OT: Since we're trashing the NG anyway...
Mike Noon LC
throw this in the mix:
How badly would conservative jackals be screaming right now, if Clinton was
found to have a personal Saudi friend who was "apparently" laundering money
for the WTC attackers, like Bush has apparently been a sucker for? So far,
the response has been rational, while waiting for more details to emerge,
but rest assured, had a Democratic president been caught in a similar mess
to this level, the Republican rightists would be all for tearing the Office
of President down for their own personal political edification, rather
having a resonable measured response like that from the Democrats in this
real case. Bush has been "bushwacked" in his pursuit of all things oil. He
is so in over his head.
David H.
news:uu2jcur...@corp.supernews.com...
> Since it seems that filling this NG with OT garbage is all the rage, I'll
> throw this in the mix:
>
>
> Bush has been "bushwacked" in his pursuit of all things oil. He
> is so in over his head.
>
Believe me, if there was any substance to your theory, the NY TIMES and POST
would be all over it.
This President is going to go down in history as the one that probably saved
MILLIONS of lives on both sides.
In Lithuania and Romania, they came by the tens of thousands to stand in the
rain just to get a glimpse of the Man who is going to save the civilized
world as we know it.
They only had to back to 1989 in their memory.
They appreciate freedom, unlike you Leftists.
You're gonna probably stick a flower in Saddam's lapel, aren't you?
"Can't we all just get along?"....as the piss runs down your leg.
Now, we all need Freedom from fear of certain attacks by religious zealots
who will surely cut off your heads on cable tv, if they could get away with
it.
You should get down on your knees and thank God for giving us this guy so
that your babies can die of old age instead of smallpox or a mushroom cloud.
These people cannot co-exist in this world. They refused to allow their
people to flourish in technology where they used to produce some of the best
and brightest.
They just massacred over 200 people in f*cking Nigeria....because they
suggested Mohammed was a ladies man and could apprieciate the contestants'
beauty, and probably would have chosen one for his bride.
(Remember, this dude married a 10 year old girl)
It is sad to say, but it is nothing more than a global case of Jim Jones.
\
Let them drink the Kool-ade.....don't stop them.
Getting back to your boy, Bubba Clinton.
He had his chance when the towers were hit the 1st time.
He gave China a 50-year leap forward in Nuclear Energy.
He allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons.
He figured if everybody had them, then there would be a mutual "peace".
He somehow discounted Islamic governments financing "armies" of criminals
that are of the Jim Jones-HalleBop variety.
The ONLY long-term solution is to cut off their finacing and money, and then
to hunt them down and kill them.
That means entire Middle Eastern Countries are going to have to change their
tune or else suffer what Hussein is about to see.
Buddy, if we have computers that can track every email and phone
conversation, cash withdrawal, you can be sure it was used in the military
for years.
They have the verifiable proof that Hussein is planning to hand over nuclear
weapons and chemical weapons to al-Quada.
Everybody that had been against them going in,.....once they saw the
evidence,
they changed their opinion.
You can stay in the corner and suck your thumb, dreaming up theories that
Bush is doing this to fatten his wallet.
I'll remember that one-third of the Colonists didn't want to fight England
for their Independence.
You know them. They are your ancestors. The original Liberals.
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>>
>< snip bullsh*t
(which, of course, completely failed to answer Mike Noon's claims in
favor of yet another rambling, nonsensical screed)
>I'll remember that one-third of the Colonists didn't want to fight England
>for their Independence.
>
>You know them. They are your ancestors. The original Liberals.
But they weren't, they were very much conservatives, people who wanted
things like they were in the past.
MR. PHP
>
>I'll remember that one-third of the Colonists didn't want to fight England
>for their Independence.
>
>You know them. They are your ancestors. The original Liberals.
>
>David H.
>
>
Actually it was alot more than a third.
It just goes to show how mixed up the language has gotten. (And NOT by
mistake!)
The classic "Liberals" ( Jefferson, Adams, at al) wanted liberty,
self-government, individual rights, limited government, low taxes and
the right to keep and bear arms. This is where the term "liberal"
originated. Imagine this: a "Liberal" wants to become free from an
oppressive-imperial government with high taxes and oppressive
regulation..
It is hard for some to believe (or admit) , but a true "Liberal"
really stands for all those things.
"Liberal," as a term, has been riduculously deformed beyond all
recognition. Liberals these days do NOT go for liberal ideals at all.
These are more "conservative" and "libertarian" ideas today.
Imagine a modern liberal standing up before the media and proclaiming:
"The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
or this
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
or this
"Who are the miltia? are they not ourselves? ... Congress have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible
impliment of the soldier, are the birthright of every American..."
Tenche Cox
Every one of those men were "Classic Liberals."
Today, those statements would be absolutely roasted by the New York
Times, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc...
It is sobering to think that the people who found this country would
now be blasted as "radicals" or "fundamentalists" or "extremist."
All you need to know is that Gerorge Washington, Patrick Henry,
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and all those other "extremists" would
now be life-members of the NRA!
Since the first battles of the American Revolution were fought over
the attempts by the British troops of King George to disarm the
American people, one can reasonably see how modern lefties would have
been tories. I can just imagine protesters back in 1775 with signs
like "No Blood For Bullets" or "Give Peace A Chance."
The British Army would have shot them and then promptly taken over
their homes...
Original American Liberals (the Patriots) staged riots against high
taxes. Imagine that... LOL
Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
government.
You are 100% correct! Dave!
The radical lefties would have appeased King George and handed over
their guns in the interest of peace.
These days, they like to call themselves "Progressives."
They are still the stooges of King George,
The Webbed Crusader
salivating over any info that would seem to point to complicity by the
Saudi gov't in the attacks.
They probably whacked off all over the Newsweek article.
They will never be able to prove the intent of this money coming of
having terror fingerprints on it. Nor will U.S. intelligence supply the
proof.if there is any, that the Saudi gov't gave money directly to the
terrorists for the expressed purpose of attacking us.
And yes there is an underlying fear of what an interruption of Saudi oil
here could do to the price of energy.Some people believe that the
results of the Iraq war will be a way of flooding the oil supply with
the new oil driving the prices down to 15 a barrel or below.The results
of which would be the effect of a massive tax cut for American consumers
and kick the economy in the ass..
This new oil is the reason I believe the Russians don't want the war as
oil is their only staple of income right now.A large drop in oil
revenues could topple their fragile economy. Then guess who gets to bail
them out?
Anyway,I do however believe that there was/is money being extorted from
the Saudi's by the terrorist networks and that money did somehow fund
the attacks.
Much like Jesse Jackson shakes down corporations then disappears with
the money for his own use and extravagant lifestyle.
Anyway what would the Saudi gov't's gain be of terrorist attacks here?
Hell we're their biggest customer.
>wonders if Bush has sold any pardons or
>sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom for
>campaign contributions like his filthy
>scumbag predecessor?
Post45
> Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
government.
Do you actually believe this ? If so, you don't know what the hell you are
talking about.
Do you think about the " liberals " that you hate so much every day ? Do you
get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you despise
them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
Let me see....what else could it be...well I suppose that it could be the
communist rag The Sun that gets you going or maybe the Soviet controlled CNN
that gets you upset.
Or do you wait until you are in the car and listen to one of those " We are as
pure as the driven snow and they ( the immoral atheistic communists who form
the Democratic Party ) need to be hunted down and shot so that we can live in a
nice country " morning drive to work shows ?
Guns and taxes DO NOT make a person an " us " or " them ". There are MILLIONS
of "liberals" who favor tax cuts of all different types, and MILLIONS of
liberals who would never stand for making it illegal for a law abiding citizen
to aquire firearms.
Same thing on the environment. There are MILLIONS of "right-wingers" who love
the Earth and give money and time help save it.
Same thing on race. There are MILLIONS of " right wing nuts " who don't have a
racist bone in their body and who love and respect all the races.
Stop your 3rd grade pigeon holing you forgot to assign homework holier than
thou right wing bullshit before I puke.
Post45
David H.
news:20021126050029...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> > MR. PHP writes :
>
> > Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
> government.
>
> Do you actually believe this ? If so, you don't know what the hell you are
> talking about.
Er, check out Pelosi's voting record, Post45.
The modern liberal feels perfectly normal to confiscate *your* earned money
in order to pay for ever-growing government give-away programs.
Of course, Mondale commited political suicide when he campaigned with the
promise to raise our taxes.....so they:
1) Cut military spending to finance their schemes, thus causing a National
Security issue.
2) Find inventive ways to "tax" you....say, red-light cameras to catch
speeders. (Wash, DC)
Give me one instance where the Democratic Liberal in charge of the purse
strings, held taxes down, or didn't create obscene deficits?
Can you say "Parris Glendenning"?
He leaves a $2 BILLION deficit for Erhlich to clean up. That's a "B"....not
an "M".
>
> Do you think about the " liberals " that you hate so much every day ? Do
you
> get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you
despise
> them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
Oh, now you're pulling a "Tom Daschle", huh?
The Liberals have a Doctorate in Hate Speech. And, the mainstream media
refuses to call them on it. Why is that?
Liberals have demonstrated anti-American feelings, especially in the Senate,
where they stalled and obstructed every bill the House passed....including
the Homeland Security Issue.....all because they didn't want to piss off the
labor unions that support them.
That truthful statement by President Bush made little Tommy ballistic on the
Senate Floor where he proceeded to make a complete ass of himself.
Do you want to talk about McDermott and Bonior over in Iraq, who said that
"...you could trust Saddam Hussein before Bush" (paraphrased)
The American people are fed up with the criminal enterprise known as the
Democratic Party. They said so on November 5th, 2002.
And, they will say it LOUDER in November 2004.
>
> Let me see....what else could it be...well I suppose that it could be the
> communist rag The Sun that gets you going or maybe the Soviet controlled
CNN
> that gets you upset.
Uh, any dunce knows that the Baltimore Sun is a Liberal paper, and that CNN
is the Clinton News Network.
>
> Or do you wait until you are in the car and listen to one of those " We
are as
> pure as the driven snow and they ( the immoral atheistic communists who
form
> the Democratic Party ) need to be hunted down and shot so that we can live
in a
> nice country " morning drive to work shows ?
Please cite specifics where you've ever heard such things.
Furthermore, Rush garners over 20 MILLION listeners daily...and comes on at
noon.
Why not listen to him for about a week or two, and then tell me how you
feel?
>
> Guns and taxes DO NOT make a person an " us " or " them ". There are
MILLIONS
> of "liberals" who favor tax cuts of all different types, and MILLIONS of
> liberals who would never stand for making it illegal for a law abiding
citizen
> to aquire firearms.
The last Democrat to understand that cutting taxes could enlarge the
Treasury's bins was John F. Kennedy. Too bad that was in 1961-62.
Where have you ever heard a Democrat get up and say that they were in favor
of LESS gun laws? Got to keep that Soccor Mom quiet.
Too bad the Soccor Mom is more worried about the safety of her children from
smallpox or worse.
>
> Same thing on the environment. There are MILLIONS of "right-wingers" who
love
> the Earth and give money and time help save it.
Yeah? Well if I have to choose between paying $5 a gallon for gas or an
Alaskan caribou......THAT CARIBOU IS GOING DOWN!!! ;^)
David H.
david craven
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:arvrlh$17j$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Give me one instance where the Democratic Liberal in charge of the purse
> strings, held taxes down, or didn't create obscene deficits?
Sigh..
Bill Clinton... who held taxes down and saw the creation of budget
surpluses.. in contradistinction to Ron Reagen who managed to create budget
deficits which, by themselves, exceeded all of the deficits which had been
accumulated by all of his predecessors in the office.
David H.
news:as09pa$448$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Are you joking?
Who controlled the purse strings (for the 1st time in 40 years) during
Clinton's terms?
Who shoved Welfare Reform down his throat till he gagged and signed it?
(only to try and take credit in photo-ops with heavy-set African American
woman (who was later arrested for welfard fraud)?
The Republicans, that's who.
David H.
nob...@junk.min.net
>This President is going to go down in history as the one that probably
>saved MILLIONS of lives on both sides.
I think I just pissed myself from laughing.
>Now, we all need Freedom from fear of certain attacks by religious
>zealots who will surely cut off your heads on cable tv, if they could get
>away with it.
Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>You should get down on your knees and thank God for giving us this guy so
>that your babies can die of old age instead of smallpox or a mushroom
>cloud.
Unless the forced smallpox vaccination kills them.
>They just massacred over 200 people in f*cking Nigeria....because they
>suggested Mohammed was a ladies man and could apprieciate the
>contestants' beauty, and probably would have chosen one for his bride.
>(Remember, this dude married a 10 year old girl)
And how many people were killed in name of Christianity over the years?
Religious fundamentalism is evil, and not just Islamic fundamentalism.
>Getting back to your boy, Bubba Clinton.
>He had his chance when the towers were hit the 1st time.
And had he tried anything in response, the right would have crucified him.
>He allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons.
Wrong, Rosetta breath.
>He figured if everybody had them, then there would be a mutual "peace".
>He somehow discounted Islamic governments financing "armies" of criminals
>that are of the Jim Jones-HalleBop variety.
And who helped Iraq when they were fighting Iran? Hint - it wasn't
Clinton. Who gave him tacit approval to invade Kuwait?
>That means entire Middle Eastern Countries are going to have to change
>their tune or else suffer what Hussein is about to see.
Oh, you and your wet dreams.
>Buddy, if we have computers that can track every email and phone
>conversation, cash withdrawal, you can be sure it was used in the
>military for years.
And now Ashcroft and friends will use them to further erode our civil
rights in the name of security. Ben Franklin is rolling over in his
grave.
>They have the verifiable proof that Hussein is planning to hand over
>nuclear weapons and chemical weapons to al-Quada.
Then we'd see some of that proof.
>You can stay in the corner and suck your thumb, dreaming up theories that
>Bush is doing this to fatten his wallet.
Yeah, oil has nothing to do with this.
>I'll remember that one-third of the Colonists didn't want to fight
>England for their Independence.
>You know them. They are your ancestors. The original Liberals.
Sorry, pal - it's conservatives that don't like change.
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Please use address al...@min.net to reply via e-mail. ****
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post45
>rom: "David H." dhag...@erols.com
wrote :
>
>
>"Post45" <pos...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021126050029...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>> > MR. PHP writes :
>>
>> > Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
>> government.
>>
>> Do you actually believe this ? If so, you don't know what the hell you are
>> talking about.
>
>Er, check out Pelosi's voting record, Post45.
>
>The modern liberal feels perfectly normal to confiscate *your* earned money
>in order to pay for ever-growing government give-away programs.
Well, you've edited the original sentence to which I responded. In its new
incarnation it's not
that unrealistic of a statement. If you wanted to know my opnion,it's a pretty
common one, it would be that most taxes now are too high, and unfair. If the
government can do one thing for you besides trying to help make sure that there
are JOBS, it would be to reduce the amount of your earnings that are taken away
by excessive taxation. This is why, to me, most, but not all, tax cuts are
good. The rub is in who gets what kind for how much and why.
The original claim was that " liberals demand ...a more oppressive gov't. "
>Of course, Mondale commited political suicide when he campaigned with the
>promise to raise our taxes.....so they:
>
>1) Cut military spending to finance their schemes, thus causing a National
>Security issue.
>2) Find inventive ways to "tax" you....say, red-light cameras to catch
>speeders. (Wash, DC)
>
>Give me one instance where the Democratic Liberal in charge of the purse
>strings, held taxes down, or didn't create obscene deficits?
>
>Can you say "Parris Glendenning"?
>
>He leaves a $2 BILLION deficit for Erhlich to clean up. That's a "B"....not
>an "M".
>
Rhetoric. I could expectorate something like, " There hasn't been a Republican
President since Eisenhower who didn't create obscene deficits. " It would be
sorta true, but not really. It would simplify different times and circumstances
into a meaningless slogan.
>>
>> Do you think about the " liberals " that you hate so much every day ? Do
>you
>> get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you
>despise
>> them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
>
>Oh, now you're pulling a "Tom Daschle", huh?
>
>The Liberals have a Doctorate in Hate Speech. And, the mainstream media
>refuses to call them on it. Why is that?
Both sides feature bizarre creatures who live and breathe venom.
>
>Liberals have demonstrated anti-American feelings, especially in the Senate,
>where they stalled and obstructed every bill the House passed....including
>the Homeland Security Issue.....all because they didn't want to piss off the
>labor unions that support them.
The Senate has always done so. That's what makes it the Senate. As far as
accusing someone of being anti-American ...well....you can't really believe it.
It's baby talk. We've seen that one used our whole lives on the crisis of the
moment.
>
>That truthful statement by President Bush made little Tommy ballistic on the
>Senate Floor where he proceeded to make a complete ass of himself.
Daschle. Small potatoes.
>Do you want to talk about McDermott and Bonior over in Iraq, who said that
>"...you could trust Saddam Hussein before Bush" (paraphrased)
You can't be serious. There are always idealists and/ or opportunists ready to
look "unpatriotic " , portrayed as "coddling up to the dictator " and
"appeasing like Chamberlin " who attempt dialogue and make desperate and
sometimes foolish attempts to prevent armed conflict. It's an American
tradition. Sort of a pre-game warm up before bombs away. What the hell is the
problem with it ? It gives the media vultures something to try to get you to
resent.
>
>The American people are fed up with the criminal enterprise known as the
>Democratic Party. They said so on November 5th, 2002.
>
>And, they will say it LOUDER in November 2004.
Now, except for the " criminal enterprise " part, you are talking turkey. The
national Democratic Party is a joke. They do not have ONE spokesperson who is
willing or maybe even able to discuss economics truthfully and rationally.
( snip )
>Uh, any dunce knows that the Baltimore Sun is a Liberal paper, and that CNN
>is the Clinton News Network.
Ah, the liberal media bull. I've heard it for 140 years.. It's all part of the
huge conservative whine since Goldwater of how oppressed and persecuted all
the"lone voices in the wilderness " are. It's grade A bull.Yeah, the networks,
CBS and NBC were more " liberal " than the nation as a whole. But not by the
amount that the myth of it claims.The shame is that many of the great
conservatives out there are drowned out by the idiots on their own side, much
like what the liberals have to put up with.
>
>>
>> Or do you wait until you are in the car and listen to one of those " We
>are as
>> pure as the driven snow and they ( the immoral atheistic communists who
>form
>> the Democratic Party ) need to be hunted down and shot so that we can live
>in a
>> nice country " morning drive to work shows ?
>
>Please cite specifics where you've ever heard such things.
I don't know Joey. I hoid tings. I hoid tings.
>
>Furthermore, Rush garners over 20 MILLION listeners daily...and comes on at
>noon.
>
>Why not listen to him for about a week or two, and then tell me how you
>feel?
Almost never. Not since 94, as far as listening to whole shows or anything. He
is ignorant of so many things that he bores me. A shill for the Republican
Party. I'd guess that 80 percent of his audience is " hip to his jive ", thinks
it has nothing better to do, anyway, hey, beats working, knows he's full of it,
and just enjoys his humor. But the naive and the young, if they take him
seriously, that's a shame. There are so many better minds out there.
( snip firearms stuff )
>> Same thing on the environment. There are MILLIONS of "right-wingers" who
>love
>> the Earth and give money and time help save it.
>
>
>Yeah? Well if I have to choose between paying $5 a gallon for gas or an
>Alaskan caribou......THAT CARIBOU IS GOING DOWN!!! ;^)
How about an Iraqi child ?
Post45
MR. PHP
wrote:
Reagan was promised a dollar-for-dollar spending offset by the Dem
controlled congress.
Surprise! He never got it.
But his tax reductions in the marginal rates did spur economic
expansion and increased payments to the treasury.
MR. PHP
wrote:
>"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
Touche
David H.
Do
> >you
> >> get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you
> >despise
> >> them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
> >
> >Oh, now you're pulling a "Tom Daschle", huh?
> >
> >The Liberals have a Doctorate in Hate Speech. And, the mainstream media
> >refuses to call them on it. Why is that?
>
> Both sides feature bizarre creatures who live and breathe venom.
Yeah, but let's see....
Liberals have:
* ABC
* NBC
* CBS
* CNN
* MSNBC
* NPR
* New York TImes
* Washington Post
* Chicago Tribune
* LA Times
* Baltimore Sun
Conservatives have:
* FOX Cable News
* Washington Times
Real equitable, huh?
David H.
Michael Noon LC
resident moron jumped in with his typical kneejerk garbage, completely
failed to address the point of my post, thereby making my point - also just
as I expected.
Mike
"Post45" <pos...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021126221443...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Dennis Shea
David H. wrote:
And every radio slot imaginable and most local newspapers and CBN and
The Wall Street Journal and the a majority of the Internet.
Not as inequitable as you think.
Charles Supha
I will point out that there are more conservative talk radio hosts than
there are liberal ones.
C.
David H.
> >
> >Yeah? Well if I have to choose between paying $5 a gallon for gas or an
> >Alaskan caribou......THAT CARIBOU IS GOING DOWN!!! ;^)
>
> How about an Iraqi child ?
>
You know, I was thinking along those lines this afternoon.
First, I was hearing the whiney Liberals *SCREAMING* that those rascally
Republicans inserted language into the Homeland Security Act...which
benefited Lilly, a drug company.
"SEE? Proof that GOP and BIG BUSNIESS always screw the little guy!", they
said.
Never let facts get in the way, however.
It is *GUARANTEED* that there will 5 DEATHS for every 100,000 or 1 Million
vaccines given under the proposed mandatory smallpox vaccination program.
Five humans will have that serious a side-effect. Nothing can change that.
If you owned a Drug Company, and the United States of America needs you to
manufacture smallpox serum, but you could get sued into bankruptcy by a
wrongful death suit.....would you still sign the contract with the
government to provide the vaccine?
They needed to cap punitive damages.
So, I'm thinking that the government is admitting that thousands of
Americans are going to die getting the vaccine.
Some die to save many.
Are they victims of the War on Terrorism, just like the *INNOCENT* victims
of the WTC on 9-11?
By extension, surely.
Now, ask me about that Iraqi child?
Blame Saddam for any Iraqi lives lost when the shooting starts.
And, if he holds true to form, he will kill hundreds of thousands with
chemicals....in an attempt to get to American soldiers.
But, it's all about the oil. < /sarcasm >
David H.
James Gibson
Of course, anybody can make a list of a bunch of organizations showing the
other side has more when you totally leave off some of yours. I could make
a whole list including the National Review, Weekly Standard, American
Spectator, but then you could come back with the Nation, the American
Prospect, the Progressive. Any list by any one individual isn't going to
solve that.
But my question is why you left off the Wall Street Journal, one of the most
influential conservative papers (at least in the editorial seciton) and the
New York Post?
david craven
> Now, ask me about that Iraqi child?
>
> Blame Saddam for any Iraqi lives lost when the shooting starts.
So, as I understand it, your position is that its okay to kill innocent
people if someone else committed the bad act as long as you punish the bad
doer.
Okay... what if, trying to bring this back on target, Davey Rosetta, a hard
core Mike Bordick fan, decided to seek revenge on Cal Ripken's fans for "not
recognizing" Mikey's greatness. On Cal Ripken day, he explodes a bomb in
the middle of the Cal Ripken Fan Club section, killing many Oriole Fans.
He runs away screaming "death to all statlanders" As he is wearing his
"Statlander's Suck" shirt (the official shirt of the Dugoutboyz) and he
decides to run and hide in a meeting of the Dugoutboyz club. The Police,
concerned that he might kill again, pull out machine pistols and gun down
the whole meeting.
Under your theory, David Rosetta would be to blame for the loss of all of
the Dugoutboyz.
And that's the problem. Gennocide, under any and all circumstances, whether
committed by the Russians under Stalin, the German's under Hitler, the
Americans under various Indian Fighters (such as Jackson) and so forth, is
always wrong. And if society ever decides that it is morally acceptable,
even in ONE case, you have suddenly opened up Pandora's box and whole groups
of people will start running around trying to kill other groups of people.
Do we want to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people
like Sadaam? Of course. No one would ever argue to the contrary. But that
doesn't justify the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people.
Dennis Shea
David H. wrote:
> "Post45" <pos...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021126221443...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>
> You know, I was thinking along those lines this afternoon.
>
> First, I was hearing the whiney Liberals *SCREAMING* that those rascally
> Republicans inserted language into the Homeland Security Act...which
> benefited Lilly, a drug company.
>
> "SEE? Proof that GOP and BIG BUSNIESS always screw the little guy!", they
> said.
>
> Never let facts get in the way, however.
>
> It is *GUARANTEED* that there will 5 DEATHS for every 100,000 or 1 Million
> vaccines given under the proposed mandatory smallpox vaccination program.
>
> Five humans will have that serious a side-effect. Nothing can change that.
>
> If you owned a Drug Company, and the United States of America needs you to
> manufacture smallpox serum, but you could get sued into bankruptcy by a
> wrongful death suit.....would you still sign the contract with the
> government to provide the vaccine?
>
> They needed to cap punitive damages.
If this were the case, David, I might agree with you. But it's not.
Vaccine manufacturers are already protected by the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program. The Homeland Security legislation largely
protected drug companies who created preservatives for vaccines using a
mercury compound. Since use of such preservatives have been largely
discontinued because of health concerns and smallpox and anthrax
vaccines don't use the compound anyway, the provision provides little
additional protection for the future. It does provide enormous benefits
to Lilly from its past activities.
Heck, I don't even think there's much evidence for the links claimed by
those who are suing Lilly. But to see this provision as much more than
a political payback for corporate donors is incredibly naive.
nob...@junk.min.net
>And, if he holds true to form, he will kill hundreds of thousands with
>chemicals....in an attempt to get to American soldiers.
Since he wants to hold on to power, and has nothing to lose when we're
coming to get him, he probably will. Since he's not suicidal, he won't do
diddly to us if we leave him alone. He's an egomaniac, not a fool (and
he's not an Islamic fundamentalist who is willing to die for his cause.)
>But, it's all about the oil. < /sarcasm >
Why aren't we invading Syria, which supports terrorism, including al
Qaeda? Not enough oil to make it worthwhile, perhaps?
David H.
"James Gibson" <jgibso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:as3498$g4m$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
> other side has more when you totally leave off some of yours. I could
make
> a whole list including the National Review, Weekly Standard, American
> Spectator, but then you could come back with the Nation, the American
> Prospect, the Progressive. Any list by any one individual isn't going to
> solve that.
>
> But my question is why you left off the Wall Street Journal, one of the
most
> influential conservative papers (at least in the editorial seciton) and
the
> New York Post?
>
Wall Street Joural is a business rag. Of course it would lean GOP.
New York Post is a smidgen different than a tabloid, IMO.
The Big 3 Networks are Liberal....as are their cable affiliates.
So are their anchors and newswriters and management.
CNN is the epitome of Liberalism.
David H.
David H.
"Dennis Shea" <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3DE51414...@adelphia.net...
> David H. wrote:
>
> And every radio slot imaginable and most local newspapers and CBN and
> The Wall Street Journal and the a majority of the Internet.
>
> Not as inequitable as you think.
>
>
Ah! The Internet. Invented by Algore.
What you're dancing around with is the fact that *intelligent* and
*educated* people......those who, er,......*KNOW BETTER*.....use computers
and the internet.
Poor Liberals.
Sounds like a personal problem, IMO.
David H.
David H.
news:Zu8F9.3811$yy.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I will point out that there are more conservative talk radio hosts than
> there are liberal ones.
>
Yeah! Because nobody gives a cr*p what a liberal has to say.
At least nobody with money to spend.
Without listeners, there would be no advertisers. No advertisers...no radio
show.
Ann Coulter's book shoots to #1.
Sean Hannitty's book shoots to #1.
G. Gordon Liddy's Book shoots to #1.
Rush Limbaugh's Books shoot to #1.
Al Gore's Books shoot to #4,350 on the NY Times List.
Oh, that's right...I forgot.
Liberal constituents don't buy books. They can't read, perhaps?
Or, was it was because it was about "Family"?
Gore writing about the American Family? Sorry, Al, that's a Conservative's
job.
ROTF!
Liberals are so over. (in terms of having governmental power)
Not a moment too soon, either.
David H.
David H.
"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
news:as3729$qn9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:as352t$m8o$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > Now, ask me about that Iraqi child?
> >
> > Blame Saddam for any Iraqi lives lost when the shooting starts.
>
> So, as I understand it, your position is that its okay to kill innocent
> people if someone else committed the bad act as long as you punish the bad
> doer.
Well, obviously that was *THEIR* justification for dancing in the streets as
the WTC collapsed.
War is ugly. People die.
When photos are shown every night on the news and the internet in living
color, it is worse.
They firebombed Toyko and Dresden, killing thousands of civilians, but
shortening the war. Hitler and Emperor whatshisname were "punished".
>
> Okay... what if, trying to bring this back on target, Davey Rosetta, a
hard
> core Mike Bordick fan, decided to seek revenge on Cal Ripken's fans for
"not
> recognizing" Mikey's greatness. On Cal Ripken day, he explodes a bomb in
> the middle of the Cal Ripken Fan Club section, killing many Oriole Fans.
> He runs away screaming "death to all statlanders" As he is wearing his
> "Statlander's Suck" shirt (the official shirt of the Dugoutboyz) and he
> decides to run and hide in a meeting of the Dugoutboyz club. The Police,
> concerned that he might kill again, pull out machine pistols and gun down
> the whole meeting.
>
> Under your theory, David Rosetta would be to blame for the loss of all of
> the Dugoutboyz.
>
> And that's the problem. Gennocide, under any and all circumstances,
whether
> committed by the Russians under Stalin, the German's under Hitler, the
> Americans under various Indian Fighters (such as Jackson) and so forth, is
> always wrong. And if society ever decides that it is morally acceptable,
> even in ONE case, you have suddenly opened up Pandora's box and whole
groups
> of people will start running around trying to kill other groups of people.
Uh, like the Jews and the Palestinians?
Like the Serbians and the Albanians?
Like the Tutsie and Hutus?
Like the MUSLIMS and the CHRISTIANS???
You're a riot, Craven.
We are blessed with the weaponry that can antisepticially and surgically (in
a broad sense) hit a "target" with little or no risk to our military.
Kill them all and let God sort it out, IMO.
> Do we want to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people
> like Sadaam? Of course. No one would ever argue to the contrary. But
that
> doesn't justify the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people.
>
"Slaughter" is not a corrent word to use.
And, killing enemies and countries that are trying to kill us is just
nature's way of doing things. Survival of the fittest.
Good thing Reagan spent all that money on the military, huh?
Otherwise, you'd be speaking Farsi right now, if speaking at all.
David H.
David H.
news:3de557d4$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> In <as352t$m8o$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, on 11/27/02
> at 02:06 PM, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> said:
>
> >And, if he holds true to form, he will kill hundreds of thousands with
> >chemicals....in an attempt to get to American soldiers.
>
> Since he wants to hold on to power, and has nothing to lose when we're
> coming to get him, he probably will. Since he's not suicidal, he won't do
> diddly to us if we leave him alone. He's an egomaniac, not a fool (and
> he's not an Islamic fundamentalist who is willing to die for his cause.)
Oh, he's suicidal alright. Why else would he think that he could
manufacture and provide WMD to our enemies that wish to destroy our way of
life?
>
> >But, it's all about the oil. < /sarcasm >
>
> Why aren't we invading Syria, which supports terrorism, including al
> Qaeda? Not enough oil to make it worthwhile, perhaps?
>
I believe Syria has a Front-Row seat...along with Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Iran...and of course, the PLO.
They must have felt like they had balcony seats for the Afghanistan Show.
Couldn't "see" much, perhaps.
Folks, Bush told Saudi Arabia they had 90 days to cut off the funding of the
terrorists, or we would take action ourselves to do the job.
Plain talk. No ambiguity.
Bush isn't f*cking around. I voted for him.
You're welcome. ;^)
David H.
MR. PHP
wrote:
><nob...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
I have heard that the Sa'udis (The Royals) have told the radical Imams
in the Mosques and Madrassas to put a lid on the America bashing.
This is where all of the propaganda starts.
We shall see...
Gurky
> > MR. PHP writes :
>
> > Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
> government.
>
> Do you actually believe this ? If so, you don't know what the hell you are
> talking about.
>
No, actually he summed it up very well. For many years liberals have
supported tax increases and larger government involvement in the
everyday lives of Americans. Aside from "oppressive" which is a bit
over the top, he nailed it.
All one needs to do is look at liberal rhetoric over the past 30
years. From Mondales pledge to raise taxes in 1984 to the present
attempt to renege on the Bush tax cut, the Democrats have been for tax
increases and against tax cuts since JFK cut taxes in (I think) 1962.
> Do you think about the " liberals " that you hate so much every day ? Do you
> get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you despise
> them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
Strange question. Do you think about conservatives and how mean they
are everyday? Do you wake up everyday and gibber about "hate radio"?
(snipped)
> Guns and taxes DO NOT make a person an " us " or " them ". There are MILLIONS
> of "liberals" who favor tax cuts of all different types, and MILLIONS of
> liberals who would never stand for making it illegal for a law abiding citizen
> to aquire firearms.
>
This is laughable. You have very carefully chosen your words so as to
build in mountains of wiggle room. "tax cuts of all different types"
"never stand for making it illegal for a law abiding citizen
> to aquire firearms". No one has ever said that NO tax exists that a liberal might want to lower. No one has ever said that liberals would ban all guns for all people.
> Same thing on the environment. There are MILLIONS of "right-wingers" who love
> the Earth and give money and time help save it.
You are amazingly knowledgeable. Yes, there are conservatives who
respect nature and think it should be preserved. There arn't many
conservatives who can be even remotely considered "tree huggers"
however.
>
> Same thing on race. There are MILLIONS of " right wing nuts " who don't have a
> racist bone in their body and who love and respect all the races.
No, there are million of convervatives (Republicans) who respect all
races. I am not sure how "right-wing nuts" feel about it.
>
> Stop your 3rd grade pigeon holing you forgot to assign homework holier than
> thou right wing bullshit before I puke.
>
> Post45
Hmmmm.....I would think someone as enlightened as you are would want
to hear PHP's views in the spirit of inclusion and tolerance.
Gurky
Gurky
> David H. wrote:
> > Liberals have:
> >
> > * ABC
> > * NBC
> > * CBS
> > * CNN
> > * MSNBC
> > * NPR
> > * New York TImes
> > * Washington Post
> > * Chicago Tribune
> > * LA Times
> > * Baltimore Sun
> >
> > Conservatives have:
> >
> > * FOX Cable News
> > * Washington Times
> >
>
>
> And every radio slot imaginable and most local newspapers and CBN and
> The Wall Street Journal and the a majority of the Internet.
>
> Not as inequitable as you think.
I agree.
20 years ago there was a huge liberal bias in the national media. That
has greatly changed over the past 10 years.
For instance the Washington Post is far less liberal than it was
during K.Graham's era.
NBC had Rush Limbaugh on their election night coverage. And Brokaw and
Russert even treated him like one of the gang!
The NY Times is as liberal (pr more so) as the Washington Times is
conservative, and they are sometimes stunningly dishonest when
"reporting" the news.
Talk radio (where conservatives MAKE MONEY for the stations and thus
proliferate) and the internet where virtually anyone can sound off,
have pulled the old-line media back toward the center.
Gurky
Dennis Shea
Gurky wrote:
> pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote in message news:<20021126050029...@mb-bg.aol.com>...
>
>>>MR. PHP writes :
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Modern liberals demand higher taxes and a larger, more oppressive
>>>
>>government.
>>
>>Do you actually believe this ? If so, you don't know what the hell you are
>>talking about.
>>
>>
>
> No, actually he summed it up very well. For many years liberals have
> supported tax increases and larger government involvement in the
> everyday lives of Americans. Aside from "oppressive" which is a bit
> over the top, he nailed it.
If it was as simple as that, I'd vote Republican all the time.
Unfortunately, the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans that I support
is married with an oppressive social agenda that supports greater and
greater government involvement in our everyday lives. Jettison that and
you'd see a lot more people like me vote Republican regularly....of
course, it would also cost the right their most active grassroots. Ah
well, I guess I'll continue to go the polls debating which candidate is
the worst offender.
Gurky
Out of curiousity....What are you talking about?
The US does not as a matter of policy, blow up 50 innocents to get one
bad guy.
You know this. You have to. No one is so ill-informed as to think the
U.S. plans to go into Iraq and slaughter millions of innocents.
Will some innocents get hurt and killed? Yes. But not because the U.S.
plans to attack without concern for civilian lives.
You ought to hang your head in shame for even suggesting that the
United States practices genocide. Here is Merriam/Webster's definition
of the word:
GENOCIDE: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
political, or cultural group.
If even a part of your brain believes that the U.S plans genocide in
Irag, you have lost touch with reality.
Gurky
Gurky
> In <arrrjo$j8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, on 11/24/02
> at 07:41 PM, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> said:
>
> >This President is going to go down in history as the one that probably
> >saved MILLIONS of lives on both sides.
>
> I think I just pissed myself from laughing.
Time will tell.
>
> >Now, we all need Freedom from fear of certain attacks by religious
> >zealots who will surely cut off your heads on cable tv, if they could get
> >away with it.
>
> Falwell and Robertson, et al?
Oh goodness, Falwell and Robertson have not even been taken seriously
by CONSERVATIVES for 10 years. You need a new set of bogeymen. This is
the 21st Century dude!
>
> >You should get down on your knees and thank God for giving us this guy so
> >that your babies can die of old age instead of smallpox or a mushroom
> >cloud.
>
> Unless the forced smallpox vaccination kills them.
Ah. We have medical enlightenment here, I see.
>
> >They just massacred over 200 people in f*cking Nigeria....because they
> >suggested Mohammed was a ladies man and could apprieciate the
> >contestants' beauty, and probably would have chosen one for his bride.
> >(Remember, this dude married a 10 year old girl)
>
> And how many people were killed in name of Christianity over the years?
> Religious fundamentalism is evil, and not just Islamic fundamentalism.
No, religious fundamentalism is not evil. What a pathetically stupid
statement. Fundamentalism simply means strict adherance to a
particular set of beliefs and doctrines. The particular BELIEFS
determine whether there is evil involved or not. And yes several
hundred years ago some nutty people did awful things in the name of
"Christianity". They are all dead now. A few nutty people are doing
awful things in any number of places in the name of any number of
different causes, but Muslims are by far represented by the most nuts,
in the world today. Yim-yammering about people from the middle-ages
does not count for much in 2002.
>
> >Getting back to your boy, Bubba Clinton.
> >He had his chance when the towers were hit the 1st time.
>
> And had he tried anything in response, the right would have crucified him.
Uh....the first WTC attack was in 1993 when the Democrats controlled
Congress AND the presidency. "The right" was not terribly powerful
along about there, and in any case "the right" almost always supports
a stronger response (to military provocation) than the left, no matter
who is in the White House.
>
> >He allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons.
>
> Wrong, Rosetta breath.
I don't know about this but since you apparently do, show us some
proof.
> >He figured if everybody had them, then there would be a mutual "peace".
> >He somehow discounted Islamic governments financing "armies" of criminals
> >that are of the Jim Jones-HalleBop variety.
>
> And who helped Iraq when they were fighting Iran?
The U.S. Big deal. We had good reasons at that time. I had a car one
time that served me well. Then it broke down so I junked it. The U.S.
drove the perky little Saddam sedan for a few years but when it
started leaking oil badly in 1990, we parked it. Word has it that the
sporty Iran hatchback is getting a new look for 2003 and will be at a
dealer near you some time next year.
> Hint - it wasn't
> Clinton.
No, since he was Gov. of Arkansas then, his involvement in the
Iran/Iraq war was minimal.
> Who gave him tacit approval to invade Kuwait?
I don't know. Mike Bordick?
> >Buddy, if we have computers that can track every email and phone
> >conversation, cash withdrawal, you can be sure it was used in the
> >military for years.
>
> And now Ashcroft and friends will use them to further erode our civil
> rights in the name of security. Ben Franklin is rolling over in his
> grave.
Dammit! Why did you have to go and say something I agree with?
>
> >They have the verifiable proof that Hussein is planning to hand over
> >nuclear weapons and chemical weapons to al-Quada.
>
> Then we'd see some of that proof.
>
> >You can stay in the corner and suck your thumb, dreaming up theories that
> >Bush is doing this to fatten his wallet.
>
> Yeah, oil has nothing to do with this.
No, oil does have something to do with it, and rightly so. We need the
stuff. A lot of it. Big deal, can't you find a new rock to roll over?
>
> >I'll remember that one-third of the Colonists didn't want to fight
> >England for their Independence.
>
> >You know them. They are your ancestors. The original Liberals.
>
> Sorry, pal - it's conservatives that don't like change.
>
>
> Alan
Actaully it switches back and forth from era to era. Right now it is
the liberals who are kicking and screaming to leave everything just
the way Granddaddy LBJ left it.
Gurky
Gurky
> Bush has been "bushwacked" in his pursuit of all things oil. He
> is so in over his head.
At least it's his head and not an intern's.
Gurky
nob...@junk.min.net
>Ann Coulter's book shoots to #1.
>Sean Hannitty's book shoots to #1.
>G. Gordon Liddy's Book shoots to #1.
>Rush Limbaugh's Books shoot to #1.
Good fiction sells. What's new about that?
john smith
"Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fe47b61.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Out of curiousity....What are you talking about?
>
> The US does not as a matter of policy, blow up 50 innocents to get one
> bad guy.
No. They don't. And that is a good thing. However, some Americans are
advocating Genocide. Like the Poster to whom I directed this reply....
> You know this. You have to. No one is so ill-informed as to think the
> U.S. plans to go into Iraq and slaughter millions of innocents.
No. I don't think that the US does intend to do this. But some posters on
this usenet group want to do this. They have suggested that the complete
elmination of all members of the Muslim religion would be acceptable. And
that is Genocide and that is clearly NOT acceptable....
> You ought to hang your head in shame for even suggesting that the
> United States practices genocide. Here is Merriam/Webster's definition
> of the word:
No. The other posters should hang their heads for proposing Genocide.
MR. PHP
ROFLMAO
MR. PHP
>In <as49oc$nqk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, on 11/28/02
> at 12:32 AM, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> said:
>
>>Ann Coulter's book shoots to #1.
>>Sean Hannitty's book shoots to #1.
>>G. Gordon Liddy's Book shoots to #1.
>>Rush Limbaugh's Books shoot to #1.
>
>Good fiction sells. What's new about that?
>
>
>Alan
Al Gore's new book started at 500,000 and then tapered off.
It is, I'm sure, #1 on Ted Kozinski's reading list.
Then again, needs books when you invented the internet.
Maybe fiction doesn't sell so well after all.
MR. PHP
Very true! (and well spoken)
And it really pisses the liberals off to no end!
Thus, you have Daschle, et al, screaming about bias in the media.
LOL! The lack of complete control of the media equals bias....
What is really funny is that they can't seem to adapt.
They resort to their old "tried-and-true" methods of name-calling.
If you disagree with their political ideas you are a "racist" or a
"bigot" or worse.
Daschle tried to equate Rush Limbaugh to Osama and other Islamists
rads!
ROFLMAO!!!
What is really frightening is that some libs really think that Rush is
equally, or maybe even more dangerous, as an American conservative
than the the radical Islamists who seek to kill any Jew or American
that they can find in order to take over the world.
Even the liberal media had to scoff at that idea.
GLS
>nob...@junk.min.net wrote in message news:<3de40760$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com>...
>>
>> Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>
>Oh goodness, Falwell and Robertson have not even been taken seriously
>by CONSERVATIVES for 10 years. You need a new set of bogeymen. This is
>the 21st Century dude!
Need a handy bogeyman? Just dredge up Gingrich or Falwell or
Robertson or Goldwater or McCarthy or or .......
Sort of like saying the Orioles are a home run threat because they
have Albert Belle on the 40 man roster.
===================================================================
Dennis Shea
GLS wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2002 14:20:57 -0800, gurk...@yahoo.com (Gurky) wrote:
>
>
>>nob...@junk.min.net wrote in message news:<3de40760$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com>...
>>
>
>>>Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>>>
>>Oh goodness, Falwell and Robertson have not even been taken seriously
>>by CONSERVATIVES for 10 years. You need a new set of bogeymen. This is
>>the 21st Century dude!
>>
>
> Need a handy bogeyman? Just dredge up Gingrich or Falwell or
> Robertson or Goldwater or McCarthy or or .......
>
> Sort of like saying the Orioles are a home run threat because they
> have Albert Belle on the 40 man roster.
To deny that Falwell and Robertson are influential elements among a
vital base of the Republican party is ludicrous.
But really, who needs those bogeyman when the party provides such
convenient ones as Armey, Delay, Pitts, Dobson, Chenowith, Burton, and
the rest of the supporters of the "Values" Action Team?
Michael Noon LC
Methinks you are just jealous. Wassa matta? Ain't gettin any?
Since you brought that history up; Why is it that the fact that Clinton got
a BJ so overwhelmingly important to your view of leadership, but Bush's
going AWOL, drug use, and myriad other illegal and unethical business
dealing just don't matter.
Face it, Clinton was simply everything you hated about successful guys when
you were growing up. He was smarter than you, better looking than you, more
popular with girls than you, worked harder, and achieved more than you could
ever hope to, and much to your chagrin -got elected TWICE. Deal with it.
He's gone, and we now have a simp "in charge" that Average Joe morons can
identify with. Whoop-the f****-eeee.
Mike
David H.
"Michael Noon LC" <michae...@toad.net> wrote in message
news:hw6G9.7$fD.1...@news.abs.net...
> "Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3fe47b61.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike Noon LC" <palin...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:<uu2jcur...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > > Bush has been "bushwacked" in his pursuit of all things oil. He
> > > is so in over his head.
> >
> > At least it's his head and not an intern's.
> >
> > Gurky
>
> Methinks you are just jealous. Wassa matta? Ain't gettin any?
>
> Since you brought that history up; Why is it that the fact that Clinton
got
> a BJ so overwhelmingly important to your view of leadership, but Bush's
> going AWOL, drug use, and myriad other illegal and unethical business
> dealing just don't matter.
I'll bite, asswipe.
If you want to compare the two guys in terms of sheer sleaze and lack of
character, Mr. Clinton earns a Doctorate, and could teach the class.
That lowered the bar whereby any charges of cocaine use during college days
couldn't stick....to anyone.
Clinton has raped and battered women, and because he earned his Presidential
stripes, they wouldn't dare touch him.
The voters know this. How you can't grasp it however, is no mystery.
>
> Face it, Clinton was simply everything you hated about successful guys
when
> you were growing up. He was smarter than you, better looking than you,
more
> popular with girls than you, worked harder, and achieved more than you
could
> ever hope to, and much to your chagrin -got elected TWICE. Deal with it.
> He's gone, and we now have a simp "in charge" that Average Joe morons can
> identify with. Whoop-the f****-eeee.
Another classic example of how a whiney liberal puke will initate ad hominem
attacks on somebody making a statement, rather than debating the validity of
the statement.
And, you don't get into Yale being a dunce.
I don't care whom your parents are.
David H.
nob...@junk.min.net
11/30/02
>What is really funny is that they can't seem to adapt.
>They resort to their old "tried-and-true" methods of name-calling. If you
>disagree with their political ideas you are a "racist" or a "bigot" or
>worse.
And if you disagree with Bush, his mouthpieces call you a traitor. What's
the difference?
Gurky
I get all I want. I am happily married.
> Since you brought that history up; Why is it that the fact that Clinton got
> a BJ so overwhelmingly important to your view of leadership, but Bush's
> going AWOL, drug use, and myriad other illegal and unethical business
> dealing just don't matter.
Granting your assertions about Bush, maybe the difference is that
Clinton's "BJ" happened while he was on the clock and in public
housing.
> Face it, Clinton was simply everything you hated about successful guys when
> you were growing up.
No, not really.
> He was smarter than you,
Not smarter. Much better politician though.
> better looking than you,
Probably, but I think he actually has a Pillsbury DoughBoy look about
him.
> more
> popular with girls than you,
Well.....I don't know. After all he married HILLARY!
> worked harder, and achieved more than you could
> ever hope to,
I will grant that my chances of becoming President are not as great I
would wish them to be.
> and much to your chagrin -got elected TWICE. Deal with it.
LOL
Take your own advice and DEAL WITH the fact that Billy Boy is old new
and that there is a new boss on the range.
> He's gone, and we now have a simp "in charge" that Average Joe morons can
> identify with. Whoop-the f****-eeee.
> Mike
hee hee
Poor George W. He must lay awake at night, fretting with the knowledge
that people like you don't approve of him.
Gurky
PS: I greatly admire Bill Clinton's political ability and his ability
to get what he wanted out of people. Or in them, as the case may be.
Gurky
We are not disagreeing here as far as I can see. Obviously taxes and
government meddling are only two issues out of hundreds that separate
the two parties.
Gurky
Gurky
> "Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3fe47b61.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > Out of curiousity....What are you talking about?
> >
> > The US does not as a matter of policy, blow up 50 innocents to get one
> > bad guy.
>
> No. They don't. And that is a good thing. However, some Americans are
> advocating Genocide. Like the Poster to whom I directed this reply....
Am I to infer that "John Smith" and "David Craven" are one in the
same?
In any case the original poster did no such thing, or if he did I
missed it.
(snipped)
> No. The other posters should hang their heads for proposing Genocide.
They didn't propose genocide. They suggested that if some Iraqi
innocents gets killed that is a natural and generally unavoidable
by-product of war.
The U.S. killed hundreds of thousands (probably millions if you count
cancer and other maladies) in Japan, but we did not commit or practice
genocide in so doing.
A hundred or even 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths does not come within
shouting distance of unusual, much less genocide.
Gurky
David H.
>
> A hundred or even 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths does not come within
> shouting distance of unusual, much less genocide.
>
Furthermore, the US military is dropping tens of thousands of leaflets,
warning the Iraq soldier AND civilian not to fire upon any US or British
aircraft, and to stay inside their homes if the shooting starts.
It has been discovered that the typical Iraqi citizen outside of Baghdad
doesn't know about the WTC bombings....as radio is more prevelant than
television. (Why they need TV to get that message out, they declined to
state)
IOW, our military is taking great strides in warning the Iraqis that they
better not get in the way of our goal of getting Saddam.
David H.
GLS
wrote:
Then there's the other side of the coin. Democrats have Barbra
Streisand, Al Gore, Je$$e Jaâ–Ž$on, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, James
Carville, Paul Begala, Sen. Ms. Hillary Rodham-Clinton-Rodham
(and Bill), the Baldwin brothers, Madame Pelosi. There is no shortage
on either side. These, by the way, are supporters of the "No Values"
Action Team.
===================================================================
Catfish
> > And every radio slot imaginable and most local newspapers and CBN and
> > The Wall Street Journal and the a majority of the Internet.
> >
> > Not as inequitable as you think.
>
> I agree.
>
> 20 years ago there was a huge liberal bias in the national media. That
> has greatly changed over the past 10 years.
>
> For instance the Washington Post is far less liberal than it was
> during K.Graham's era.
>
> NBC had Rush Limbaugh on their election night coverage. And Brokaw and
> Russert even treated him like one of the gang!
>
> The NY Times is as liberal (pr more so) as the Washington Times is
> conservative, and they are sometimes stunningly dishonest when
> "reporting" the news.
>
> Talk radio (where conservatives MAKE MONEY for the stations and thus
> proliferate) and the internet where virtually anyone can sound off,
> have pulled the old-line media back toward the center.
A few points:
1) Although the number of outlets for "conservative" news organizations have
increased, their reach is still relatively small.
Looking at where Americans go for broadcast network news, on this last
election night, NBC, CBS and ABC had a combined 26 million viewers to Fox
News 2.7. CNN had an additional 2.5 million viewers. About 90% of the
audience was tuned into outlets with the "liberal" skew.
The New York Times is a national paper, reaching an average of 1.74 million
homes in March 2002. The Washington Post is also has national reach, with a
circulation of 750,000. The LA Times reaches 1.1 Million homes.
The Washington Times just recently celebrated breaking 100,000 in
circulation, and breaking (barely) into the top 100 newspapers in the US.
Talk radio does not reach a huge listenership. The self-proclained King,
Rush, claims "20 million weekly". If you take his statement at face value,
it sound like a lot, but boils down to 4 million people a day who listen to
a part of his show. Audience numbers for local talk radio shows are
miniscule. They survive because of the low cost production values, not
because of ratings impact.
2) and speaking of talk radio, the small amount I have been exposed to-Ron
Smith (conservative), Bruce Elliot (conservative), Alan Prell (liberal) and
Chip Franklin (moderate) in the Baltimore area-clearly label themselves as
editorial opinion, not news outlets. Further, although clearly conservative
in viewpoint, they are far from being monolithic in opinion. Smith, for
example, is a vehement opponent of any military action against Iraq.
David H.
news:dQydnRBtEpE...@comcast.com...
>
> "Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3fe47b61.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > > And every radio slot imaginable and most local newspapers and CBN and
> > > The Wall Street Journal and the a majority of the Internet.
> > >
> > > Not as inequitable as you think.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > 20 years ago there was a huge liberal bias in the national media. That
> > has greatly changed over the past 10 years.
> >
> > For instance the Washington Post is far less liberal than it was
> > during K.Graham's era.
Whoopie-f*ckin-doo!
To say the Washington Post isn't a mouthpiece of the Liberal Elite destroys
any credibility you may claim.
> >
> > NBC had Rush Limbaugh on their election night coverage. And Brokaw and
> > Russert even treated him like one of the gang!
Other than Tim Russert interviewing Rush every Thanksgiving, he is a flaming
Liberal.
I invite you to read the interview he had with Hillary Clinton recently.
He practically French-kissed her raggedy ass.
And having Rush Limbaugh on election night was a calculated risk. The
Liberals didn't know they were going to get such a drubbing.
The irony is that and having Tommy Dasshole pitch a fit about Conservative
media has only made his spotlight brighter, IMO.
> >
> > The NY Times is as liberal (pr more so) as the Washington Times is
> > conservative, and they are sometimes stunningly dishonest when
> > "reporting" the news.
The NYT, yes.
DAvid H.
Dennis Shea
Catfish wrote:
> A few points:
>
> 1) Although the number of outlets for "conservative" news organizations have
> increased, their reach is still relatively small.
> Looking at where Americans go for broadcast network news, on this last
> election night, NBC, CBS and ABC had a combined 26 million viewers to Fox
> News 2.7. CNN had an additional 2.5 million viewers. About 90% of the
> audience was tuned into outlets with the "liberal" skew.
> The New York Times is a national paper, reaching an average of 1.74 million
> homes in March 2002. The Washington Post is also has national reach, with a
> circulation of 750,000. The LA Times reaches 1.1 Million homes.
> The Washington Times just recently celebrated breaking 100,000 in
> circulation, and breaking (barely) into the top 100 newspapers in the US.
> Talk radio does not reach a huge listenership. The self-proclained King,
> Rush, claims "20 million weekly". If you take his statement at face value,
> it sound like a lot, but boils down to 4 million people a day who listen to
> a part of his show. Audience numbers for local talk radio shows are
> miniscule. They survive because of the low cost production values, not
> because of ratings impact.
Seems to me the market has spoken about the type of news it wants, then, eh?
david craven
"Catfish" <mdduff@nospamforme> wrote in message
news:dQydnRBtEpE...@comcast.com...
> The New York Times is a national paper, reaching an average of 1.74
million
> homes in March 2002. The Washington Post is also has national reach, with
a
> circulation of 750,000. The LA Times reaches 1.1 Million homes.
> The Washington Times just recently celebrated breaking 100,000 in
> circulation, and breaking (barely) into the top 100 newspapers in the US.
Of course, you leave out several "Big" Conservative Papers. The Chicago
Tribune, for example, has not endorsed a Democrat for ANY major Office for
many many years. And it is a very widely circulated, influential paper.
(Arguably more so than the LA Times). Or the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the
St. Louis Post Dispatch... or any one of many very conservative Regional
Papers...
nob...@junk.min.net
Post45
>>pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>> ( originally to Mr PHP, not Gurky )
>> Do you think about the " liberals " that you hate so much every day ? Do
>you
>> get up in the morning and right away start thinking about how much you
>despise
>> them, or must you first listen to a little hate radio to get going ?
>Strange question. Do you think about conservatives and how mean they
>are everyday? Do you wake up everyday and gibber about "hate radio"?
I don't think about it all, because I'm too burned out to listen. In a
pre-caffeine haze at 5am I click on asbo and read posts about how all
"liberals" want more oppressive gov't and how liberals should "all be arrested
and made accountable for their crimes ". It seems obvious that the authors of
these type posts get their inspiration from hate radio and food fight TV.
I don't call hate radio hate radio as do others to single out conservatives as
haters. I call it that because that's what is. It is the same litany from the
right OR the left about " these people " "out there " who blah blah blah. It's
designed to agitate and outrage and attempts to make you hate people you don't
even know, and to vote accordingly. My distaste for much of talk radio and hate
TV is more the level of discourse and format than the politics.
Post45
David H.
"Post45" <pos...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021204205726...@mb-fd.aol.com...
You're full of sh*t.
For decades the Left, with all their "Establishment Media" (Clinton's words,
not mine) have ravaged the Conservative.
And, with no "voice" or conduit to the bully pulpit, by the time it was read
by Dan Rather in the evening, it was Front Page News.
Now, it's intercepted, by the internet, talk-radio and FNC...to the point
that by 10PM, their lying and B.S. (Barbra Streisand) is stripped naked for
the average voter to see.
Liberals hate America.
Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live without
government intervention.
Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
Where is the Democartic version of Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell?
Their ain't none, because they don't believe their is any one worthy.
Has to be.....or else you can argue that they at the top are a bunch of
Racists.
David H.
Gurky
> I don't think about it all, because I'm too burned out to listen. In a
> pre-caffeine haze at 5am I click on asbo and read posts about how all
> "liberals" want more oppressive gov't and how liberals should "all be arrested
> and made accountable for their crimes ". It seems obvious that the authors of
> these type posts get their inspiration from hate radio and food fight TV.
>
> I don't call hate radio hate radio as do others to single out conservatives as
> haters. I call it that because that's what is. It is the same litany from the
> right OR the left about " these people " "out there " who blah blah blah. It's
> designed to agitate and outrage and attempts to make you hate people you don't
> even know, and to vote accordingly. My distaste for much of talk radio and hate
> TV is more the level of discourse and format than the politics.
>
> Post45
Well, if what you want is a kinder, gentler nation, that is fine as
long as everyone the world over will go along.
Yes, I dislike the Jerry Springer's of this world, but Rush Limbaugh
is not Jerry Springer. I agree with 95% of what Rush says in terms of
policy, but I don't listen to him except on rare occasions because I
find him over-bearing, repetitive, and simplistic. However, I don't
find him to be driven by hate or a desire to harm other people. I
certainly don't recall ever hearing him incite anyone to violence.
What you are uncomfortable with though is democracy. Everyone has the
right to state their views irrespective of whether you approve of
their tone when they do so.
nob...@junk.min.net
>You're full of sh*t.
Takes one to know one, eh?
>Liberals hate America.
Conservatives hate America.
>Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live without
>government intervention.
Conservatives are for a Christian theocracy.
Gee, aren't generalizations fun?
>Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
>homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
No special interest groups on the conservative side, right?
Pete Foosis
wrote:
Dan Rather, if we're to buy into this Anne Coulter bullshit, may slant
his news to the left, but he does not drill his opinions into people's
heads lake political talk radio hosts.
>
>Now, it's intercepted, by the internet, talk-radio and FNC...to the point
>that by 10PM, their lying and B.S. (Barbra Streisand) is stripped naked for
>the average voter to see.
>
>Liberals hate America.
No, jackass, they do not. Certain left wing EXTREMISTS do, but then
again so do certain right wing extremists.
>
>Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live without
>government intervention.
That might be, in too many cases, the end result, but it's hardly the
goal. Short-sighted, perhaps. An evil 1984-esque scheme to control
the lives of the people, probably not.
>
>Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
>homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
Are you saying that these people can't live without gov't
intervention? Or are you just all over the place as usual? And when
did trial lawyers all become liberals? And why does the NAACP get
singled out for special attention?
>
>Where is the Democartic version of Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell?
Do ya mean coloreds?
>Their ain't none, because they don't believe their is any one worthy.
Nice. Twice in one sentence misspelling the same word.
>
>Has to be.....or else you can argue that they at the top are a bunch of
>Racists.
Wowee. Now I know why they did that whole ridiculous "Party of
Inclusion" makeover: because some people are deluded enough to fall
for it.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>
>
Or so the Jew communists who control the media would have you
believe...
David Marc Nieporent
Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>>You're full of sh*t.
>>For decades the Left, with all their "Establishment Media" (Clinton's words,
>>not mine) have ravaged the Conservative.
>>And, with no "voice" or conduit to the bully pulpit, by the time it was read
>>by Dan Rather in the evening, it was Front Page News.
>Dan Rather, if we're to buy into this Anne Coulter bullshit, may slant
>his news to the left, but he does not drill his opinions into people's
>heads lake political talk radio hosts.
I really don't want to get involved in this pissing match, particularly one
involving Hageman, the man who could turn a debate about fixing potholes
into a war, but you're missing the point here.
Political talk radio hosts are expressing opinions openly. Dan Rather is
expressing opinions under the guise of objectivity. Talk show hosts don't
convince people; they entertain people who are already convinced. People
watch the news to get news, though.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David H.
news:ses0vuk783p9506eg...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:21:55 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >You're full of sh*t.
> >
> >For decades the Left, with all their "Establishment Media" (Clinton's
words,
> >not mine) have ravaged the Conservative.
> >
> >And, with no "voice" or conduit to the bully pulpit, by the time it was
read
> >by Dan Rather in the evening, it was Front Page News.
>
> Dan Rather, if we're to buy into this Anne Coulter bullshit, may slant
> his news to the left, but he does not drill his opinions into people's
> heads lake political talk radio hosts.
There is a difference between a Network News Anchor and a Radio Talk-Show
Host. You know that, don't you?
> >
> >Now, it's intercepted, by the internet, talk-radio and FNC...to the point
> >that by 10PM, their lying and B.S. (Barbra Streisand) is stripped naked
for
> >the average voter to see.
> >
> >Liberals hate America.
>
> No, jackass, they do not. Certain left wing EXTREMISTS do, but then
> again so do certain right wing extremists.
BUT....just like the radical Islamists are not condemned by the majority of
Muslims...thereby justifying all the bad things about to happen to them,
the Left Wing Extremists are doing the same thing to the Democratic Party.
They are sleepwalking toward political suicide.
If you try to defend them.....as you are inclined to do all the time, then
you're against us.
"Us" who believe in a strong military.
To defend us from these fanatics and their money and weapons suppliers.
Bush could be literally saving Western Civilization right now.
Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would control the Middle East oil flow.
Because certain Left Wing Extremists had the Democratic Party Leadership's
ear, there has been no drilling for oil in OUR OWN ALASKA.
Now, follow me here, Pete.
Over 40% of new immigration into Western Europe are Muslim.
Their governments are two generations away from oblivion....if they keep
going down the Socialist-Welfare road. Germany and France are goners.
And, if Mr. Gore was in the White House right now, what do you think would
be happening right about now?
You could be dying or already dead of smallpox or sarin gas.
For me voting for Bush, you should blow me in Nordstrom's window. ;^)
>
> >
> >Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live without
> >government intervention.
>
> That might be, in too many cases, the end result, but it's hardly the
> goal. Short-sighted, perhaps. An evil 1984-esque scheme to control
> the lives of the people, probably not.
You don't sound confidant, Pete! ;^)
Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms? And, that sum'bitch died when the
prosecutors were ready to make a deal.
Explain why Left Pelosi and Hillary Clinton voted against welfare reform.
There are 50% less people on welfare today than when the bill was signed.
Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.
If I don't work, some people are short money to feed their families.
They are paying taxes instead of being on welfare.
>
> >
> >Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
> >homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
>
> Are you saying that these people can't live without gov't
> intervention? Or are you just all over the place as usual? And when
> did trial lawyers all become liberals? And why does the NAACP get
> singled out for special attention?
>
> >
> >Where is the Democartic version of Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell?
>
> Do ya mean coloreds?
Typcial response. Getting ready to accuse me of being a Racist once again?
Answer the f*cking question.
WHERE ARE THEY??
Trial lawyers are against tort reform. End of story.
And, don't try and say it's the same thing as if somebody wanted to place a
limit on what I can charge to sell a home....or putting a cap on MLB.
That's not even the same sport.
>
> >Their ain't none, because they don't believe their is any one worthy.
>
> Nice. Twice in one sentence misspelling the same word.
Yeah, I apologize for that.
I've been trying very hard to proof read before I hit "send", and I
re-format a lot of my sentences.
I'm quite aware that "their" is the possessive.
Okay, THERE?
>
> >
> >Has to be.....or else you can argue that they at the top are a bunch of
> >Racists.
>
> Wowee. Now I know why they did that whole ridiculous "Party of
> Inclusion" makeover: because some people are deluded enough to fall
> for it.
Who's "they"? Please explain?
David H.
David H.
news:nieporen-8959AE...@news-east.giganews.com...
Thanks, David. No argument here. ;^)
David H.
David Marc Nieporent
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
>Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms? And, that sum'bitch died when the
>prosecutors were ready to make a deal.
Togo West says hello, Hageman. If you're going to recycle talking points
from talk radio, could you make the least effort to find out whether the
people you hear these things from know what the hell they're talking about?
David H.
> In article <asqcm7$292$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
> >Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms? And, that sum'bitch died when
the
> >prosecutors were ready to make a deal.
>
> Togo West says hello, Hageman. If you're going to recycle talking points
> from talk radio, could you make the least effort to find out whether the
> people you hear these things from know what the hell they're talking
about?
>
Okay, I meant "highest appointed official", when referring to Brown.
And, they had him by the balls....Brown, that is. They were circling like
vultures over a cadaver.
I've kept the tinfoil hat off....to a degree.
Some people say that there are autopsy photos showing a bullet hole in his
skull.
But, yes, it could have been something else in the fuselage.....like a
ballpeen hammer, perhaps. ;^)
David H.
David H.
David Marc Nieporent
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> >Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
>> >Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms? And, that sum'bitch died when the
>> >prosecutors were ready to make a deal.
>> Togo West says hello, Hageman. If you're going to recycle talking points
>> from talk radio, could you make the least effort to find out whether the
>> people you hear these things from know what the hell they're talking about?
>Okay, I meant "highest appointed official", when referring to Brown.
No, you didn't. That makes no sense. "Explain why Ron Brown was the only
African-American highest appointed official." Only one person can be the
highest anything, and Brown wasn't the highest anything. He and West were
of equal rank: Cabinet Secretary.
Pete Foosis
My point is that Dan Rather's politics are barely noticeable. I try
to avoid watching him, but I've watched him enough and I'm not sure
I'd consider him a liberal if I hadn't heard him thus branded.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ses0vuk783p9506eg...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:21:55 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >You're full of sh*t.
>> >
>> >For decades the Left, with all their "Establishment Media" (Clinton's
>words,
>> >not mine) have ravaged the Conservative.
>> >
>> >And, with no "voice" or conduit to the bully pulpit, by the time it was
>read
>> >by Dan Rather in the evening, it was Front Page News.
>>
>> Dan Rather, if we're to buy into this Anne Coulter bullshit, may slant
>> his news to the left, but he does not drill his opinions into people's
>> heads lake political talk radio hosts.
>
>There is a difference between a Network News Anchor and a Radio Talk-Show
>Host. You know that, don't you?
Yes.
>
>> >
>> >Now, it's intercepted, by the internet, talk-radio and FNC...to the point
>> >that by 10PM, their lying and B.S. (Barbra Streisand) is stripped naked
>for
>> >the average voter to see.
>> >
>> >Liberals hate America.
>>
>> No, jackass, they do not. Certain left wing EXTREMISTS do, but then
>> again so do certain right wing extremists.
>
>BUT....just like the radical Islamists are not condemned by the majority of
>Muslims...thereby justifying all the bad things about to happen to them,
>the Left Wing Extremists are doing the same thing to the Democratic Party.
And right wing extremists do the same thing to the Republican Party.
But you will never see this, because you're a person who can't even
see that hitting's as important as pitching.
>
>They are sleepwalking toward political suicide.
Fine. There's no way you're right, but if the death of the Democratic
Party is what matters to, and you believe it's happening, then good
for you.
>
>If you try to defend them.....as you are inclined to do all the time, then
>you're against us.
Consider that "us" only constitutes you and a handful of whackos in
places like Montana and Michigan, then fine, I'm against you.
>
>"Us" who believe in a strong military.
>To defend us from these fanatics and their money and weapons suppliers.
I believe in a strong military, too.
>
>Bush could be literally saving Western Civilization right now.
From what? From a few thousand suicide bombers? You think you love
America more than anyone else, but you have so little faith in it to
think that America, let alone all of the Western world, could actually
be toppled by these glorified saboteurs.
>
>Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would control the Middle East oil flow.
Perhaps. Of course, there's no evidence that he's close to having
nuclear weapons.
>
>Because certain Left Wing Extremists had the Democratic Party Leadership's
>ear, there has been no drilling for oil in OUR OWN ALASKA.
And because certain right wing extremists are married to the oil
industry, there's been little effort to come up with alternative
energy sources.
>
>Now, follow me here, Pete.
>
>Over 40% of new immigration into Western Europe are Muslim.
Your point?
>
>Their governments are two generations away from oblivion....if they keep
>going down the Socialist-Welfare road. Germany and France are goners.
What are you basing this on?
>
>And, if Mr. Gore was in the White House right now, what do you think would
>be happening right about now?
Pretty much what's happening now, though I'd expect he'd be more
focussed on al Qaida than on Iraq at this stage. And we'd be doing a
much better job of helping build Afghanistan into a model for the rest
of the region.
>
>You could be dying or already dead of smallpox or sarin gas.
Right.
>
>For me voting for Bush, you should blow me in Nordstrom's window. ;^)
No thanks.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live without
>> >government intervention.
>>
>> That might be, in too many cases, the end result, but it's hardly the
>> goal. Short-sighted, perhaps. An evil 1984-esque scheme to control
>> the lives of the people, probably not.
>
>You don't sound confidant, Pete! ;^)
Confident about what? Are you talking about "probably not"? I was
being ironic.
>
>Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
>Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms?
Because he was Clinton's only African American cabinet member. What's
so hard to understand? What's the scandal?
>And, that sum'bitch died when the
>prosecutors were ready to make a deal.
Please leave the crackpot conspiracy theories for more appropriate
places, like St. Elizabeth's.
>
>Explain why Left Pelosi and Hillary Clinton voted against welfare reform.
I don't know. They didn't consult me.
>There are 50% less people on welfare today than when the bill was signed.
Good. I was for it.
>Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.
>
>If I don't work, some people are short money to feed their families.
>
>They are paying taxes instead of being on welfare.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
>> >homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
>>
>> Are you saying that these people can't live without gov't
>> intervention? Or are you just all over the place as usual? And when
>> did trial lawyers all become liberals? And why does the NAACP get
>> singled out for special attention?
>>
>> >
>> >Where is the Democartic version of Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell?
>>
>> Do ya mean coloreds?
>
>Typcial response. Getting ready to accuse me of being a Racist once again?
That is what you meant, though. It's a pretty dim point, and I'm
surprised that someone like you would be for racial quotas.
>
>Answer the f*cking question.
>WHERE ARE THEY??
WHO? No, genius, you're right--there's no current black
Democrat-appointed Sec. of State. You're fucking brilliant.
>
>Trial lawyers are against tort reform. End of story.
How does that make them all liberals? Couldn't they just be motivated
by greed?
>
>And, don't try and say it's the same thing as if somebody wanted to place a
>limit on what I can charge to sell a home....or putting a cap on MLB.
I wouldn't, because it's not.
>
>That's not even the same sport.
>
>>
>> >Their ain't none, because they don't believe their is any one worthy.
>>
>> Nice. Twice in one sentence misspelling the same word.
>
>Yeah, I apologize for that.
>
>I've been trying very hard to proof read before I hit "send", and I
>re-format a lot of my sentences.
>I'm quite aware that "their" is the possessive.
>Okay, THERE?
No. It's too late for apologies.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Has to be.....or else you can argue that they at the top are a bunch of
>> >Racists.
>>
>> Wowee. Now I know why they did that whole ridiculous "Party of
>> Inclusion" makeover: because some people are deluded enough to fall
>> for it.
>
>Who's "they"? Please explain?
The Republican Party.
Gurky
(snipped)
> But really, who needs those bogeyman when the party provides such
> convenient ones as Armey, Delay, Pitts, Dobson, Chenowith, Burton, and
> the rest of the supporters of the "Values" Action Team?
Here is part of what your first mentioned bogeyman, Dick Armey, had to
say today:
"Now, I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be safe if we have a
cop on every corner. We will be safe if we have a spy camera in every
hall. We'll at least be safer. We will be safer if we have an
elaborate system by which we, in the ordinary business of life, spy on
one another and report it to the proper authorities. We will probably
be safer if we have a national identification card. We may be safer,
in fact, if we could snoop on the Internet and read everybody's
e-mail.
"There are many authorities that we can extend to the government of
this country that'll make us safer. But will we be free?
"We seek a balance on this. We worked hard on that with the PATRIOT
Act. We worked hard on that with homeland security. And I think in
terms of the law that has been written, we've cut a fine line that
respects our freedom in the interest of our safety.
"But our freedom will only last through the implementation of these
laws. And once again we are restored to that oldest adage: The price
of freedom is eternal vigilance.
"We, the people, had better keep an eye on we, the people; that is,
our government. Not out of contempt or lack of appreciation or
disrespect, but out of a sense of guardianship. How do you use these
tools we have given you to make us safe in such a manner that'll
preserve our freedom?
"That is a duty to our very essence as a nation. Who we are, what is
it about us that has set us apart in the history of the world is our
love for freedom.
"As I said earlier, freedom is no policy for the timid. And my
plaintive plea to all my colleagues that remain in this government as
I leave it is, for your sake, for my sake, for heaven's sake, don't
give up on freedom."
Scary stuff.
Gurky
Stephen Mack
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Political talk radio hosts are expressing opinions openly. Dan Rather is
> >expressing opinions under the guise of objectivity. Talk show hosts don't
> >convince people; they entertain people who are already convinced. People
> >watch the news to get news, though.
>
> My point is that Dan Rather's politics are barely noticeable. I try
> to avoid watching him, but I've watched him enough and I'm not sure
> I'd consider him a liberal if I hadn't heard him thus branded.
Politics in "objective" news reporting typically manifests itself in
what is or is not reported, and it happens on all sides of every issue.
It's not necessarily something that one would notice unless one knew
what isn't being reported, or what is being given inappropriate weight.
Of course, as far as I know, Dan Rather just reports what he's told to
report, so - not having watched him with any consistency - I'm not sure
what the accusations are referring to.
And then there's just poor research, as reflected by the media that is
still claiming that the 2000 election was the most controversial
presidential election in US history.
--
Smack
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." -Publius Terentius Afer
David Marc Nieporent
>> >Political talk radio hosts are expressing opinions openly. Dan Rather is
>> >expressing opinions under the guise of objectivity. Talk show hosts don't
>> >convince people; they entertain people who are already convinced. People
>> >watch the news to get news, though.
>> My point is that Dan Rather's politics are barely noticeable. I try
>> to avoid watching him, but I've watched him enough and I'm not sure
>> I'd consider him a liberal if I hadn't heard him thus branded.
>Politics in "objective" news reporting typically manifests itself in
>what is or is not reported, and it happens on all sides of every issue.
>It's not necessarily something that one would notice unless one knew
>what isn't being reported, or what is being given inappropriate weight.
It also has to do with framing. If you report a story as "Here's a
problem. What can the government do about it?" then you're implying that
the government _should_ be doing something about it.
>Of course, as far as I know, Dan Rather just reports what he's told to
>report, so - not having watched him with any consistency - I'm not sure
>what the accusations are referring to.
Rather definitely sets the agenda of his own show. For instance, he
refused to report on the Chandra Levy story, because it offended his
sensibilities. We're not talking the 11 o'clock news here; the anchor of
the network news show has a ton of power.
>And then there's just poor research, as reflected by the media that is
>still claiming that the 2000 election was the most controversial
>presidential election in US history.
Since there's no objective measure of controversy, I think you'd have to
chalk that up to hype, not "poor research." Was it worse than Hayes-Tilden
or Adams-Jackson-Clay-Crawford? How to decide? (Not that I doubt that
their research is poor; I just don't think such a quote is a good
indication of it.)
David H.
Like you believe in Santa Claus?
If you do, then what are you doing sucking up to the Liberal-left wing?
>
> >
> >Bush could be literally saving Western Civilization right now.
>
> From what? From a few thousand suicide bombers? You think you love
> America more than anyone else, but you have so little faith in it to
> think that America, let alone all of the Western world, could actually
> be toppled by these glorified saboteurs.
Are you insane?
If they can coordinate the Pentagon and WTC bombings, then...with the right
weaponry, they can destroy several US cities and kill hundreds of thousands
with chemicals or radiation poisoning.
Plus, we're talking about entire generation(s) of brain-washed wahhabists
here.\
>
> >
> >Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would control the Middle East oil
flow.
>
> Perhaps. Of course, there's no evidence that he's close to having
> nuclear weapons.
Gee, your buddy Clinton told us the same thing about North Korea too, didn't
he?
>
> >
> >Because certain Left Wing Extremists had the Democratic Party
Leadership's
> >ear, there has been no drilling for oil in OUR OWN ALASKA.
>
> And because certain right wing extremists are married to the oil
> industry, there's been little effort to come up with alternative
> energy sources.
Who says it's the "Right Wing Extremists" that need to invent an alternative
energy source...huh, Dumass?
>
> >
> >Now, follow me here, Pete.
> >
> >Over 40% of new immigration into Western Europe are Muslim.
>
> Your point?>
> >
> >Their governments are two generations away from oblivion....if they keep
> >going down the Socialist-Welfare road. Germany and France are goners.
>
> What are you basing this on?
That Europe, in its march toward Socialism and the Welfare State, is tapping
the Muslim segment as their work-force. That is going to have severe
consequences in the next 30 years or so, because their baby-boomers have
this ridiculous entitlement philosophy.
>
> >
> >And, if Mr. Gore was in the White House right now, what do you think
would
> >be happening right about now?
>
> Pretty much what's happening now, though I'd expect he'd be more
> focussed on al Qaida than on Iraq at this stage. And we'd be doing a
> much better job of helping build Afghanistan into a model for the rest
> of the region.
How's that? By introducing Big Macs?
What did Clinton do while the Taliban took control of the country?
>
> >
> >You could be dying or already dead of smallpox or sarin gas.
>
> Right.
Just read that the entire Washington DC population is going to get
government mandated smallpox vaccinations within the next year.
Yet, you think this is a joke, right?
>
> >
> >For me voting for Bush, you should blow me in Nordstrom's window. ;^)
>
> No thanks.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Liberals are for a Nanny State. They need people who can't live
without
> >> >government intervention.
> >>
> >> That might be, in too many cases, the end result, but it's hardly the
> >> goal. Short-sighted, perhaps. An evil 1984-esque scheme to control
> >> the lives of the people, probably not.
> >
> >You don't sound confidant, Pete! ;^)
>
> Confident about what? Are you talking about "probably not"? I was
> being ironic.
Perhaps you meant "sarcastic"?
>
> >
> >Explain why Ron Brown was the only African-American Cabinet holder in
> >Clinton's (the 1st Black Prez) 2 terms?
>
> Because he was Clinton's only African American cabinet member. What's
> so hard to understand? What's the scandal?
The scandal is that the Democratic Party is supposed to be the Party of
Inclusion. Yet, where are they?
> >
> >Explain why Left Pelosi and Hillary Clinton voted against welfare reform.
>
> I don't know. They didn't consult me.
>
> >There are 50% less people on welfare today than when the bill was signed.
>
> Good. I was for it.
Of course you were... < /sarcasm >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Right now, that's the labor unions, the feminists, trial lawyers,
> >> >homosexuals, and other special interest groups....including the NCAAP.
> >>
> >> Are you saying that these people can't live without gov't
> >> intervention? Or are you just all over the place as usual? And when
> >> did trial lawyers all become liberals? And why does the NAACP get
> >> singled out for special attention?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Where is the Democartic version of Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell?
> >>
> >> Do ya mean coloreds?
> >
> >Typcial response. Getting ready to accuse me of being a Racist once
again?
>
> That is what you meant, though. It's a pretty dim point, and I'm
> surprised that someone like you would be for racial quotas.
I'm against affirmative action and quotas...but understand the need for it
in some cases.
And, why would the Democratic Party having an African-American in high White
House or Security positions be considered filling racial quotas?
Are you suggesting that there aren't any *real* qualified African-American
Democrats? Did they *all* bolt for the GOP?
> >
> >Answer the f*cking question.
> >WHERE ARE THEY??
>
> WHO? No, genius, you're right--there's no current black
> Democrat-appointed Sec. of State. You're fucking brilliant.
Not brilliant, Pete. Just observant.
The Democratic Party is nothing but a sham.
You have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and that dumb Marxist bitch from
California whose name escapes me.
David H.
David H.
news:nieporen-C9C7A3...@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <061220022157518937%sm...@ecoisp.hatespam>,
> >Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Of course, as far as I know, Dan Rather just reports what he's told to
> >report, so - not having watched him with any consistency - I'm not sure
> >what the accusations are referring to.
>
> Rather definitely sets the agenda of his own show. For instance, he
> refused to report on the Chandra Levy story, because it offended his
> sensibilities. We're not talking the 11 o'clock news here; the anchor of
> the network news show has a ton of power.
>
> >And then there's just poor research, as reflected by the media that is
> >still claiming that the 2000 election was the most controversial
> >presidential election in US history.
>
> Since there's no objective measure of controversy, I think you'd have to
> chalk that up to hype, not "poor research." Was it worse than
Hayes-Tilden
> or Adams-Jackson-Clay-Crawford? How to decide? (Not that I doubt that
> their research is poor; I just don't think such a quote is a good
> indication of it.)
>
Ask him to 'splain the New York Times' killing of a couple of stories
regarding the Augusta Golf Club and Tiger Woods...because it contradicted
their editorial department?
BTW, I read today that the Times relented after giving it some thought.
David H.
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
>
>Seems to me the market has spoken about the type of news it wants, then, eh?
However, certain FNC shows have been regularly spanking CNN shows in
the same slot for months now (The O'Reilly Factor, for example), so
that dynamic is changing. I know when I want less biased (notice I
didn't say non-bias--FNC definitely has a conservative tilt) news, I
go for FNC over CNN or MSNBC (Must Show Nothing But Clinton) every
time.
Kimberly Murphy-Smith -- kamu...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy/
Kimberly's Barbie Collection:
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy/barbies.html
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
#snerk#
You didn't watch his 2000 Presidential Election coverage? I guarantee
you'd have seen his very liberal leanings shining through.
david craven
"David H." <dhag...@hagemangroup.com> wrote in message
news:ast254$qe6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > WHO? No, genius, you're right--there's no current black
> > Democrat-appointed Sec. of State. You're fucking brilliant.
>
> Not brilliant, Pete. Just observant.
I think that HIS point was that there are NO DEMOCRATS (other than Norman
Minneta) in any Cabinet Post. Why, because the President is a Republican.
> The Democratic Party is nothing but a sham.
Hmmm. Just for the record (and this is from the Conservative Chicago
Tribune, the "liberal" Washington Post was quiet on this).... Trent Lott
was quoted over the weekend praising Strom Thurmond and suggesting that the
country would have been much better off and lots of problems would have been
avoided if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948. As Strom ran
primarily on an anti-civil rights, pro-segregation platform, that seems to
pretty clearly put Lott in the segregationist camp, and as he is the Senate
Majority leader, and as the party has not repudiated him for this position,
it is not an unreasonable position to hold that the Modern Day Republican
Party still longs for the days of segregation.
So I guess the real question is why would bright people like Collin Powell
and Condalezza Rice be willing to associate themseleves with a party that
wanted to isolate them.
> You have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and that dumb Marxist bitch from
> California whose name escapes me.
Of course this is a gross exageration. There are lots of very good and
competent Democrats and Republicans in Congress who belief in equality and
racial tolerance. Focusing on just one or two in each party paints a false
picture. And, interestingly enough, the extreme Republicans tend to be in
greater positions of power than the extreme democrats.
Gurky
> Hmmm. Just for the record (and this is from the Conservative Chicago
> Tribune, the "liberal" Washington Post was quiet on this).... Trent Lott
> was quoted over the weekend praising Strom Thurmond and suggesting that the
> country would have been much better off and lots of problems would have been
> avoided if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948. As Strom ran
> primarily on an anti-civil rights, pro-segregation platform, that seems to
> pretty clearly put Lott in the segregationist camp, and as he is the Senate
> Majority leader, and as the party has not repudiated him for this position,
> it is not an unreasonable position to hold that the Modern Day Republican
> Party still longs for the days of segregation.
Lott is an ignoramous, but oddly enough the next biggest loser (after
Lott) in this episode will probably be the Democratic Party. Why?
Lott is a very ineffective Majority Leader and assuming he ends up
resigning, his replacement will likely be far more able than he is, at
advancing the GOP's agenda.
Gurky
david craven
"Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fe47b61.0212...@posting.google.com...
> Lott is an ignoramous, but oddly enough the next biggest loser (after
> Lott) in this episode will probably be the Democratic Party. Why?
>
> Lott is a very ineffective Majority Leader and assuming he ends up
> resigning, his replacement will likely be far more able than he is, at
> advancing the GOP's agenda.
That is assuming that he resigns and the Republican Party does the right
thing of condemning him for these comments. If they don't, then we might
see a reawakening of a part of the Democratic Party's primary constiuency
that has both been ignored and silent in recent years.
David H.
I can't believe how good the Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws
of victory.
Bush should come out supporting him strongly and say,
"See? That's why *I* gave up drinking!"
I like Gurky's take.
I hope it bites the Liberals in the ass. double-standard muthers.
Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr., Jesse Jackson's Hymie-Town remark?
And, don't forget William Jefferson Clinton and his side-kick Hillary
either.
I can see the television commercials.....
" Lott's remark....followed by a plea to write your Congressman and Senator
to keep Bush's judicial nominees from getting confirmed.
David H.
Gurky
I don't see how this helps the Dems. If it had came a few days before
the elections, yes, but as it is, no.
The people who this is going to offend the most, already vote
overwhelmingly for the Democrats. That is the funny thing about this.
Jesse Jackson and his ilk want Republicans to toe the racial line yet
they never do anything in return and don't even suggest there might be
something in return. Why should Republicans go out of their way to
get another 2-3 percent of the black vote?
George Bush has a black SecState and a black NSA, and what did it get
him on election day? Or any day for that matter. Until blacks take
their blinders off in the voting booth, there is little incentive for
Republicans to tailor a message to the black community.
Most independents will shrug it off as more "politics as usual", as
the Dems try to make as much hay from this as possible.
I think any damage will be localized around Trent Lott. The fact is
that what Lott said was STUPID, but he was in a social setting, he was
indulging in unfettered hyperbole, and he was referring to a events
from 54 years ago.
It is difficult to see how this has any major long term negatives or
positives for either party.
Gurky
david craven
>
> I don't see how this helps the Dems. If it had came a few days before
> the elections, yes, but as it is, no.
It could help the Dem's a great deal.
> The people who this is going to offend the most, already vote
> overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
Yes, but the turnout has been low, and further lots of "soccer moms" who
have voted Republican in the past might well feel uncomfortable about being
aligned with racists. Lets look at the results in the States where the
African-American Community HAS been activated. Take Illinois, for example,
where years of being ignored by the power elite finally resulted in enough
anger to get people out to the polls. This resulted in high turnouts and
massive margins for the Democratic Candidates for statewide office.
Massive Margins, built in large part on the super majorities being turned
out in Chicago.
>That is the funny thing about this.
> Jesse Jackson and his ilk want Republicans to toe the racial line yet
> they never do anything in return and don't even suggest there might be
> something in return.
Jackson, no. But then, he is a Democratic politician who has run for
President on the Democratic Ticket and who has a son who is a rather good
Democratic Congressman. We don't "expect" white Politicians who demand that
the opposing party toe the line on a particular issue to then commit votes
to them, why should we hold African-American partisans to a different
standard.
Is there something in return? Sure. Give any voter a good reason to vote
for you and will win.
> Why should Republicans go out of their way to
> get another 2-3 percent of the black vote?
>
Because:
1. Racism is immoral and wrong and sometimes you need to do the right
thing;
2. Its politically stupid to so tick off your opposition that they turn out
to the polls in record numbers. Consider that the population of Mississippi
is 37% African-American. Historically, it has had a very low voter turnout.
But if that voting bloc got sufficiently upset to turn out and vote it could
actually have major results on an election. That's a lot more than 2-3% of
the vote. That could end up being a bloc of 20-25% of the total vote...
and that's more than enough to turn a landslide in one direction into a
landslide in the other direction.
> Most independents will shrug it off as more "politics as usual", as
> the Dems try to make as much hay from this as possible.
Hmmm. I guess I think more of the Independents than this. I don't know
about you, but I tend to think that it is a bad thing for a party to have a
racist as one of its principal leaders.
> I think any damage will be localized around Trent Lott. The fact is
> that what Lott said was STUPID, but he was in a social setting, he was
> indulging in unfettered hyperbole, and he was referring to a events
> from 54 years ago.
Yes. And Lott has said this more than one time in more than one place.
And he has demonstrated his views on other occassions.
> It is difficult to see how this has any major long term negatives or
> positives for either party.
Other than revealing the Southern Wing of the Republican Party as a bunch of
racist bigots? (Not that much of the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party
is any better...)
david craven
> I can see the television commercials.....
>
> " Lott's remark....followed by a plea to write your Congressman and
Senator
> to keep Bush's judicial nominees from getting confirmed.
>
Actually you WON'T see any TV ads. It will be handled as follows (based on
my own experience as a resident in a primarily African-American Ward in
Chicago. The high turnout in Chicago suggests that this will be a model for
the future.)
Ring...
Recorded Message:
Hello this is ______ (I got 10 calls with different famous people). I am
calling on behalf of the Illinois Democratic Party to urge you to go to the
polls on Tuesday. And then some spiel connected to some particular issue...
as a Fellow Senior Citizen I urge, as a fellow-African American I urge, as a
fellow Gay American I urge, as a fellow taxpayer I urge... and no doubt
some of these will end up relating to Lott.
And also the Lott message will be passed around through Church and Civic
meetings.
Dennis Shea
Armey's one of the biggest hypocrites alive, a guy who calls another
member of Congress "Barney Fag" and rails at Clinton, while he had to
leave academics because of repeated sexual harassment complaints by
female students. He's yet another member of the Republican members who
"honored" their belief in the sanctity of family and marriage by dumping
his first wife to marry one of his students. Just this fall, he was mad
because his son lost a GOP primary race, so he tried to sneak an
amendment into a military spending bill that would have forced one of
the newspapers that opposed his son to sell off assets at a loss. As
the news services reported: "Appropriations committee members called it
unethical and a violation of Senate rules, among other things".
Dick Armey SAYS a lot of nice things. What he DOES is another matter.
Gurky
> And your point is?
>
> Armey's one of the biggest hypocrites alive, a guy who calls another
> member of Congress "Barney Fag" and rails at Clinton, while he had to
> leave academics because of repeated sexual harassment complaints by
> female students.
The Barney Fag comment is irrelevent. If what you say is true
regarding sexual harrassment, then yes that would be hypocritical to
the extent he blasted someone else for the SAME thing. Much was/is
said about Clinton that goes well beyond sexual harassment
alligations.
> He's yet another member of the Republican members who
> "honored" their belief in the sanctity of family and marriage by dumping
> his first wife to marry one of his students.
Again, if he dumped his wife(I am not an Armey Groupie, so I am not up
on the latest gossip) that was not very nice but that has nothing to
do with policy. I believe strongly in marriage too, and I am also once
divorced. Life happens. For that matter, in his first campaign and
early years in office, Bill Clinton frequently spoke about
strengthening families and the importance of leaders being good role
models. Hypocrisy anyone?
>>Just this fall, he was mad
> because his son lost a GOP primary race, so he tried to sneak an
> amendment into a military spending bill that would have forced one of
> the newspapers that opposed his son to sell off assets at a loss. As
> the news services reported: "Appropriations committee members called it
> unethical and a violation of Senate rules, among other things".
Again, IF he did this it was wrong, crude, and illegal.
> Dick Armey SAYS a lot of nice things. What he DOES is another matter.
Primarily what he "DOES" is vote conservative. Since he was a member
of Congress, that is the important issue: How he voted, not, How he
treated his wife.
Gurky
Gurky
what is left over. Anyone needing context should look up-thread.
"david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message news:<atacd5$m7l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > The people who this is going to offend the most, already vote
> > overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
>
> Yes, but the turnout has been low,
Not among blacks in particular. With-out the VNS numbers no one is
sure, but in many of the states where the GOP won this year, blacks
appear to have voted in fairly high numbers.
> and further lots of "soccer moms" who
> have voted Republican in the past might well feel uncomfortable about being
> aligned with racists.
Republicans of course are not racists as a party. Some Republicans are
and some Democrats are, just as some Yankee fans are.
> Lets look at the results in the States where the
> African-American Community HAS been activated. Take Illinois, for example,
> where years of being ignored by the power elite finally resulted in enough
> anger to get people out to the polls. This resulted in high turnouts and
> massive margins for the Democratic Candidates for statewide office.
> Massive Margins, built in large part on the super majorities being turned
> out in Chicago.
Oh please. If the Democrats doing well in CHICAGO (!) Is your best
example.....
The GOP held the power in Illinois for almost 30 years. The Dems were
bound to win eventually.
> >That is the funny thing about this.
> > Jesse Jackson and his ilk want Republicans to toe the racial line yet
> > they never do anything in return and don't even suggest there might be
> > something in return.
>
> Jackson, no. But then, he is a Democratic politician who has run for
> President on the Democratic Ticket
Yes, and has toyed with running as an Independent, and passes himself
off as a free agent whenever he thinks it is to his benefit.
> and who has a son who is a rather good
> Democratic Congressman.
Actually he is a joke, but if by "good" you mean "liberal" then yes,
he is quite good.
> > Why should Republicans go out of their way to
> > get another 2-3 percent of the black vote?
> >
>
> Because:
> 1. Racism is immoral and wrong and sometimes you need to do the right
> thing;
Correct but not responsive to the question.
> 2. Its politically stupid to so tick off your opposition that they turn out
> to the polls in record numbers. Consider that the population of Mississippi
> is 37% African-American. Historically, it has had a very low voter turnout.
> But if that voting bloc got sufficiently upset to turn out and vote it could
> actually have major results on an election. That's a lot more than 2-3% of
> the vote.
Not responsive and the 2-3 percent I mentioned was OF THE BLACK VOTE,
not the TOTAL BLACK VOTE.
> > I think any damage will be localized around Trent Lott. The fact is
> > that what Lott said was STUPID, but he was in a social setting, he was
> > indulging in unfettered hyperbole, and he was referring to a events
> > from 54 years ago.
>
> Yes. And Lott has said this more than one time in more than one place.
> And he has demonstrated his views on other occasions.
Yes, and that makes it Trent Lott's problem. The Republicans in the
Senate need to tell Lott "you have to go", so it does not become a GOP
problem.
> > It is difficult to see how this has any major long term negatives or
> > positives for either party.
>
> Other than revealing the Southern Wing of the Republican Party as a bunch of
> racist bigots? (Not that much of the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party
> is any better...)
And here you reveal yourself as just as biased, irrational, and filled
with malice as Trent Lott. People of the South hold no monopoly on
racial hatred and stupidity. Check out Los Angeles, New York, Boston,
Cincinnati, or even....Baltimore. Your disdain for "Southerners" is
made in the same mold, and reveals the same ignorance, as Trent Lott's
segregation fantasies.
Gurky
Dennis Shea
Gurky wrote:
> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<3DF9C194...@adelphia.net>...
>
>>And your point is?
>>
>>Armey's one of the biggest hypocrites alive, a guy who calls another
>>member of Congress "Barney Fag" and rails at Clinton, while he had to
>>leave academics because of repeated sexual harassment complaints by
>>female students.
>>
>
> The Barney Fag comment is irrelevent.
Irrelevant for saying he's a hypocrite? Sure. Irrelevant for revealing
what type of person Dick Armey is and for revealing why people like me
have concerns about his positions on social issues that matter to me?
Not at all.
> If what you say is true
> regarding sexual harrassment, then yes that would be hypocritical to
> the extent he blasted someone else for the SAME thing. Much was/is
> said about Clinton that goes well beyond sexual harassment
> alligations.
Give me a break. You mean that if Armey sexually harassed women
repeated times, but did not actually have sex with an intern in the Oval
office, then he's not a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton?
Armey, in a position of power, used that position of power to try to
force women to provide sexual favors. Just as Clinton did. Waffle
about it all you want.
>> He's yet another member of the Republican members who
>>"honored" their belief in the sanctity of family and marriage by dumping
>>his first wife to marry one of his students.
>>
> Again, if he dumped his wife(I am not an Armey Groupie, so I am not up
> on the latest gossip) that was not very nice but that has nothing to
> do with policy.
Yet, if Clinton messes with interns in the Oval Office, it does have
something to do with policy? If Clinton's private life is important,
than so his Armey's. The Republicans have made huge hay over this, so
it's too late to back off it now.
> I believe strongly in marriage too, and I am also once
> divorced. Life happens. For that matter, in his first campaign and
> early years in office, Bill Clinton frequently spoke about
> strengthening families and the importance of leaders being good role
> models. Hypocrisy anyone?
I don't disagree. Clinton is a huge hypocrite. So is Armey. And their
comfort with attacking others for the very thing they are guilty of is
relevant for policy. If I can't trust them in simple things like this,
why should I trust them with matters of greater policy importance?
>>>Just this fall, he was mad
>>>
>>because his son lost a GOP primary race, so he tried to sneak an
>>amendment into a military spending bill that would have forced one of
>>the newspapers that opposed his son to sell off assets at a loss. As
>>the news services reported: "Appropriations committee members called it
>>unethical and a violation of Senate rules, among other things".
>>
> Again, IF he did this it was wrong, crude, and illegal.
He did.
It was.
>>Dick Armey SAYS a lot of nice things. What he DOES is another matter.
> Primarily what he "DOES" is vote conservative. Since he was a member
> of Congress, that is the important issue: How he voted, not, How he
> treated his wife.
Right. And I have serious issues with Dick Armey's willingness to deny
civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation, his willingness to use
public funds to support religions he agrees with, his willingness to
deny freedom of speech that he disagrees with, and so on. I also have
serious issues, as I did with Clinton, with his willingness to use his
position of power to harass women, penalize those who oppose him, and
believe the fact that his hypocrisy over these issues makes him
untrustworthy in matters of public office.
Either private behavior matters or it does not.
David H.
"Gurky" <gurk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fe47b61.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Ok. Much of this deserves a reply and so I shall. I will snip much of
> what is left over. Anyone needing context should look up-thread.
> "david craven" <dcr...@nul.net> wrote in message
news:<atacd5$m7l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > Other than revealing the Southern Wing of the Republican Party as a
bunch of
> > racist bigots? (Not that much of the Southern Wing of the Democratic
Party
> > is any better...)
>
> And here you reveal yourself as just as biased, irrational, and filled
> with malice as Trent Lott. People of the South hold no monopoly on
> racial hatred and stupidity. Check out Los Angeles, New York, Boston,
> Cincinnati, or even....Baltimore. Your disdain for "Southerners" is
> made in the same mold, and reveals the same ignorance, as Trent Lott's
> segregation fantasies.
>
OUCH!
*That's* gonna leave a mark! ;^)
David H.
nob...@junk.min.net
>> That is assuming that he resigns and the Republican Party does the right
>> thing of condemning him for these comments. If they don't, then we might
>> see a reawakening of a part of the Democratic Party's primary constiuency
>> that has both been ignored and silent in recent years.
>I can't believe how good the Republicans are snatching defeat from the
>jaws of victory.
>Bush should come out supporting him strongly and say,
>"See? That's why *I* gave up drinking!"
At least he says he has. :)
>I like Gurky's take.
>I hope it bites the Liberals in the ass. double-standard muthers.
>Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr., Jesse Jackson's Hymie-Town remark? And, don't
>forget William Jefferson Clinton and his side-kick Hillary either.
Byrd and Gore, Sr. were Majority (or Minority) Leader?
Jesse was roundly condemned for his remark.
Each is entitled to his opinion. When one opens his yap, he has to live
with the flak. This apparently isn't the first time Lott has made such
comments. At the very least, he's a fool for not watching his words.
However, he shouldn't lose his Senate seat, as some have suggested -
that's up to the people he represents.
What did Hill and Bill say (my memory sucks these days?)
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Please use address al...@min.net to reply via e-mail. ****
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Marc Nieporent
Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Gurky wrote:
>> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> If what you say is true
>> regarding sexual harrassment, then yes that would be hypocritical to
>> the extent he blasted someone else for the SAME thing. Much was/is
>> said about Clinton that goes well beyond sexual harassment alligations.
>Give me a break. You mean that if Armey sexually harassed women
>repeated times, but did not actually have sex with an intern in the Oval
>office, then he's not a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton?
P.e.r.j.u.r.y. O-b-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n-O-f-J-u-s-t-i-c-e.
It's not the sex.
>Armey, in a position of power, used that position of power to try to
>force women to provide sexual favors. Just as Clinton did. Waffle
>about it all you want.
Well, that's as documented as the claim that Clinton raped a woman.
[...]
>>>>Just this fall, he was mad
>>>because his son lost a GOP primary race, so he tried to sneak an
>>>amendment into a military spending bill that would have forced one of
>>>the newspapers that opposed his son to sell off assets at a loss. As
>>>the news services reported: "Appropriations committee members called it
>>>unethical and a violation of Senate rules, among other things".
>> Again, IF he did this it was wrong, crude, and illegal.
>He did.
>It was.
1) Armey wasn't in the Senate, so it would be rather difficult for him to
violate Senate rules.
2) What he's accused of doing is sleazy and unethical, but I'm unclear in
what way it could be "illegal."
David H.
news:3dfa7485$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> In <at8kak$mde$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, on 12/11/02
> at 07:13 PM, "David H." <dhag...@hagemangroup.com> said:
>
> >I like Gurky's take.
> >I hope it bites the Liberals in the ass. double-standard muthers.
>
> >Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr., Jesse Jackson's Hymie-Town remark? And, don't
> >forget William Jefferson Clinton and his side-kick Hillary either.
>
> Byrd and Gore, Sr. were Majority (or Minority) Leader?
> Jesse was roundly condemned for his remark.
Wasn't Byrd the Senate Majority Leader from 1977 to 1989?
He was a Grande Poobah of the KKK.
>
> Each is entitled to his opinion. When one opens his yap, he has to live
> with the flak. This apparently isn't the first time Lott has made such
> comments. At the very least, he's a fool for not watching his words.
> However, he shouldn't lose his Senate seat, as some have suggested -
> that's up to the people he represents.
>
> What did Hill and Bill say (my memory sucks these days?)
>
Hillary called somebody on her staff a "f*cking jew bastard",.
Clinton is many things, but I don't think Racist is one of them.
I didn't know we we limiting the charges of bad deeds in office to just
racism.
David H.
Gurky
Dennis wrote:
> >>>because his [Dick Armey) son lost a GOP primary race, so he tried to sneak an
> >>>amendment into a military spending bill that would have forced one of
> >>>the newspapers that opposed his son to sell off assets at a loss. As
> >>>the news services reported: "Appropriations committee members called it
> >>>unethical and a violation of Senate rules, among other things".
>
>
Gurky wrote:
>> Again, IF he did this it was wrong, crude, and illegal.
DMN wrote:
> 2) What he's accused of doing is sleazy and unethical, but I'm unclear in
> what way it could be "illegal."
You may be right. I am not familiar with the episode Dennis mentioned.
If it occured as presented, it would be abuse of power in my opinion,
but lacking the details and context I don't know that for a fact.
Gurky
Dennis Shea
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> In article <3DFA6608...@adelphia.net>,
> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>Gurky wrote:
>>
>>>Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>If what you say is true
>>>regarding sexual harrassment, then yes that would be hypocritical to
>>>the extent he blasted someone else for the SAME thing. Much was/is
>>>said about Clinton that goes well beyond sexual harassment alligations.
>>>
>
>>Give me a break. You mean that if Armey sexually harassed women
>>repeated times, but did not actually have sex with an intern in the Oval
>>office, then he's not a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton?
>>
>
> P.e.r.j.u.r.y. O-b-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n-O-f-J-u-s-t-i-c-e.
>
> It's not the sex.
It's not just teh sex. However, the item I was discussing with Gurky
was an instance in which Armey was criticizing Clinton's sexual
behavior, not his violation of the law.
>>Armey, in a position of power, used that position of power to try to
>>force women to provide sexual favors. Just as Clinton did. Waffle
>>about it all you want.
>>
>
> Well, that's as documented as the claim that Clinton raped a woman.
It's a documented fact that three women made complaints to Armey's
university of sexual harassment while he was a professor there. It's a
documented fact that Armey divorced his first wife to marry a student of
his.
David H.
>
> It's a documented fact that three women made complaints to Armey's
> university of sexual harassment while he was a professor there. It's a
> documented fact that Armey divorced his first wife to marry a student of
> his.
>
So, he may have pinched a cute ass here or there?
And, give the guy credit for *divorcing* his wife and then *marrying* the
"other woman". He didn't continue to break his personal vows to his wife
and treat her like chattel.
Did Bubba divorce Hillary and marry Monica Lewinsky?
Since *everybody* has to get hit with shit...., whom smells less? (or is it
"who?) ;^)
Of course I understand that *all* public officials should be held to a
higher standard.
Weren't you one of Bubba's biggest supporters in here?
Dennis, you're too old to continue being a Liberal Puke.
When Grand Poobah former SENATE MAJORITY LEADER (77-89)Byrd apologizes for
his public "nigger" comments and his association with the Klu Klux
Klan....when Hillings and Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and Gore, Sr., all get
passes, my advice to you is.....Go F*ck Yourself! ;^)
David H.
Dennis Shea
David H. wrote:
> "Dennis Shea" <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3DFB5322...@adelphia.net...
>
>>It's a documented fact that three women made complaints to Armey's
>>university of sexual harassment while he was a professor there. It's a
>>documented fact that Armey divorced his first wife to marry a student of
>>his.
>>
> So, he may have pinched a cute ass here or there?
And it's that attitude of Republicans like you that will continue to
prevent reasonable people like me from consistently voting Republican.
> And, give the guy credit for *divorcing* his wife and then *marrying* the
> "other woman". He didn't continue to break his personal vows to his wife
> and treat her like chattel.
And should I also give Clinton credit for keeping his family together?
Isn't that a big Dr. Laura thumbs-up?
> Did Bubba divorce Hillary and marry Monica Lewinsky?
No. But I don't see why that's less honorable than the alternative.
> Since *everybody* has to get hit with shit...., whom smells less? (or is it
> "who?) ;^)
Isn't that the point? I entered this discussion when someone said that
it basically came down to the fact that liberals were simply in favor of
expanding government's influence in our lives. If that were true, I'd
vote Republican all the time, instead of some of the time. The fact is,
many Republicans--including Armey--are quite comfortable with expanding
government's role in our society when it suits their purposes. And that
leaves those of us who are both "fiscally conservative" and "socially
liberal"--for lack of a better description--inevitably facing the choice
of two candidates both of whom want to expand the influence of
government in ways that I find equally repugnant.
> Of course I understand that *all* public officials should be held to a
> higher standard.
>
> Weren't you one of Bubba's biggest supporters in here?
> Dennis, you're too old to continue being a Liberal Puke.
No, you won't find me defending Clinton much. And anyone who defines me
as a "liberal puke" is about as divorced from reality as can be.
> When Grand Poobah former SENATE MAJORITY LEADER (77-89)Byrd apologizes for
> his public "nigger" comments and his association with the Klu Klux
> Klan....when Hillings and Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and Gore, Sr., all get
> passes, my advice to you is.....Go F*ck Yourself! ;^)
When you can show that I give those guys passes, I'll take your advice.
Until then, it's just another case of Hageman's lifetime medical
condition--constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth.
David H.
> David H. wrote:
> > When Grand Poobah former SENATE MAJORITY LEADER (77-89)Byrd apologizes
for
> > his public "nigger" comments and his association with the Klu Klux
> > Klan....when Hillings and Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and Gore, Sr., all get
> > passes, my advice to you is.....Go F*ck Yourself! ;^)
>
>
> When you can show that I give those guys passes, I'll take your advice.
> Until then, it's just another case of Hageman's lifetime medical
> condition--constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth.
>
Just having some fun with you, Dennis.
But....anybody who votes Democratic today is basically either an amoral
person or somebody who sees themselves as victims.
If you *do* while none of those things, then you're just plain ignorant.
And, you're lucky *that's* not a crime yet. ;^)
David H.
Dennis Shea
choices are guys like former Rep. Bud Shuster or Senator Rick Santorum,
the choice to vote Democrat is a perfectly reasonable response to a
party that offers up such dreck. When the party offers a decent choice,
like they did with Tom Ridge, he gets my vote. It simply isn't as
simple a morality play or as simple a case of right/wrong as you try to
make it.
David Marc Nieporent
Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>I suggest you investigate some of my Republican options. When the
>choices are guys like former Rep. Bud Shuster or Senator Rick Santorum,
>the choice to vote Democrat is a perfectly reasonable response to a
>party that offers up such dreck. When the party offers a decent choice,
> like they did with Tom Ridge, he gets my vote. It simply isn't as
>simple a morality play or as simple a case of right/wrong as you try to
>make it.
But it's not as simple as you make it, either. Some people (and I'm not
accusing you specifically) want to act as if they're more sophisticated
because they judge the candidates as individuals rather than as members of
a party, but that's naive.
A vote for Ron Klink was a vote for Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Diane
Feinstein, etc., with all the good and bad those things entail. A vote for
Rick Santorum was a vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, John McCain, etc.,
with all the good and bad those things entail.
nob...@junk.min.net
>So, he may have pinched a cute ass here or there?
>And, give the guy credit for *divorcing* his wife and then *marrying* the
>"other woman". He didn't continue to break his personal vows to his wife
>and treat her like chattel.
Like Rudy Guiliani (among others from both parties) did? He didn't start
girl hunting after a divorce, which would be fine. He's a Republican
hero.
>Did Bubba divorce Hillary and marry Monica Lewinsky?
Did Hillary want a divorce?
>Since *everybody* has to get hit with shit...., whom smells less? (or is
>it "who?) ;^)
Nobody smells less. Plenty of slimeballs on both sides.
>Of course I understand that *all* public officials should be held to a
>higher standard.
So why aren't they?
Dennis Shea
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> In article <3DFBA031...@adelphia.net>,
> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I suggest you investigate some of my Republican options. When the
>>choices are guys like former Rep. Bud Shuster or Senator Rick Santorum,
>>the choice to vote Democrat is a perfectly reasonable response to a
>>party that offers up such dreck. When the party offers a decent choice,
>> like they did with Tom Ridge, he gets my vote. It simply isn't as
>>simple a morality play or as simple a case of right/wrong as you try to
>>make it.
>>
>
> But it's not as simple as you make it, either.
I'm not aware how I've made it simple.
> Some people (and I'm not
> accusing you specifically) want to act as if they're more sophisticated
> because they judge the candidates as individuals rather than as members of
> a party, but that's naive.
>
> A vote for Ron Klink was a vote for Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Diane
> Feinstein, etc., with all the good and bad those things entail. A vote for
> Rick Santorum was a vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, John McCain, etc.,
> with all the good and bad those things entail.
And beyond making the point that there are both good and bad things
about both parties, as you say, I'm not sure that I've been saying much
else. Again, my comments were directed at the initial claim--and I'm
paraphrasing here--that it all came down to the fact that liberals
wanted to expand the reach of government. My chief point is exactly the
one you make--that there is more to it than any simple statement like that.
David Marc Nieporent
Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>Armey, in a position of power, used that position of power to try to
>>>force women to provide sexual favors. Just as Clinton did. Waffle
>>>about it all you want.
>> Well, that's as documented as the claim that Clinton raped a woman.
>It's a documented fact that three women made complaints to Armey's
>university of sexual harassment while he was a professor there. It's a
>documented fact that Armey divorced his first wife to marry a student of
>his.
It's a documented fact that Juanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of
raping her. The documented fact of an accusation is not the documented
fact that the accusation is true.
(Moreover, "sexual harassment" is such a broad category that it can
encompass anything from demanding sex in exchange for grades to putting
calendars filled with scantily-clad women on your wall, so an accusation of
sexual harassment is pretty vague. The federal courts have really mucked
up sexual harassment law.)