appreciated, not the lies and distorted
>perceptions of a ClintonHater(tm). All these claims of her being greedy,
>cold-blooded, etc. are merely claims made by people on the far right, with
>no evidence backing them up. It's a deliberate smear campaign that's been
>going on for years.
>When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
>inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
>claimed by those on the vicious far right.
In a recent issue of The New Yorker [not previously known as a member
of the "vicious far right"] in a discussion about responses to the
September 11 terrorist attacks, Nicholas Lehman [not previously known as
a ClintonHater(tm)] asked Hillary how she thought people would react to
knowing that they are on the receiving end of a murderous anger. Saith
Senator Clinton:
Oh, I am well aware that it is out there... One of the most difficult
experiences that I personally had in the White House was during the
health-care debate, being the object of extraordinary rage. I remember
being in Seattle. I was there to make a speech about health care. This
was probably August of '94. Radio talk-show hosts had urged their
listeners to come out and yell and scream and carry on and prevent
people from hearing me speak. There were threats that were coming in,
and certain people didn't want me to speak, and they started taking
weapons off people, and arresting people. I've had firsthand looks at
this unreasoning anger and hatred that is focussed on an individual
you don't know, a cause that you despise--whatever motivates people.
This kind of unscripted off-the-top-of-her-head response displays
the kind of wacky narcissistic self-martyrdom that infects both Clintons.
What's the first thing that jumps into her mind when discussing the
mass murder of thousands of Americans? Why, sure, this was just like
the time I was booed in Seattle!
[The New Yorker does not have this article on its website,
as near as I can tell, but it was brought to attention by
a couple "vicious far right" websites, see for example
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301c.shtml.]
--
-- Paul A. Sand | Don't believe anything you hear
-- University of New Hampshire | or anything you say.
-- p...@unh.edu |
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas |
S.L.
news:tRTC7.114553$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> "Senor Chico" <ch...@libusters.com> wrote in message
> news:01c15faf$66b5f1c0$0fde4dd8@compac-presario...
> >
> >
> > Chris Nelson <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in article
> > <50GC7.112357$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>...
> > > "Pat Angle" <ang...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:JNEC7.35795$pb4.18...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > > > Hilary didn't deserve to be on that stage with the heros in the same
> > > > building. Hilary deserved to be booed.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > "For if there's one bright side to our current horror, it's that
> > we're drawn to what's better among us, what's higher,
> > grander, truer and soul-enlarging - not what's prunish,
> > greedy, grasping, cold-blooded, calculated and
> > completely full of it. Like her."
>
> A *real* answer would be more appreciated, not the lies and distorted
> perceptions of a ClintonHater(tm). All these claims of her being greedy,
> cold-blooded, etc. are merely claims made by people on the far right, with
> no evidence backing them up. It's a deliberate smear campaign that's been
> going on for years.
>
> When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
> inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
> claimed by those on the vicious far right.
>
You can take off your rose colored glasses now.
sl
Chris Nelson
news:slrn9toa1...@granite.unh.edu...
The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral hatred for
no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
legitimate comparison.
Chris Nelson
news:Xns91485F435...@198.99.146.12...
Another non-answer from the right.
Chris Nelson
news:3bdc37cf$0$37103$ac96...@news.raex.com...
Another non-answer from the right.
--
Nap
"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
news:tRTC7.114553$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> "Senor Chico" <ch...@libusters.com> wrote in message
> news:01c15faf$66b5f1c0$0fde4dd8@compac-presario...
> >
> >
> > Chris Nelson <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in article
> > <50GC7.112357$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>...
> > > "Pat Angle" <ang...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:JNEC7.35795$pb4.18...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > > > Hilary didn't deserve to be on that stage with the heros in the same
> > > > building. Hilary deserved to be booed.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > "For if there's one bright side to our current horror, it's that
> > we're drawn to what's better among us, what's higher,
> > grander, truer and soul-enlarging - not what's prunish,
> > greedy, grasping, cold-blooded, calculated and
> > completely full of it. Like her."
>
> A *real* answer would be more appreciated, not the lies and distorted
> perceptions of a ClintonHater(tm). All these claims of her being greedy,
> cold-blooded, etc. are merely claims made by people on the far right, with
> no evidence backing them up. It's a deliberate smear campaign that's been
> going on for years.
>
> When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
> inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
> claimed by those on the vicious far right.
What you see is of little interest, as you are obviously delusional.
Hillary supports and plays kissy face with the PLO, a known terrorist
organization that is responsible for many cold blooded murders, pro
genocide, and anti-Peace.
Your pro-Genocide bitch got booed because we are kind of out of
tolerance to genocidal mass murderers.
Then we can get into her socialist beliefs.
That you think that is 'intelligent, caring, compassionate, inspiring" just
shows you have grossly warped judgment.
observer
brian <bria...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a20b21c6.01102...@posting.google.com...
Hillary richly deserved the jeering. Sixty cops were killed in the
terrorist attack.
Nap
"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
news:zUWC7.115133$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
> irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral hatred
for
> no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
> legitimate comparison.
Of course, your hate of the extreme right, making a really bad comparison
of them to mass murdering terrorist, shows you're no better than the
people YOU hate.
Rational people know that you and the extreme right are no where
near as bad as the terrorist.
I don't see either left or right calling for the mass murder of the
opposition,
calling it a good thing, and actually DOING it.
Nap
"observer" <obse...@privacy.nu> wrote in message
news:NPWC7.131$Iu1...@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
And make the link.... Hillary supports and kisses terrorist ass.
That they were different terrorist makes little difference, terrorist
is evil no matter what the cause.
SemiScholar
In a way, this whole thing is a battle between the "fundamentalists" -
the right-wing Americans and the Muslim fundies. We liberals and
open-minde progressives are sort of caught in the crossfire.
The events of Sept 11 were not the first shot fired in this war. This
stuff has been brewing and building for decades as a result of
right-wing, conservative American oil interests bullying their way
around the world. If George Bush sr. hadn't embarked upon his
ill-advised Gulf War, this wouldn't be happening now.
SemiScholar
wrote:
What's that got to do with Hillary Clinton?
SemiScholar
Bullshit. She tries to solve problems through diplomacy and peaceful
means. As opposed to the right wingers, who just want to do the
"you're either for us or against us, and if you're against us, we'll
kill you" approach. The right-wing approach is a simple-minded
black/white thing - they don't have the mental capacity to deal with
the real world, which is very complicated. It overwhelms their little
brains, so they just boil everything down to white hats and black
hats.
>
>That they were different terrorist makes little difference,
There - you make my point for me. Very eloquent.
>terrorist
>is evil no matter what the cause.
Even those who Ronald Reagan called "the moral equivalent of the
Founding Fathers"?
chris.holt
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote
>>When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
>>inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
>>claimed by those on the vicious far right.
> You don't fit any of the characteristics commonly claimed by intelligent
> persons.
Do realise how this makes you sound?
--
Paul A Sand
>"Paul A Sand" <p...@granite.unh.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrn9toa1...@granite.unh.edu...
>> the kind of wacky narcissistic self-martyrdom that infects both Clintons.
>> What's the first thing that jumps into her mind when discussing the
>> mass murder of thousands of Americans? Why, sure, this was just like
>> the time I was booed in Seattle!
>The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
>irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral hatred for
>no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
>legitimate comparison.
No, sorry, it's not. There are a handful of possibly-violent nutbars of
all political fringes in the US. They weren't the people booing Hillary
in Seattle, or at Madison Square Garden, as much as she wants to think
otherwise in her self-absorbed fantasies.
Drawing parallels between your political opponents and mass-murdering
terrorists is, well, delusional in a nasty and ominous way. I would
advise attaching political hopes to Hillary's wagon; I think her wheels
are coming off.
S.L.
Why should I do your homework for you...
From the right, eh? There have been many from the left who has finally seen
the light about your Hillary.
sl
Chris Nelson
news:uVXC7.9078$ib.33...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> news:zUWC7.115133$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>
> > The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
> > irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral hatred
> for
> > no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
> > legitimate comparison.
>
> Of course, your hate of the extreme right, making a really bad comparison
> of them to mass murdering terrorist, shows you're no better than the
> people YOU hate.
The extreme right have oppression as their goal. My criticism and mistrust
(it's not actually *hate* - more like fear and pity) of the far right is in
RESPONSE to their hatred and irrationality. Would you criticize a Jew for
hating the Nazis?
> Rational people know that you and the extreme right are no where
> near as bad as the terrorist.
The terrorists *are* extreme rightists.
> I don't see either left or right calling for the mass murder of the
> opposition,
> calling it a good thing, and actually DOING it.
Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
Chris Nelson
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> news:lVWC7.115139$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> > "S.L." <s...@voyager.net> wrote in message
> > news:3bdc37cf$0$37103$ac96...@news.raex.com...
> >
> > Another non-answer from the right.
> >
>
> Why should I do your homework for you...
>
> From the right, eh? There have been many from the left who has finally
seen
> the light about your Hillary.
Another non-answer from the right. Goes to show once again that the right
have NOTHING supporting their claims.
brian
Are you sure? I thought I read 23 NYPD in the NY Times. Are you
including Port Authority police. Hillary was booed because the cops
were Guilianni's boys. Why would the fire fighters boo Hillary? The
NYPD were in need of an image makeover after the Guilianni reign. I
just wonder if giving them the hero designation wasn't forced and
orchestrated by Guilianni himself.
digger
You are seeing the calculated public persona of an accomplished actress,
much like her husband. The real analysis of her character is not based
in the 'nice' things that she says while on a stage, but in the ideas
that she advocates, the methods that she uses, and the manner in which
she acts toward those around her in private.
And her private history shows her to be vindictive, greedy,
self-serving, petty, and elitist. Which are NOT the qualities that one
wishes a 'leader' to parade for children to see.
digger
>
> "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uVXC7.9078$ib.33...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> >
> > "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> > news:zUWC7.115133$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> >
> > > The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
> > > irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral hatred
> > for
> > > no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
> > > legitimate comparison.
> >
> > Of course, your hate of the extreme right, making a really bad comparison
> > of them to mass murdering terrorist, shows you're no better than the
> > people YOU hate.
>
> The extreme right have oppression as their goal. My criticism and mistrust
> (it's not actually *hate* - more like fear and pity) of the far right is in
> RESPONSE to their hatred and irrationality. Would you criticize a Jew for
> hating the Nazis?
>
> > Rational people know that you and the extreme right are no where
> > near as bad as the terrorist.
>
> The terrorists *are* extreme rightists.
Let's see here.
According to much of their actions, demands, and literature, Osama Bin
Laden and his bunch advocate:
That the State has the right to control every action of the citizen of a
country.
Thar they are fighting for the rights of the poor oppressed masses, to
free them from the tyranny of the 'rich'.
That individuals must sublimate their personal desires for the good of
their fellow citizens.
That it is 'the evil capitalist West' that is to blame for much of their
woes.
And, that they have the 'right' to use force to destroy that which
offends them (kinda like the PC attitude on American university
campuses)
NOW, are you STILL trying to assert that the terrorists are "extreme
rightists"?
That sounds more like a leftist agenda to me.
OR are you assuming that because they do all this in the name of
'religion' that somehow makes them "rightist"?
>
> > I don't see either left or right calling for the mass murder of the
> > opposition,
> > calling it a good thing, and actually DOING it.
>
> Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
Does the name Joe Stalin ring one too? Better yet, how about Pol Pot? Or
are you ignorant of who he was, what he stood for, and what he did?
Chris Nelson
news:3BDDDA...@stellarnet.com...
Sounds like extreme rightism to me. Control over actions of the people is a
rightist goal. Liberalism is about freeing the people from control.
Though the Communists were economically liberal, they were extreme rightists
in terms of governing.
> Thar they are fighting for the rights of the poor oppressed masses, to
> free them from the tyranny of the 'rich'.
A subterfuge to gain popular support. Similar to what the Nazis did.
> That individuals must sublimate their personal desires for the good of
> their fellow citizens.
Doesn't sound like liberalism to me: Liberalism is about maximizing the good
of society as long as doing so doesn't interfere with personal liberties.
> That it is 'the evil capitalist West' that is to blame for much of their
> woes.
They don't talk about the "capitalist" West, they talk about the "decadent"
West, which dares to defy Islam by allowing freedom.
> And, that they have the 'right' to use force to destroy that which
> offends them (kinda like the PC attitude on American university
> campuses)
That's a right-wing trait. The PC-ism often found on campuses is an
unfortunate adoption of right-wing anti-freedom characteristics by left-wing
groups. As a liberal, censorship and attempts to destroy dissenting opinion
are offensive to me.
> NOW, are you STILL trying to assert that the terrorists are "extreme
> rightists"?
Yes.
> That sounds more like a leftist agenda to me.
Leftistm is about increasing freedom, rightism is about increasing control.
> OR are you assuming that because they do all this in the name of
> 'religion' that somehow makes them "rightist"?
All fundamentalist religion is rightist.
> > Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
>
> Does the name Joe Stalin ring one too? Better yet, how about Pol Pot? Or
> are you ignorant of who he was, what he stood for, and what he did?
They both used right-wing-extremist methods of governing, though their
economic systems were liberal in theory. Liberalism is about freedom,
democracy and tolerance of opposing opinions, while right-wingerism is about
authoritarianism, controlling people, and suppressing dissent.
Christopher Morton
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>The extreme right have oppression as their goal. My criticism and mistrust
Don't you wish they were touchy feely types like Pol Pot?
>(it's not actually *hate* - more like fear and pity) of the far right is in
>RESPONSE to their hatred and irrationality. Would you criticize a Jew for
>hating the Nazis?
I'd criticize you for making such an inane comparison.
>> Rational people know that you and the extreme right are no where
>> near as bad as the terrorist.
>
>The terrorists *are* extreme rightists.
THESE terrorists are.
How about the Rote Armee Fraktion?
Or does merely being a terrorist make you a "right-winger" by
definition?
>Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
Does the name "Carlos" ring a bell?
--
What's the difference between a pacifist and a flagellant?
The flagellent only wants to punish himself.
Christopher Morton
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>Sounds like extreme rightism to me. Control over actions of the people is a
>rightist goal. Liberalism is about freeing the people from control.
So then Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Pol Pot were extreme "RIGHTISTS"?
I'm trying to think of a difference between you and fundamentalists
who claim that Jim and Tammy weren't christians, but I'm have a REALLY
hard time.
SemiScholar
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:01:46 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
><cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>
>>The extreme right have oppression as their goal. My criticism and mistrust
>
>Don't you wish they were touchy feely types like Pol Pot?
>
>>(it's not actually *hate* - more like fear and pity) of the far right is in
>>RESPONSE to their hatred and irrationality. Would you criticize a Jew for
>>hating the Nazis?
>
>I'd criticize you for making such an inane comparison.
>
>>> Rational people know that you and the extreme right are no where
>>> near as bad as the terrorist.
>>
>>The terrorists *are* extreme rightists.
>
>THESE terrorists are.
>
>How about the Rote Armee Fraktion?
>
>Or does merely being a terrorist make you a "right-winger" by
>definition?
>
>>Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
>
>Does the name "Carlos" ring a bell?
Damn! I had the weirdest dream... I dreamt it was the year 2001...
But it's so good to be back in the 1970's now.
digger
If you really "think" that, then you need to understand what religious
"fundamentalism" REALLY is all about, rather than the 'political' goals
that some 'fundamentalists' have also advocated. Either that, or else
accept that you have NO ideas about the subject more advanced than the
simple rantings that appear in a few sound bites on television.
>
> > > Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
> >
> > Does the name Joe Stalin ring one too? Better yet, how about Pol Pot? Or
> > are you ignorant of who he was, what he stood for, and what he did?
>
> They both used right-wing-extremist methods of governing, though their
> economic systems were liberal in theory. Liberalism is about freedom,
> democracy and tolerance of opposing opinions, while right-wingerism is about
> authoritarianism, controlling people, and suppressing dissent.
>
That may be so in YOUR fanciful little world, but I judge an ideology by
the methods that it employs, the evils that it produces, and the actions
of the people that associate with it.
And current American leftism DOES advocate "collectivism" over
"individualism" in its latest incarnation.
And "collectivists" have shown themselves to be one of the most
destructive groups ever to inhabit the planet.
BTW, it is interesting that YOU seem to be so 'eager' to "correct" the
'right-wing' ideology. What happened to your own precept about
"tolerance of opposing opinions"?
It seems that "liberals" ALWAYS slip-up on THAT one.
Kurt Nicklas
No, Chris it WAS an answer. You just didn't like the answer that I gave
you.
Typical for you.
Grow up.
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible
resolve."
-- Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,Dec. 1941
Kurt Nicklas
news:3BDC6A01...@ncl.ac.uk:
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote
>
>>>When I see Hillary speak, I see an intelligent, caring, compassionate,
>>>inspiring woman. She does not fit any of the characteristics commonly
>>>claimed by those on the vicious far right.
>
>> You don't fit any of the characteristics commonly claimed by intelligent
>> persons.
>
> Do realise how this makes you sound?
Yes.
Discerning, perceptive, patriotic, frank, honest, upstanding and very, very
bright.
Reba Mirsky Goodman
group. Please take my address of the list!!!! It is rm...@columbia.edu. I
have been on this list for a couple of years and want off.... I am not now
nor have I ever been a libertarian..... so please, wipe me out!!!!!
Chris Nelson
news:1p7tttctk3dsu98mv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:56:39 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
> <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>
> >Sounds like extreme rightism to me. Control over actions of the people is
a
> >rightist goal. Liberalism is about freeing the people from control.
>
> So then Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Pol Pot were extreme "RIGHTISTS"?
Economically, no. But they used extreme rightist tactics (physical force,
killing, fear, brainwashing, suppression of dissent) to keep themselves in
power.
Eagle Eye
SemiScholar <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:14:58 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>"observer" <obse...@privacy.nu> wrote in message
>>news:NPWC7.131$Iu1...@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
>>> Hillary richly deserved the jeering. Sixty cops were killed in the
>>> terrorist attack.
>>And make the link.... Hillary supports and kisses terrorist ass.
>Bullshit. She tries to solve problems through diplomacy and peaceful
>means.
She also tried to have some terrorists pardoned to help her election.
She also took money from a radical Palestinian group, giving it back
only when caught, making a lame excuse about confusing names.
>As opposed to the right wingers, who just want to do the
>"you're either for us or against us, and if you're against us, we'll
>kill you" approach. The right-wing approach is a simple-minded
>black/white thing - they don't have the mental capacity to deal with
>the real world, which is very complicated. It overwhelms their little
>brains, so they just boil everything down to white hats and black
>hats.
Help us to understand how to see the shades of gray, Semi-Fonda.
When is blowing up kids at a disco not a morally reprehensible act?
How about jumping on a bus with a bomb?
When Barak was ready to give the Palestinians an arm and a leg, why did
they keep murdering Israelis? Could your vaunted "diplomacy and
peaceful means" be worthless given the refusal of Arafat to get rid of
terrorists?
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
Nap
"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uVXC7.9078$ib.33...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> >
> > "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> > news:zUWC7.115133$P8.39...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> >
> > > The irrational hatred of the Islamic extremists *is* comparable to the
> > > irrational hatred of the American extreme right. It is a visceral
hatred
> > for
> > > no apparent reason. That was only *part* if the interview, and it is a
> > > legitimate comparison.
> >
> > Of course, your hate of the extreme right, making a really bad
comparison
> > of them to mass murdering terrorist, shows you're no better than the
> > people YOU hate.
>
> The extreme right have oppression as their goal.
Yes. So does the extreme left. That is why we call them "extreme", isn't
it.
Now, Libertarians don't give a damn what you do as long as it doesn't
affect them.
> My criticism and mistrust
> (it's not actually *hate* - more like fear and pity) of the far right is
in
> RESPONSE to their hatred and irrationality. Would you criticize a Jew for
> hating the Nazis?
Goodwin's law. Game over, you lose.
Nap
> rightists"?
>
> That sounds more like a leftist agenda to me.
Osama bin Laden is so alien to the American political environment
that it looks like a pointless pissing contest to me if you're trying to
classify him as left or right wing on terms of the American concepts
of those terms.
Further, I think it is not good and irrational to try and make political
hay out of this by trying to associate bin Laden with the right or the
left. bin Laden, obviously, doesn't consider himself as a member
of any American Political party. Why try the smear by association
when the association is obviously absurd?
Nap
"SemiScholar" <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9lottg50bh2ilmt5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:14:58 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"observer" <obse...@privacy.nu> wrote in message
> >> Hillary richly deserved the jeering. Sixty cops were killed in the
> >> terrorist attack.
> >
> >And make the link.... Hillary supports and kisses terrorist ass.
>
> Bullshit. She tries to solve problems through diplomacy and peaceful
> means.
She endorced a group that uses violent means and views diplomacy
as a tool for getting the upper hand to use more violance.
Your support of the terrorist organization call the PLO, which
uses young people as suicide bombers to commit mass murder,
is noted. This moral bankruptcy of yours explains why you tell the
lie that they are diplomatic and peaceful.
> As opposed to the right wingers, who just want to do the
> "you're either for us or against us, and if you're against us, we'll
> kill you" approach.
This is necessary because of the nature of the enemy, a terrorist
group. Many nations harbor terrorist intentionally, and provide them
support. They are the violent arm of their supporting government,
yet provide a deniable cupability for the government. It would be
stupid to allow terrorist to continue the campaign of mass murder
of our civilians because some nation defends them by saying they
have no part of them.
> The right-wing approach is a simple-minded
> black/white thing
Since I've just explained why it is neccessary, it seems that you
haven't thought the issue through.
>- they don't have the mental capacity to deal with
> the real world, which is very complicated.
Ironic, since it was you who haven't thought it through.
>It overwhelms their little
> brains, so they just boil everything down to white hats and black
> hats.
LOL!
> >That they were different terrorist makes little difference,
>
> There - you make my point for me. Very eloquent.
It is clear from your post, you didn't understand the
implications of what I said.
> >terrorist
> >is evil no matter what the cause.
>
> Even those who Ronald Reagan called "the moral equivalent of the
> Founding Fathers"?
Is Reagan your authority now? I've never said he was mine.
SemiScholar
>
>"SemiScholar" <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:s9lottg50bh2ilmt5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:14:58 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"observer" <obse...@privacy.nu> wrote in message
>
>> >> Hillary richly deserved the jeering. Sixty cops were killed in the
>> >> terrorist attack.
>> >
>> >And make the link.... Hillary supports and kisses terrorist ass.
>>
>> Bullshit. She tries to solve problems through diplomacy and peaceful
>> means.
>
>She endorced a group that uses violent means and views diplomacy
>as a tool for getting the upper hand to use more violance.
She never "endorsed" them. You are lying.
>
>Your support of the terrorist organization call the PLO, which
>uses young people as suicide bombers to commit mass murder,
>is noted.
Your lies are noted.
> This moral bankruptcy of yours explains why you tell the
>lie that they are diplomatic and peaceful.
Your intellecutal dishonesty explains why you lie all the time when
you can't produce a cogent argument.
>
>> As opposed to the right wingers, who just want to do the
>> "you're either for us or against us, and if you're against us, we'll
>> kill you" approach.
>
>This is necessary because of the nature of the enemy, a terrorist
>group.
Bullshit. It's arrogant and it's wrong. Nations like Switzerland and
Sweden, long known for their neutrality in all sorts of matters, have
to be looking at Dubya and saying "who the hell do you think YOU are
to tell us what our position is?"
> Many nations harbor terrorist intentionally, and provide them
>support.
Fine, then they are against us. But that's not the same thing as
saying EVERYBODY is either for us or against us. That's incredibly
shallow thinking, and is only practiced by simple minds.
>They are the violent arm of their supporting government,
>yet provide a deniable cupability for the government. It would be
>stupid to allow terrorist to continue the campaign of mass murder
>of our civilians because some nation defends them by saying they
>have no part of them.
>
>
>> The right-wing approach is a simple-minded
>> black/white thing
>
>Since I've just explained why it is neccessary, it seems that you
>haven't thought the issue through.
>
LOL!!! A simple minded boob "explained" why simple mindedness is
"necessary". What a laff-riot you are.
>>- they don't have the mental capacity to deal with
>> the real world, which is very complicated.
>
>Ironic, since it was you who haven't thought it through.
ROTFL!! Whatta buffoon! Haven't thought it through. This from a guy
who can't keep more than one thought in his head at a time. A guy who
can't understand anything in terms more complicated than black &
white. What a laugh!
>
>>It overwhelms their little
>> brains, so they just boil everything down to white hats and black
>> hats.
>
>LOL!
Seizing up, are you?
>
>
>> >That they were different terrorist makes little difference,
>>
>> There - you make my point for me. Very eloquent.
>
>It is clear from your post, you didn't understand the
>implications of what I said.
No - YOU don't understand what you said. And that is the mark of a
true moron. Perhaps your tinfoil gamma-ray nuke detector hat is
restricting blood flow to your brain. Loosen the strap a bit.
Nap
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 20:05:27 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >She endorced a group that uses violent means and views diplomacy
> >as a tool for getting the upper hand to use more violance.
>
> She never "endorsed" them. You are lying.
[snip]
> Your lies are noted.
[snip]
> Your intellecutal dishonesty explains why you lie all the time when
> you can't produce a cogent argument.
[snip]
Now, that is a laugh. Rather that provide on iota of rebuttal you
just deny everything. We've all seen Senator Clinton kissing terrorist
and supporting them, and you've not one word to explain how she
wasn't really supporting their terrorist acts. If you have a valid argument,
you'd provide the facts and data to show that her obvious support was
not really support. But all you got is childish name calling. Then you
hypocritically speak of intellecutal dishonesty! LOL! Not one word
to refute what I've said!
If you're going to post that kind of rubbish, you may as well save
your dignity and admit your error.
Score another one for Nap!
SemiScholar
>
>"SemiScholar" <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ulk8utkbvcdbp4cib...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 20:05:27 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> >She endorced a group that uses violent means and views diplomacy
>> >as a tool for getting the upper hand to use more violance.
>>
>> She never "endorsed" them. You are lying.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Your lies are noted.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>> Your intellecutal dishonesty explains why you lie all the time when
>> you can't produce a cogent argument.
>
>[snip]
>
>Now, that is a laugh. Rather that provide on iota of rebuttal you
>just deny everything. We've all seen Senator Clinton kissing terrorist
>and supporting them, and you've not one word to explain how she
>wasn't really supporting their terrorist acts.
I got a picture of Richard Nixon with Mao Zedong. You think that
means Tricky Dick was in on the Long March?
Wotta moron...
> If you have a valid argument,
>you'd provide the facts and data to show that her obvious support was
>not really support.
??? Is this another one of your "I'm going to say really stupid
things as a joke" type of deals here?
> But all you got is childish name calling. Then you
>hypocritically speak of intellecutal dishonesty! LOL! Not one word
>to refute what I've said!
Nothing to refute. Your absurd allegations are total bullshit, and it
would be up to YOU to support them. Which you didn't do.
>
>If you're going to post that kind of rubbish, you may as well save
>your dignity and admit your error.
>
>Score another one for Nap!
ROTFLMAO!!!
<twilight zone music>
chris.holt
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote...
>>The extreme right have oppression as their goal.
> Yes. So does the extreme left. That is why we call them "extreme", isn't
> it.
> Now, Libertarians don't give a damn what you do as long as it doesn't
> affect them.
But in a peculiar way, extreme libertarians also have oppression
as their goal. If you don't agree with their idea of how humans
interact, and what it means to leave someone alone, they're
perfectly willing to use force to make sure you conform to their
ideas.
--
Nap
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3BE59C07...@ncl.ac.uk...
Extreme libertarian is a contradiction of term.
You'd have to give examples for the rest of your post because your
generalization just doesn't apply. I can't think of one case where
liberty has to be forced upon you by arms, unless you are one of
those people who think you have a right to not be offended and a right
to government support.
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...>>Nap wrote:
>>>"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote...
>>>>The extreme right have oppression as their goal.
>>>Yes. So does the extreme left. That is why we call them "extreme", isn't
>>>it.
>>>Now, Libertarians don't give a damn what you do as long as it doesn't
>>>affect them.
>>But in a peculiar way, extreme libertarians also have oppression
>>as their goal. If you don't agree with their idea of how humans
>>interact, and what it means to leave someone alone, they're
>>perfectly willing to use force to make sure you conform to their
>>ideas.
> Extreme libertarian is a contradiction of term.
Sorry, no. Think of the arguments between the minarchists
and the anarchists.
> You'd have to give examples for the rest of your post because your
> generalization just doesn't apply. I can't think of one case where
> liberty has to be forced upon you by arms, unless you are one of
> those people who think you have a right to not be offended and a right
> to government support.
Libertarians have a very particular (and peculiar) idea of what
it means to own things, and how force and fraud can legitimately
be employed. This is embodied in the whole "taxation is theft"
line of argument. For extreme libertarians, who don't think
government should even be involved in the military or the law,
it is legitimate to resist taxation forcibly; i.e. use force
to enforce their ideas of what ownership and property are.
They don't do this, for practical reasons; but they see nothing
wrong with it in principle.
--
Nap
> Nap wrote:
> > "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...>>Nap wrote:
> >>>"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote...
>
> >>>>The extreme right have oppression as their goal.
>
> >>>Yes. So does the extreme left. That is why we call them "extreme",
isn't
> >>>it.
>
> >>>Now, Libertarians don't give a damn what you do as long as it doesn't
> >>>affect them.
>
> >>But in a peculiar way, extreme libertarians also have oppression
> >>as their goal. If you don't agree with their idea of how humans
> >>interact, and what it means to leave someone alone, they're
> >>perfectly willing to use force to make sure you conform to their
> >>ideas.
>
> > Extreme libertarian is a contradiction of term.
>
> Sorry, no. Think of the arguments between the minarchists
> and the anarchists.
>
> > You'd have to give examples for the rest of your post because your
> > generalization just doesn't apply. I can't think of one case where
> > liberty has to be forced upon you by arms, unless you are one of
> > those people who think you have a right to not be offended and a right
> > to government support.
>
> Libertarians have a very particular (and peculiar) idea of what
> it means to own things,
Ah! A reference to the liberal need to dictate to people what they
can do with their own land, obviously. The argument goes something
like this: "You own the land, we're going to tax the shit out of you,
and we are going to pass zoning ordinances, state and federal laws
that make your land utterly worthless". Then the liberals get all
indigent when the land owner points to the constitution that says
you can't take property without due process, claiming they didn't
TAKE the land, they just took the USE of the land and dicated
what that use would be.
Yes, very funny. Your total misconception of the Libertarian
party is noted. Perhaps you can come back and state other
objections after you educate yourself on what the libertarian
party platform really is.