In Defense of Clinton, Part 3
MindSpring User
Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President understandably
lied about. It used to be called 'carrying your own water', but now everyone
is expected to turn on their ex-lovers as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
Not that I am intirely sad about it. Clinton supports a number of causes I
find despicable and may one day ruin this Republic. But to shred the office
of the Presidency with such BS is poor statesmanship and not in the best
long term interests of the American people, nor the Federal executive
branch. There is little confidence in our leaders anymore, and this is
making it worse. Maybe I am being naive; maybe there is no basis for such
respect anyway.
With all the crimes Clinton has been accused of in the Rightwing press,
especially the American Spectator, one would think that Starr could find
more than this. He cant realistically make a second effort at proposing
Clintons impeachment if this one fails. I feel the odds are very strong an
impeachment will fail, and if Clintons supporters rally to him, he may not
resign, and then he rides it all out. I suspect the real Republican goal
here is to smear Clinton and his administration, preparing not only for the
next elections, and the 2000 presidential elections, but also to weaken
Clinton before another budget battle for this fall. And it may shut down the
government again for an even longer period of time. Republicans will be more
than happy to deep six the impeachment investigation in exchange for some
more breaks for the rich, if Clinton will agree to it. I doubt Clinton would
then turn them down. One goal the Republicans have is to allow about 135,000
aliens into the US to program computers. Clinton wants to make the
requirements more stringent, the Republicans want an open gate that has its
hinges removed. This is a simple example of why the Democrats are largely
still the party for the working middle class and the Republicans are
carrying water only for the rich. The conservative and christian Republicans
are being used.
Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What
was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed,
Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its we
on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges against
a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr can
do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the
issues.
RGlenCheek
L D O
Your denials of Clinton's guilt speaks volumes, about your failure to
read.
Bud
"MindSpring User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Perjury is a felony, and, as such, a high crime. Nuff said.
Bud
You have never lived until you have almost died.
to those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor
the protected will never know.
anonymously posted on a bunker at Khe Sahn, RVN
Like the song says, "All gave some, but some gave all."
remove the "spam" in the email address to reply
Michae/ Schneder
In article <905556006$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
}into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
}tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President understandably
}lied about.
You would think.
But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Jim Bell's Theorem: http://jya.com/ap.htm and http://jya.com/jdb-zola.htm
David A. Tharp
I must agree with brother Richard:on the basis of this report Clinton
should not be removed from office. As for the "SEX" angle one must say
that most Americans have ambilivent attitudes about it and the Starr report
compounds the original ambilivence. Now with a little bit of effort I think
I can keep this discussion at the PG 13 level.
Sex biols down to square inches of the male body interacting with square
inches of the female body. Now in most cases this causes no problems because
it takes place in prvite and is talked about (if at all) in privite also.
While listening to the early morning discussions of the scandle I recalled
an earlier Maryland case. A public official was charged and if I remember
correctly, found guilty of accepting a sexual bribe. Maryland law has
a section on this specific kind of bribe. Now when this took place no one
on either side employed graphic language. the only words that were charged
on one side and denied on the other were "sexual bribe."
Just because Clinton (or Burton) did a,b or c doesn't give commentators
just cause to use (and sbuse) graphic language. The News media, Liberal
and Conservative, has desended to the leval of Jerry Springer using tell
it like it is arguments in order to merely titalate!!!
--
"lawyers houses are built on the head of fools." Legal Proverb
HCCRR
In article <905610918$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
bud...@spamtheriver.com (Bud) writes:
}
}
}Perjury is a felony, and, as such, a high crime. Nuff said.
}
}
}Bud
}
It depends on what the House of Representatives thinks it means, not you or a
thousand legal scholars. Impeachment is a political judgement, not a legal one.
HCCRR
In article <905610921$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
EE...@LKKwinNNNternet.com (Michae/ Schneder) writes:
}
}In article <905556006$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
}}into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
}}tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President understandably
}}lied about.
}
}
} You would think.
}
} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Do you include almost every
Congressional committee as well?
HCCRR
}
} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked!
Aren't we all?
For all the money put
}into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
}tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President understandably
}lied about. It used to be called 'carrying your own water', but now everyone
}is expected to turn on their ex-lovers as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
} Not that I am intirely sad about it. Clinton supports a number of causes I
}find despicable and may one day ruin this Republic. But to shred the office
}of the Presidency with such BS is poor statesmanship and not in the best
}long term interests of the American people, nor the Federal executive
}branch. There is little confidence in our leaders anymore, and this is
}making it worse. Maybe I am being naive; maybe there is no basis for such
}respect anyway.
} With all the crimes Clinton has been accused of in the Rightwing press,
}especially the American Spectator, one would think that Starr could find
}more than this.
Clinton has been accused of just about crime under the sun according to the
right wing press. Perhaps Starr couldn't find anything, because other than an
apparent inablity to keep his pants up, there is nothing.
He cant realistically make a second effort at proposing
}Clintons impeachment if this one fails. I feel the odds are very strong an
}impeachment will fail, and if Clintons supporters rally to him, he may not
}resign, and then he rides it all out. I suspect the real Republican goal
}here is to smear Clinton and his administration, preparing not only for the
}next elections, and the 2000 presidential elections, but also to weaken
}Clinton before another budget battle for this fall. And it may shut down the
}government again for an even longer period of time. Republicans will be more
}than happy to deep six the impeachment investigation in exchange for some
}more breaks for the rich, if Clinton will agree to it. I doubt Clinton would
}then turn them down.
There is some truth in what you say here, but I will add more later at the
bottom.
One goal the Republicans have is to allow about 135,000
}aliens into the US to program computers. Clinton wants to make the
}requirements more stringent, the Republicans want an open gate that has its
}hinges removed. This is a simple example of why the Democrats are largely
}still the party for the working middle class and the Republicans are
}carrying water only for the rich. The conservative and christian Republicans
}are being used.
Good Lord, I 've been telling people that for years.
} Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What
}was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed,
}Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its we
}on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges against
}a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr can
}do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the
}issues.
Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
Clinton is in real trouble, more than you let on. The fact remains, that while
Starr litters his report with extraneous and salacious sexual details, there
appears to be grounds for impeaching the president. He is accused of many
crimes by Starr, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
Remember, it is not what you and I think high crimes and misdemeanors means,
but what the House of Representatives thinks it means.Therefore court
evidentiary rules will not apply to the impeachment inquiry. An impeachment
trial is a political trial, to determine an official's fitness for office. And
frankly, there is enough in the report, to question Clinton's. I say this as a
long time Clinton supporter. If enough Democrats desert the president in the
near future, and I have every reason to believe this is possible as we near the
mid term elections, it is they who will force him out by resignation. As for
the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have grown up
believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is likely
to be a communist. Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old student at
that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton. This has
characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and loathing
then actual facts. Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton. And this following
numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan Republicans I
might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is that
Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}RGlenCheek
}
}
MindSpring User
L D O wrote in message <905562305$35...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}MindSpring User wrote:
}}
}} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
}} into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
}} tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President
understandably
}} lied about. It used to be called 'carrying your own water', but now
everyone
}} is expected to turn on their ex-lovers as soon as it becomes
inconvenient.
}} Not that I am intirely sad about it. Clinton supports a number of
causes I
}} find despicable and may one day ruin this Republic. But to shred the
office
}} of the Presidency with such BS is poor statesmanship and not in the best
}} long term interests of the American people, nor the Federal executive
}} branch. There is little confidence in our leaders anymore, and this is
}} making it worse. Maybe I am being naive; maybe there is no basis for such
}} respect anyway.
}} With all the crimes Clinton has been accused of in the Rightwing press,
}} especially the American Spectator, one would think that Starr could find
}} more than this. He cant realistically make a second effort at proposing
}} Clintons impeachment if this one fails. I feel the odds are very strong
an
}} impeachment will fail, and if Clintons supporters rally to him, he may
not
}} resign, and then he rides it all out. I suspect the real Republican goal
}} here is to smear Clinton and his administration, preparing not only for
the
}} next elections, and the 2000 presidential elections, but also to weaken
}} Clinton before another budget battle for this fall. And it may shut down
the
}} government again for an even longer period of time. Republicans will be
more
}} than happy to deep six the impeachment investigation in exchange for some
}} more breaks for the rich, if Clinton will agree to it. I doubt Clinton
would
}} then turn them down. One goal the Republicans have is to allow about
135,000
}} aliens into the US to program computers. Clinton wants to make the
}} requirements more stringent, the Republicans want an open gate that has
its
}} hinges removed. This is a simple example of why the Democrats are largely
}} still the party for the working middle class and the Republicans are
}} carrying water only for the rich. The conservative and christian
Republicans
}} are being used.
}} Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What
}} was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed,
}} Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its
we
}} on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges
against
}} a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr
can
}} do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the
}} issues.
}}
}} RGlenCheek
}
}Your denials of Clinton's guilt speaks volumes, about your failure to
}read.
Rather cryptic LDO. I cant read everything, but I did read some of the
accounts on the internet and spoke with some who have read the report in its
entirety and they concur with my impression. This was a case of an
'intercourseless' affair that should have remained private. The trail of
causality that brought it into the publeic eye is convoluted, but in essence
we are thinking of impeaching a president for something that most married
men caught in adultery would do; 'carry their own water', ie, deal with the
guilt on their own and deny, lie, and do what ever you hve to do to protect
your family from scandal. Considering the pitiful account that millions were
spent to uncover (how many $ mil per BJ was that?), I cant help but feel it
is all a waste of time and money.
Note: I am not denying Clintons guilt, I am saying I dont think these were
'high' crimes, nor do I think the majority of the public will either. I
think most people who say they would support impeachment on perjury charges,
arent thinking in terms of perjury to protect one's family from scandal. In
fact, I think Clinton can and will score some major political points with
the public by posing as a man whose family is being torn apart by a partisan
investigation. But I think he is guilty on a number of things, like white
water, mena, and obstructing justice in those cases, but this report has
nothing to do with any of that.
I strenuously oppose much of what Clinton stands for, but on a few things
I agree with him, and think that his opposition to massive immigration for
_temporary_ workers is admirable. Work here should be for citizens, natural
or naturalized makes no difference, but if they go home they take mental
capital with them, and that is bad. I think this is where Clinton is getting
the heat from, and similar issues where he runs afoul of the big
international cooporations.
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
HCCRR wrote in message <905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
At least you're honest about it.
}Clinton is in real trouble, more than you let on.
Well, no, just more than I know, apparently.
} The fact remains, that while
}Starr litters his report with extraneous and salacious sexual details,
there
}appears to be grounds for impeaching the president. He is accused of many
}crimes by Starr, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of
power.
}Remember, it is not what you and I think high crimes and misdemeanors
means,
}but what the House of Representatives thinks it means.Therefore court
}evidentiary rules will not apply to the impeachment inquiry. An impeachment
}trial is a political trial, to determine an official's fitness for office.
I am aware of that, but maybe the lurkers aren't. It is the political
reasons that may keep him in office. What do Republicans gain by actually
ousting him? Nothing I can see; they profit more from an emasculated
president that can be used to tar anyone the Dems nominate in 2000, and
neutralize the White House as a factor in the local Rep elections. Cant cut
a deal if no one thinks you can deliver the pork as promised. Frankly, I
suspect a sense of abandonment of Clinton by Democrats because they perceive
these weaknesses, and want to jettizon the dead weight. The Senate wont go
that far, IMO. I'm afraid the Dems will simply be stuck with this albatross
around their necks for the next few years.
} And
}frankly, there is enough in the report, to question Clinton's. I say this
as a
}long time Clinton supporter. If enough Democrats desert the president in
the
}near future, and I have every reason to believe this is possible as we near
the
}mid term elections, it is they who will force him out by resignation.
But only the Dems that are Senators. 'Lord Limo' Biden, et all are'nt there
yet by a large length, IMO.
} As for
}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
grown up
}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
likely
}to be a communist.
Not likely, just more likely than the average.
}Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
}Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old student
at
}that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton.
But that is the kind of thing that they deny clearances for. Clinton cant
answer some very sensitive questions about his activities that winter, like
who sponsored his visit, which at the time had to be a Communist Party
official, IIRC. Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
} This has
}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
loathing
}then actual facts.
Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue? Why is it extreme
for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
} And this following
}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan Republicans I
}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is that
}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic come
Jan 2000.
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
Michae/ Schneder wrote in message
<905610921$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <905556006$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
}}into this investigation you would think more could have been found than a
}}tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President understandably
}}lied about.
}
}
} You would think.
}
} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}
Wow, Bob is in on the conspiracy, huh? Methinks you need to calm down, Mike.
Bob Star would like to have Clinton horse whipped nude in the middle of
Lafayette Circle. He is not covering up anything.
RGlenCheek
HCCRR
In article <905621703$32...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
That is an accurate statement. But who is Bob?
HCCRR
In article <905621701$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
}
}
}At least you're honest about it.
I always strive to.
}
}}Clinton is in real trouble, more than you let on.
}
}Well, no, just more than I know, apparently.
Time will tell.
}
}} The fact remains, that while
}}Starr litters his report with extraneous and salacious sexual details,
}there
}}appears to be grounds for impeaching the president. He is accused of many
}}crimes by Starr, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of
}power.
}}Remember, it is not what you and I think high crimes and misdemeanors
}means,
}}but what the House of Representatives thinks it means.Therefore court
}}evidentiary rules will not apply to the impeachment inquiry. An impeachment
}}trial is a political trial, to determine an official's fitness for office.
}
}I am aware of that, but maybe the lurkers aren't. It is the political
}reasons that may keep him in office. What do Republicans gain by actually
}ousting him?
A certain amount of political revenge for Thomas, Bork, et al.
Nothing I can see; they profit more from an emasculated
}president that can be used to tar anyone the Dems nominate in 2000, and
}neutralize the White House as a factor in the local Rep elections.
They could do that anyway, especially if the Democratic nominee is Al Gore.
Cant cut
}a deal if no one thinks you can deliver the pork as promised. Frankly, I
}suspect a sense of abandonment of Clinton by Democrats because they perceive
}these weaknesses, and want to jettizon the dead weight. The Senate wont go
}that far, IMO. I'm afraid the Dems will simply be stuck with this albatross
}around their necks for the next few years.
However, Clinton couldn't govern under such circumstances, and this will force
him out. Remember Nixon didn't claim that Watergate forced him out of office,
but that he lost his political base in the Congress.
}
}} And
}}frankly, there is enough in the report, to question Clinton's. I say this
}as a
}}long time Clinton supporter. If enough Democrats desert the president in
}the
}}near future, and I have every reason to believe this is possible as we near
}the
}}mid term elections, it is they who will force him out by resignation.
}
}But only the Dems that are Senators. 'Lord Limo' Biden, et all are'nt there
}yet by a large length, IMO.
No, but there will more in the future, unless he rebounds. The Democrats stand
to lose some 5-7 seats in the Senate alone this year, and that would be a
disaster providing a filibuster proof GOP Senate for the first time in living
memory. It would also make conviction easier since I assume all GOP senators
would vote to remove Clinton.
}
}} As for
}}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
}grown up
}}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
}likely
}}to be a communist.
}
}Not likely, just more likely than the average.
Not likely at all, given the facts.
}
}}Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
}}Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old student
}at
}}that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton.
}
}But that is the kind of thing that they deny clearances for. Clinton cant
}answer some very sensitive questions about his activities that winter, like
}who sponsored his visit,
It was traditional mid winter vacation that all Rhode's Scholars take during
their year at Oxford. Nothing sinister about it.
which at the time had to be a Communist Party
}official, IIRC.
You mean to say those running the Rhodes Programs were Communist Party
officials? Or are you talking about the normal granting of travel visas by the
Soviet Government?
Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied. Not to mention the Constitution
doesn't require one. I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is there
proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify such
outlandish accusations?
}
}} This has
}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}loathing
}}then actual facts.
}
}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a theory
that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his school
break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
Why is it extreme
}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
}
}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}
}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that Jewell
guy?
}
}} And this following
}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan Republicans I
}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is that
}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}
}
}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme right?
}
}But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic come
}Jan 2000.
Depends on how the public reacts. If his approval ratings drop to Nixonian
levels, then he is history. If they hold near the .500 mark, he could still be
there on the morning of Jan 20, 2001.
}
}RGlenCheek
Michae Schneder
In article <905618108$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
(HCCRR) wrote:
}} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}
}Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Do you include almost every
}Congressional committee as well?
"Vince Foster".
Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
Michae Schneder
}} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}
}Wow, Bob is in on the conspiracy, huh? Methinks you need to calm down, Mike.
}Bob Star would like to have Clinton horse whipped nude in the middle of
}Lafayette Circle. He is not covering up anything.
He has covered up EVERYTHING *except* Monica.
MindSpring User
HCCRR wrote in message <905631603$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <905621703$32...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
User"
}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}}
}}
}}Michae/ Schneder wrote in message
}}<905610921$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}
}}}In article <905556006$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}}}User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}}}
}}}} Well, the Starr report is out and I am shocked! For all the money put
}}}}into this investigation you would think more could have been found than
a
}}}}tawdry tale of an intercourseless affair that the President
understandably
}}}}lied about.
}}}
}}}
}}} You would think.
}}}
}}} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}}}
}}
}}
}}Wow, Bob is in on the conspiracy, huh? Methinks you need to calm down,
Mike.
}}Bob Star would like to have Clinton horse whipped nude in the middle of
}}Lafayette Circle. He is not covering up anything.
}}
}}RGlenCheek
}
}That is an accurate statement. But who is Bob?
}
}
'Bob' is the result of a brain fart. I meant Ken, but maybe he has similar
origins to 'Bob'. Doh <smacks head with palm>.
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
HCCRR wrote in message <905631601$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <905621701$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
User"
}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}}
}}HCCRR wrote in message <905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}
}}}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
}}} As for
}}}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
}}grown up
}}}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
}}likely
}}}to be a communist.
}}
}}Not likely, just more likely than the average.
}
}Not likely at all, given the facts.
You're saying tha tnationwide, the Dems are no more likely to have Commies
in the cubbard than the Publicans? Well, that honesty thing seems rather
thin right now.
}}
}}}Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
}}}Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old student
}}at
}}}that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton.
}}
}}But that is the kind of thing that they deny clearances for. Clinton cant
}}answer some very sensitive questions about his activities that winter,
like
}}who sponsored his visit,
}
}It was traditional mid winter vacation that all Rhode's Scholars take
during
}their year at Oxford. Nothing sinister about it.
}
}
} which at the time had to be a Communist Party
}}official, IIRC.
}
}You mean to say those running the Rhodes Programs were Communist Party
}officials? Or are you talking about the normal granting of travel visas by
the
}Soviet Government?
}
Soviet Government would nt let people in unless they were sponsored by some
Commie Party official and the KGB had to approve it as well, IIRC. This was
right after some of Clintons more infamous anit-war protests, and the
following summer he had ties to a known KGB front group, whose name I cant
recall off-hand, something like International Peace Committee, etc.
I am not saying this proves anything, but raises some questions about why he
was there and who sponsored him.
} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}
}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont think
he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
} Not to mention the Constitution
}doesn't require one.
Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for suspiscion,
IMO. I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
I would get my clearance app revoked.
}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is there
}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify such
}outlandish accusations?
No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing with
one of there own.
Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck Colson's
_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
}}
}}} This has
}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}}loathing
}}}then actual facts.
}}
}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}
}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a
theory
}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his
school
}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
Not in the circumstances.
}Why is it extreme
}}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
}
}But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
Were the cattle futures only ranks specualtion?
}}
}}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}}
}}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
}
}But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that Jewell
}guy?
Yep, I said he was innocent at the time, too.
}}
}}} And this following
}}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan Republicans
I
}}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is that
}}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}}
}}
}}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
}
}Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme right?
Aside from Oral envy? Dunno, maybe Penis envy?
HCCRR
In article <905657700$56...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
DD...@VVVwintOOOernet.com (Michae\ Schneder) writes:
}
}
}In article <905618108$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, hc...@aol.com
}(HCCRR) wrote:
}
}}} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}}
}}Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Do you include almost every
}}Congressional committee as well?
}
}
} "Vince Foster".
His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
investigated it.
}
} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating
wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? Is
this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask this
because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, and
bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
HCCRR
In article <905657702$56...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
DD...@VVVwintOOOernet.com (Michae\ Schneder) writes:
}
}
}In article <905621703$32...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}User" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}}} But Starr's job is to cover up the rought stuff.
}}
}}Wow, Bob is in on the conspiracy, huh? Methinks you need to calm down, Mike.
}}Bob Star would like to have Clinton horse whipped nude in the middle of
}}Lafayette Circle. He is not covering up anything.
}
}
} He has covered up EVERYTHING *except* Monica.
}
You mean he has found no evidence of Clinton wrong doing in those other
matters.
HCCRR
In article <905664902$62...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <905631601$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}In article <905621701$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}User"
}}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}}
}}}
}}}HCCRR wrote in message <905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}}
}}}}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
}}}} As for
}}}}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
}}}grown up
}}}}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
}}}likely
}}}}to be a communist.
}}}
}}}Not likely, just more likely than the average.
}}
}}Not likely at all, given the facts.
}
}
}You're saying tha tnationwide, the Dems are no more likely to have Commies
}in the cubbard than the Publicans? Well, that honesty thing seems rather
}thin right now.
I guess it depends on the definition of the word communist. Given the rather
broad used by most in the patriot movement that would include just about any
Democrat. Do you know of any well known communists in the Democratic Party?
}
}}}
}}}}Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
}}}}Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old student
}}}at
}}}}that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton.
}}}
}}}But that is the kind of thing that they deny clearances for. Clinton cant
}}}answer some very sensitive questions about his activities that winter,
}like
}}}who sponsored his visit,
}}
}}It was traditional mid winter vacation that all Rhode's Scholars take
}during
}}their year at Oxford. Nothing sinister about it.
}}
}}
}} which at the time had to be a Communist Party
}}}official, IIRC.
}}
}}You mean to say those running the Rhodes Programs were Communist Party
}}officials? Or are you talking about the normal granting of travel visas by
}the
}}Soviet Government?
}}
}
}Soviet Government would nt let people in unless they were sponsored by some
}Commie Party official and the KGB had to approve it as well, IIRC.
That is hardly accurate. I had friends who went over there for years and they
were never sponsored by CPSU officials. As for the KGB, perhaps there was a
low level person involved because the KGB had responsiblity of border control
in the old USSR. Now if we accept your premise then, that every single
American who went to the USSR was a communist agent. That would include
millions upon millions Americans who went there.
This was
}right after some of Clintons more infamous anit-war protests,
That still isn't proof. Lots of Americans entered the USSR during that time
who didn't participate in anti war demonstrations. I know of at least 10
personally, most of whom are right wing in their politics.
and the
}following summer he had ties to a known KGB front group, whose name I cant
}recall off-hand, something like International Peace Committee, etc.
But did he know it was a KGB front group if true? That is another leap on your
part based on your general opinion of BIll Clinton.
}I am not saying this proves anything, but raises some questions about why he
}was there and who sponsored him.
But I ask again, what is the name of the Communist who sponsored him?
}
}} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}}
}}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
}
}I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont think
}he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
}regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
What activities in Moscow? Touring Red Square like countless other tourists?
Or do you have hard information that he actually met with some KGB official,
and I am not talking about the "minders" that worked at Intourist either. Did
he meet with one for the purposes of conducting espionage or sedition?
}
}} Not to mention the Constitution
}}doesn't require one.
}
}Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for suspiscion,
}IMO.
He has answered! He was tourist on a student holiday during the Christmas
break.
I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
}I would get my clearance app revoked.
Who asked him about it? What office debriefed him?
}
}}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is there
}}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify such
}}outlandish accusations?
}
}No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing with
}one of there own.
I am looking for even one shred of evidence that Clinton went to the Soviet
Union for purposes other than tourism. So far there isn't any.
}
}Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck Colson's
}_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
What does this have to do with your lack of evidence that Clinton was doing
anything in the USSR other than sampling vodka or piroshki?
}}}
}}}} This has
}}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}}}loathing
}}}}then actual facts.
}}}
}}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}}
}}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a
}theory
}}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his
}school
}}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
}
}
}Not in the circumstances.
How? DId he meet with a KGB official, and know that he/she was a KGB official?
I mean, come on here, you don't much more than speculation here, the kind that
brought ridicule to B-1 Bob for this antics on the House floor in 1992.
}
}
}}Why is it extreme
}}}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}}}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}}}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
}}
}}But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
}
}
}Were the cattle futures only ranks specualtion?
So Hillary made a killing in cattle futures market. Boo hoo. Where is the
indictment of her that substantiates the claims made by Clinton haters. My God
man, don't you think Starr would have loved to indict her over the something
that simple if there was clear evidence of wrong doing?
}
}}}
}}}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}}}
}}}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
}}
}}But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that Jewell
}}guy?
}
}Yep, I said he was innocent at the time, too.
But a lot of people had him tried, convicted, and sentenced, based on
speculation.
Should Jewell be hounded forever with such charges based solely on speculation?
This is what is being done to Clinton. Well except for this Monica business.
}
}}}
}}}} And this following
}}}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan Republicans
}I
}}}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is that
}}}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}}}
}}}
}}}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
}}
}}Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme right?
}
}Aside from Oral envy? Dunno, maybe Penis envy?
ROTFLMAO! Seriously, they have lost all perspective when it comes to Clinton.
Don't you agree?
}
}}}
}}}But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic come
}}}Jan 2000.
}}
}}Depends on how the public reacts. If his approval ratings drop to Nixonian
}}levels, then he is history. If they hold near the .500 mark, he could
}still be
}}there on the morning of Jan 20, 2001.
}}
}RGlenCheek
}
Thus far his approval ratings are holding at 63%, and this is after the release
of the Starr report. Even the calls for his impeachment and resignation are
only supported by about 35%. This surprises the hell out of me. But it proves
the American people are willing to be more forgiving than some of us. But as
this thing festers, the Nixon scenario could come into play. But then again,
Clinton is not the Come Back Kid for nothing.
Thomas R Beck
hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}}
}} "Vince Foster".
}His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
}investigated it.
}}
}} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
}Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
}death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating
}wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? Is
}this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask this
}because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, and
}bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type
coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white people,
women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's
rights but their's.
Michae+ Schneder
In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R Beck
<beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}Do not look for these so called
}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to giv--
Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom.
Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people,
he should resign." -- Bill Clinton, responding to a question about
President Nixon, while running for the US House of Representatives, 1974.
HCCRR
}
}
}hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}}}
}}} "Vince Foster".
}
}}His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
}}investigated it.
}
}}}
}}} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
}
}}Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
}}death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating
}}wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up?
}Is
}}this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask
}this
}}because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree,
}and
}}bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
}
} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type
} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
}people,
} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so
}called
} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's
} rights but their's.
}
Well first off. R Glenn didn't write the words I responded too, but a jerk off
who likes to killfile people for not agreeing with him. Secondly, there are
some who would love to see a day of the rope invoked against those they deemed
as traitors. Thank God, they are a small number even with the patriot
movement.
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}
} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
} }}
} }} "Vince Foster".
}
} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
} }investigated it.
}
} }}
} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
}
} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating
} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up?
Is
} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask
this
} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree,
and
} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
}
} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type
} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
people,
} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's
} rights but their's.
Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend
myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from
such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of
my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his
accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my defence, but
what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or
useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever made a
remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all pov
in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones
censorship in this NG or real life. I have constantly attacked fascists,
neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value
of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the
case then why would I have done as I have? My only rational suppositions
left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is
ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft'
homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and
that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is
justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence
against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal
protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think
that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through
the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I
dont really care, however. The church will triumph over its enemies and that
is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown
into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then
anyway.
RGlenCheek
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <905788218$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
DD...@VVVwintDELLernet.com (Michae+ Schneder) wrote:
}
} In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R Beck
} <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}
} }Do not look for these so called
}
} Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom.
}
He wont, Mike. A libertarian athiest is only half a step away from a
hedonistic, elitist, anyway. But who is *them*, Mike? We 'homophobes'? We
'christians'? We 'rednecks'?
They say that in the moment of truth you discover who can be relied on to
display courage, and stand for what they beleive in and defend their own. Its
good to know how quick you are to point the finger at everyone else. Dont
worry about alienating all of *them*, just make sure the libs dont confuse
you for one of *them*.
HCCRR
In article <905814300$51...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rglen...@my-dejanews.com writes:
}
}In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}}
}} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}}
}} }}
}} }} "Vince Foster".
}}
}} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that
}has
}} }investigated it.
}}
}} }}
}} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
\
R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write these
words.
}}
}} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
}} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton
}hating
}} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up?
}Is
}} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask
}this
}} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree,
}and
}} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
}}
}} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type
}} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
}} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
}people,
}} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
}} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so
}called
I think so how he mistook the post that I was responding to as being one of
yours. As I pointed out in my response to this, you did not the write the
section above in question.
M!ke Schne!der
In article <905814302$51...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rglen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}In article <905788218$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} DD...@VVVwintDELLernet.com (Michae+ Schneder) wrote:
}}
}} In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R Beck
}} <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}}
}} }Do not look for these so called
}} }"staunch defenders of the constitution" to giv--
}}
}} Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom.
}}
}
}He wont, Mike. A libertarian athiest
*Half* right. At least you're getting warm.
}is only half a step away from a hedonistic elitist
What is one of those? A man who enjoys life without your approval?
}anyway. But who is *them*, Mike? We 'homophobes'? We
}'christians'? We 'rednecks'?
"Staunch defenders of the constitution". (Jesus...)
}They say that in the moment of truth you discover who can be relied on to
}display courage, and stand for what they beleive in and defend their own. Its
}good to know how quick you are to point the finger at everyone else. Dont
}worry about alienating all of *them*, just make sure the libs dont confuse
}you for one of *them*.
Courage is for naught without intelligence to guide it.
M!ke Schne!der
What?
(Jesus, people....)
In article <905827801$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
THE...@webtv.net (R M) wrote:
}<html><P>Republican goal?</P><P>You, my friend, may have been duped by
}the President's spin-doctors, or by the press. Starr was appointed by
}the attorney-general, not by the Republicans. The attorney-general was
}appointed by Clinton. Clinton, himself, extended the law which
}permitted special prosecutors to act.</P><P>Can you name any Republican
}who influenced Kenneth Starr--who assisted, or directed his
}investigation?</P><P>Starr is an <b>Independant</b> Prosecutor. And a
}reluctant one, at that. Few remember the criticism he received, when he
}wished to abandon his role, and return to his prefered life as a
}professor. He stuck it out, though, and has performed his duty, while
}being attacked, almost daily, by the President's staff, and by loyal
}Democrats.</P><P>It is evident, after reading the evidence, that the
}President had acted like a horny teen-ager towards Ms. Lewinsky, and
}others; and not like a mature 50 year old man, who just happened to also
}hold this nation's highest office.</P><P>This nation, my friend. Not
}Uganda, or Senegal. The United States of America. A nation of parents
}who have, too often, found their eyes filled with tears of pride; even
}before their tears of sorrow had dried...for their sons and daughters,
}who had sacrificed their lives for others, over-seas; for those high and
}noble principles which used to define this nation. Honor, integrity,
}freedom.</P><P>Which of those virtues do you believe the President
}possesses?</P><P>Bill Clinton, leading on an innocent girl, for his own
}selfish satisfaction, is bad enough. It shows a complete lack of
}judgement and character for any man, much less the "Leader of the free
}world". I think that the lying son-of-a-bitch should have been
}impeached over his actions towards Kathryn Willy, a long-time
}ago.</P><P>Forty Million Dollars? Again, you have fallen into the
}President's spin. "Forty Million Dollars" has been the key phrase of
}supporting liberals, and the press, throughout this whole tawdry
}episode. Is tax money such an important issue? Why don't we talk about
}President Clinton's first-term budget, and the highest tax increase in
}the history of this country, and the world. Forty Million dollars--I
}don't like it, but it is a drop in the bucket in this government of
}waste.</P><P>"Is this the best that Starr can do?" Travel-gate,
}file-gate, Whitewater, foreign contributions to the President and the
}Democratic party, Cattle futures, etc., etc., etc. There <b>may</b>
}have been something there; had not 80 key witnesses had either fled the
}country, or had met untimely deaths.</P><P>Go figure.</P><P>Bill and
}Hillary did not achieve office because their very personal views, and
}commitments, were shared with the majority of Americans. They achieved
}office because they were willing to bend, or abandon, their beliefs, to
}appeal to the majority of voters. This has always been a poll-driven
}Presidency.</P><P>An insincere (but popular), candidate, and
}incumbent.</P><P>The American people have, according to Slick Willie's
}definition, " not been subjected to sex", by that liar.</P><P>It is
}becoming a polular phrase among young people, in this country. Young
}men are begging young women--to "not have sex with them."</P><P>We have
}been flattered, and deceived, again and again, by Bill Clinton. We
}have, collectively, <b>not</b> been screwed by that consummate
}liar.</P><P>
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <905824217$58...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}
} In article <905814300$51...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} rglen...@my-dejanews.com writes:
}
} }
} } Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
} }}
} }}
} }} }}
} }} }} "Vince Foster".
} }}
} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that
} }has
} }} }investigated it.
} }}
} }} }}
} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
} \
}
} R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write these
} words.
}
} }}
} }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
} }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton
} }hating
} }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up?
} }Is
} }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask
} }this
} }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree,
} }and
} }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
} }}
} }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type
} }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
} }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
} }people,
} }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
} }called
I accept your explanation, HCCRR. Maybe Mr Beck made a mistake. I appreciate
your speaking honestly on this matter. There is nothing I value more than
free speech for all, and I think my conduct on this NG and in general
supports my vanity here (all things in this life are vain).
Thanks again, HCCRR. You've shown more courage than some that I would have
thought would defend me, if for no more reason than simple honesty.
Thomas R Beck
rglen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}}
}} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}}
}} }}
}} }} "Vince Foster".
}}
}} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
}} }investigated it.
}}
}} }}
}} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
}}
I thought the "Shut the fuck up .." comment to be from rglencheek, but I was
in error.
}I have constantly attacked fascists,
}neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value
}of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the
}case then why would I have done as I have?
Are you not the same rglencheek who has frequently espoused the cause of the
Taliban? Is it not true that you do so because you admire them for using their
particular vision of what is commanded by fundamentalist Islam to guide their
governance of Afganistan, rather than, say, priciples of tolerance and respect
for the rights of others?
}My only rational suppositions
}left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is
}ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft'
}homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and
}that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is
}justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence
}against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal
}protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think
}that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through
}the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I
}dont really care, however.
If I am not again in error, aren't you the same rglencheek who likes to
base a good bit of his position on his belief in the ultimate triumph of
fundamentalist Christian theology?
}The church will triumph over its enemies and that
}is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown
}into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then
}anyway.
}RGlenCheek
'Nuf said.
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:20:06 -0500, RGlenCheek wrote:
} Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What
} was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed,
} Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its we
} on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges against
} a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr can
} do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the
} issues.
You make some very valid points and I think that Starr is an idiot <grin>.
Those hundreds of FBI files bother me though and they bother me a lot. I was
*very* much in favor of President Nixon being impreached as I thought he was
"beneath the dignity" of what a President "should be". One of the main reasons
I was "against" Nixon was his "enemies list".
I don't see a great deal of difference between Nixon and Clinton in this case.
I think Starr is an idiot partially because he ignored about 80% of his "case"
and paid attention to the "sexual" parts of his investigation.
About "sex" per se I could care less (unless it concerns me <smile>). But there
have been enough other accusations against President Clinton that I would think
that Starr could have released a few details on the first couple of years of
his "investigation".
I see no reason why President Clinton shouldn't be impeached.
We deserve better.
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 9:50:03 -0500, David A. Tharp wrote:
} Sex biols down to square inches of the male body interacting with square
} inches of the female body. Now in most cases this causes no problems
} because it takes place in prvite and is talked about (if at all) in privite
} also.
---------------------------------------------
Huh?
Gray
HCCRR
In article <905842201$69...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rglen...@my-dejanews.com writes:
}
}In article <905824217$58...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}}
}} In article <905814300$51...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}} rglen...@my-dejanews.com writes:
}}
}} }
}} }In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}} } Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}} }}
}} }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
}} }}
}} }} }}
}} }} }} "Vince Foster".
}} }}
}} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body
}that
}} }has
}} }} }investigated it.
}} }}
}} }} }}
}} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
}} \
}}
}} R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write
}these
}} words.
}}
}} }}
}} }censorship in this NG or real life. I have constantly attacked fascists,
}} }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human
}value
}} }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the
}} }case then why would I have done as I have? My only rational suppositions
}} }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is
}} }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft'
}} }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely,
}and
}} }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is
}} }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence
}} }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal
}} }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I
}think
}} }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through
}} }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate.
}I
}} }dont really care, however. The church will triumph over its enemies and
}that
}} }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are
}thrown
}} }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then
}} }anyway.
}} }
}} }RGlenCheek
}} }
}}
}} I think so how he mistook the post that I was responding to as being one of
}} yours. As I pointed out in my response to this, you did not the write the
}} section above in question.
}}
}}
}
}I accept your explanation, HCCRR. Maybe Mr Beck made a mistake. I appreciate
}your speaking honestly on this matter. There is nothing I value more than
}free speech for all, and I think my conduct on this NG and in general
}supports my vanity here (all things in this life are vain).
}
}Thanks again, HCCRR. You've shown more courage than some that I would have
}thought would defend me, if for no more reason than simple honesty.
}
}RGlenCheek
No problem and your welcome.
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <905845800$70...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}
} }In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} } Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
} }}
} }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
} }}
} }} }}
} }} }} "Vince Foster".
} }}
} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that
has
} }} }investigated it.
} }}
} }} }}
} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
} }}
} in error.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting this. NP.
} }I have constantly attacked fascists,
} }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value
} }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the
} }case then why would I have done as I have?
}
} Are you not the same rglencheek who has frequently espoused the cause of the
} Taliban?
No, I do not espouse their cause. I admire certain aspects of their
movement, such as their commitment, zeal, and resourcefulness, much as I
admire some of these same traits in Stalin. I deplore their hatred of all but
whom they consider the most pure, their intolerance of free thought and moral
progress. I hope, pray, and believe that they will 'mellow' and acquire these
traits, if not the present generation, then the next. Also, I think the
tactics, discipline and morale of the Taleban is a good example for the
militias, but certainly no one should emulate the intolerance, and moral
backwardness of their movement.
}Is it not true that you do so because you admire them for using
}their
} particular vision of what is commanded by fundamentalist Islam to guide their
} governance of Afganistan, rather than, say, priciples of tolerance and respect
} for the rights of others?
No, I dont admire them for that. I do think that Western Nihilism,
Existentialism, Materialism, and hedonism is rightly being rejected across
the globe by those more wise, and I applaud that. The next century is going
to see the complete collapse of Western values, and christian fundamentalism
will have even more increased sway. We will see a sharpened dichotamy between
those of faith and science over the next few years, but those of rational
faith are beginning to embrace the full implications of science within a
framework of faith again for various reasons, and they will win the debate,
IMO. This does not imply any intolerance toward anyone else, such as that
shown by Scientific American which fired one of its editors a few years ago
because it was discovered that he was an Old Earth Creationist.
} }My only rational suppositions
} }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is
} }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft'
} }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and
} }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is
} }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence
} }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal
} }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think
} }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through
} }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I
} }dont really care, however.
}
} If I am not again in error, aren't you the same rglencheek who likes to
} base a good bit of his position on his belief in the ultimate triumph of
} fundamentalist Christian theology?
Close, but no. I dont believe Jesus is God, so I cant consider myself truly
fundamentalist. I believe that the God of Abraham has guided a body of those
who love Him for millenia. This body consists of all who worship or cherish
those Divine features of the Divine Personality, such as Love, Truth,
Goodness, etc. Thus this body includes those who do not personally worship
Jehovah, and even athiests and agnostics who do not realize that the Truth
and Good they value is an aspect of the God they do not know or acknowledge.
But that is why there will be a Judgement by God. If it were a simple
formula, (you worship in a building named *** Church) = (go to heaven), then
what is the need of the Judgement of an omniscient, infinitely wise God?
There would be none. God is the only One qualified to make such judgements,
and He will make them based on our behavior, which says far more than any
proffession of faith. This is not to minimize evil. Evil is going to be
punished, but as the Bible says, God does not stay angry for ever. Even the
Fires of Hell will become empty, as Gods Love conquers every heart there, and
takes them back home to live in His Presence. All will eventually be saved,
and every knee will bow.
} }The church will triumph over its enemies and that
} }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown
} }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then
} }anyway.
}
} }RGlenCheek
}
} 'Nuf said.
}
Given your admission of error, I retract my characterization of you as a
fool. And the church shall be triumphant, but here I do not refer to the
visible church that men organize sects of, I am refering to the invisible
universal church of all who worship the God of Abraham, knowingly or not.
But there is also a particular struggle by the church here in the US, to
endure the persecution of Biblical christians that is growing yearly. Check
out my Wenatchee posts for an egregious example of this persecution. And it
is only going to get worse, because fewer and fewer of the educated can
understand religious terminalogy and distinctions in this country. Religious
education is pathetic in our major universities, and when given, it is
usually a characature of fundamentalism that is presented. This ignorance
breeds contempt, dehumanization, and heavy-handedness like that exemplified
at Waco.
If you search my postings through DejaNews, you will see I am being
consistent, IMO.
Quarkzone9
}} Sex biols
}square inches
} male body
} female body.
} prvite
}privite
}} also.
What's the matter with you , Shockley, don't you get it? :>)
FRED C. DOBBS
that he has more serious matters hanging over his head. To think
that this man is the leader of our country.
FRED C.DOBBS
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 15 Sep 98 7:50:00 GMT, Thomas R Beck
<beck...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote:
<snip rglenn's and hccrr's comments>
}}}Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event
}}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a
}}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has
}}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
}}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of
}}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than
}}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
}}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's
}}}ass about anyone's rights but their's.
First of all, HCCR's point is well taken, the previous
discussion was between him and Mike Schneider, not Richard
Glenn. You appeared to confuse the latter with the former,
even though Mike and Richard have actually been involved
in a heated debate over religion (see threads about Bin
Ladin).
I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably
just about as far from him on the mainstream political
spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns
his children against). :) But he's not a totalitarian. If
he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not
approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them
unfair, maybe even oppressive. But a 'reign of terror'?
Nope, not by any reasonable definition. And he does
seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good,
RGlenn. Keep it up). RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I
can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong
religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist,
quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian
either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any
self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his
statements is troubling.
There have been people here which fit your description-
people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
posts with the latter two words should be banned
from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
a point there...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNf5UUsyPOTvd59tlAQFI1wQAps1myU6w0OCZk+93p4v69IpIj94hVIJt
+iOET9XQRi6p3zMgTqNek8kaUo+soom+9Y24fKzP7SLVubYJZthkmgw6In1FnrB0
Y48aUctslfuFAEvY4HXvlnk+E9YcmSoizv42cqp/PBkGrqwLpeeHL3MS/0HyOfaN
Vd0ERD+RZCo=
=321x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stewart Millen
Remove the "-tain-" in the e-mail address for
sending e-mail to my home address, or contact
me at Stewart...@hotmail.com
PGP Key on Keyservers
Key ID: DDE7DB65
Key Fingerprint: 66 C0 E9 25 4F EB 46 1A
7E B9 04 EE AE F6 38 29
John D.
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}There have been people here which fit your description-
}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}a point there...
It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those
on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why? I think it's
because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you
leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash,
militianoid,loons...............etc. But, that aside, what I find most
interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on
the militia news group.
I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face it
Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
John
HCCRR
In article <905991601$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes:
}
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snipped)
}
}}There have been people here which fit your description-
}}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}}a point there...
}
}
}It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those
}on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why?
Probably because both are inaccurate statements.
I think it's
}because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you
}leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash,
}militianoid,loons...............etc.
Those aren't good either and should be used only in the proper context.
But, that aside, what I find most
}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on
}the militia news group.
Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
}
}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face it
}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
Bullshit.
}
}John
}
}
For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
com*mu*nism (noun)
[French communisme, from commun common]
First appeared 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property.
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as
needed
Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult life in
the private sector.
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and
Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
Which none of us subscribe to at all.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian
party controls state-owned means of production
Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer our
system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view can
legally be held.
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR.
d : communist systems collectively
Based on previous definitions.
Joseph Pothier
rglen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
} In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} Thomas R Beck <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
} }
} } hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote:
} }
} } }}
} } }} "Vince Foster".
} }
} } }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has
} } }investigated it.
} }
} } }}
} } }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
} }
} } }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's
} } }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating
} } }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up?
} Is
} } }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask
} this
} } }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree,
} and
} } }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over.
} }
} } coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this
} } old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
} people,
} } women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly
} } would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
} } "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's
} } rights but their's.
}
} myself?
It was not slander, it was fact. We all know what the country would look
like with you and yours in power.
} Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from
} such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of
} my 'true intentions'.
Actually, anyone familiar with the militia movement knows it is based on
either the threat of violence or use of violence to impose on this
country a right-wing agenda.
<<rest of rambling apologia snipped>>
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 17 Sep 98 0:20:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}
}
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snipped)
}
}}There have been people here which fit your description-
}}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}}a point there...
}
}
}It seems those on the left dislike being called
}communists more than those on the right dislike being
}called fascists...wonder why?
Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
}I think it's
}because it hits too close to home.
Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not
even close.
}I also find it
}rather telling that you leave out the often used terms
}by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid, loons
}...............etc.
When have I used those terms? Cite them please.
}But, that aside, what I find most
}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to
}regulate the content on the militia news group.
Read my statement again. Kaa suggested (tongue-in-
cheek, I think) that those terms be banned because
they're *tiresome* and *meaningless*. Which of
those two words do you have problem understanding?
}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist
}plot to me.
Reading your posts, seems like everything sounds
like a Communist plot to you.
}Face it
}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
Is that why I push PGP?
}John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgD7JMyPOTvd59tlAQG1zgP+N8/oTUCDsyPazh3YAVrsC9NvR6M5Fplb
D3/g4ndrccpA8Mf9bNgC3pXtx8iZhq2T0/HWYsi9cOTkKHcevw+49ZkRjeEuhUpo
Tx80hLdGLDG/1+UW+t0P1NDyv6qEAblw3gFVJ4bAqNufiDyR3KswYlE4fh63FNyH
BmcUq55sIC0=
=f9au
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <906003304$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
Another spin on your part HCCRR, what a joke you make of yourself. Anyone
reading this thread knows that I was making a direct response to Stewarts
comment on Kaa wanting the mam bot to kick out any posts that contained the
words communist or fascists. Wasn't conversing with you.
Very disengenoius HCCRR, but then we expect that from you and the other
lefties.
}}
}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face
it
}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
}
}Bullshit.
Really, I bet you find the term Communist tiresome too, dont you?
I know Kaa does and Stewart and a few others do. Very uncomfortable term for
you guy's. Good. maybe you will take a closer look at your agenda.
}For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
}
}com*mu*nism (noun)
More schoolboy bullshit. I'll give you a D- for being able to copy + paste.
}[French communisme, from commun common]
}
}First appeared 1840
}
} 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
}
}We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property.
Property taxes are used by the States in many places and the States have
become proxies for the Fed. Don't pay your taxes the State takes your
property, with the blessings of the Fed. The Fed taking property in large
sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of ones
"private property". BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather
fond of the Eco freaks. He doesn't want much just wants to control the
worlds water supply. After all comrade since water and air are "limited"
resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's used
and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know
what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states
permission to dig a hole on your own property or fface heavy fines.
} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all
as
}needed
SS, Welfare, Subsides, medicare, interstate highway system, Through
regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of is
controlled through th Fed in some manner or another.
Controll = Ownership.
}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult
life in
}the private sector.
You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed.
See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the
hell out of our buisness?
} 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and
}Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
}
}Which none of us subscribe to at all.
Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally"
eliminate the bill of rights. Even if it does create dissent the Fed can
just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the
left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian
}party controls state-owned means of production
It's called the Fed. They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education,
and the redistribution of wealth. Education the production line of drones
for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer
our
}system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view
can
}legally be held.
Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state. Where
people are spied on, protected from themseleves, and are guilty until proven
innocent. Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more
regulation and government control. The Soviets always considered their
elections to be free and competitive too. But, guess what, in key positions
you kept seeing the same names year after year after year.
I like term limits, how about you?
} c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
}withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
}
}Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR.
It will never happen anywhere. Not even in the system people like you are
pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is
another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
} d : communist systems collectively
}
}Based on previous definitions.
Why don't you want to talk about real communism? Why is it that you and your
leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about
it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
When it comes to Communism it should be talked about in the real sense. We
have two examples, both of which are relatively current and familiar. China
and the Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about them. Both
the result of a huge central bureaucracy, "doing what's good for their
people". This will *always* happen when to much power is given to a central
bureaucracy. We are at that point now. People like you want to ever increase
the authority of the Fed. Everything we do is under the auspices of Big
Brother, and people like you want to make them even more efficient at
controlling us.
You say your free. Think about that the next time you take a shit on your
government regulated toilet..................comrade.
John
John D.
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<906034800$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}
}Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter like your buddy Kurt?
}}I think it's
}}because it hits too close to home.
}
}Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not
}even close.
In your opinion. Which by the way is not the only opinion.
}}I also find it
}}rather telling that you leave out the often used terms
}}by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid, loons
}}...............etc.
}
}When have I used those terms? Cite them please.
I was speaking in general terms. That's why I said "often used terms by the
antis". If I was directing the term directly to you I would have said, often
used terms by Stewart. Having a little comprhensiion problem to day Stew or
are you just trying to spin this into an issue?
BTW, I spelled comprehension wrong so you can correct me. I know how you
lefties love to do that.
}}But, that aside, what I find most
}}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to
}}regulate the content on the militia news group.
}
}Read my statement again. Kaa suggested (tongue-in-
}cheek, I think) that those terms be banned because
}they're *tiresome* and *meaningless*.
Another spin! Outstanding job Stew. I like the way you say that now that
you've been caught (tongue-in-cheek, I think). Excellent!
}Which of those two words do you have problem understanding?
Oh, so you were serious. Well let's see, tiresome, meaning you're tired of
someone thinking your politics is kin to Communism and meaningless because
you can't believe anyone disagrees with your politics. Gee Stew, sounds like
your quite an intolerant fellow. Ever get the feeling that you would like to
go out and burn to death a bunch of "wrong thinking" peoples babies? I
certainly hope not, I used to think you were somewhat level headed......even
if you did favor communism.
}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist
}}plot to me.
}
}Reading your posts, seems like everything sounds
}like a Communist plot to you.
Nah, Stew.......only sounds like that to Communists.
}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
}
}Is that why I push PGP?
I don't know why you push PGP Stew. Do you have something to hide? If you do
I wouldn't use PGP. I thought a deal was made with the Fed for a convenient
backdoor into PGP. But, I wouldn't give that any thought, probably just one
of those useless conspiracy theories.
John
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <906006001$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
It was actually a mistake on his part that he admitted to. Doh! Pothier is
caught screwing the pooch again! IT must be really tough to be a consistently
brain-dead, knee-jerk pseudo-fascist. But you do give it a really good effort.
} } Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from
} } such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of
} } my 'true intentions'.
}
} Actually, anyone familiar with the militia movement knows it is based on
} either the threat of violence or use of violence to impose on this
} country a right-wing agenda.
}
He was refering to me, not the militia movement. Doh! Your bad again,
pottymouth. You must be a cross between a masochist and an exhibitionist the
way you like to show the world the boundlessness of your idiocy.
} <<rest of rambling apologia snipped>>
}
Yeah, skip the other persons point of view, Pothead. Its only mindless detail
anyway, right? Just get to the conclusions like a good Lefty. If you ever have
an original thought, it would have to be a stray.
rglen...@my-dejanews.com
In article <905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} <beck...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote:
}
} <snip rglenn's and hccrr's comments>
}
} }}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a
} }}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has
} }}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
} }}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of
} }}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than
} }}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
} }}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's
} }}}ass about anyone's rights but their's.
}
} discussion was between him and Mike Schneider, not Richard
} Glenn. You appeared to confuse the latter with the former,
} even though Mike and Richard have actually been involved
} in a heated debate over religion (see threads about Bin
} Ladin).
But I think Mike and I have reached an understanding. I dont consider him an
amoral person, just a godless person whose virtues are vestigial remnants of a
higher values system. :)
} I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably
} just about as far from him on the mainstream political
} spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns
} his children against). :)
True, I warn my kids about associating with Australians on a daily basis. Its
that Texas-envy thing they have. :)
} But he's not a totalitarian. If
} he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not
} approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them
} unfair, maybe even oppressive.
For the record, I would never want to be the guy responsible for so much. I
have a responsibility-phobia and aspire to little more than NG opinionation.
(is that a word?)
} But a 'reign of terror'?
} Nope, not by any reasonable definition. And he does
} seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good,
} RGlenn. Keep it up).
Actually, my views havent changed as much as I have learned there are
different conotations to many of the words I use than I imagined. When I say
I dont approve of a lifestyle, siome think I am ready to start an inquisition
or open death camps. No, I tolerate sin in others as I tolerate it in myself
and my family, but do not approve of it.
} RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I
} can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong
} religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
Almost. I really do shudder at the thought of President Pat Robertson, not
because he is a bad man, but because he is, IMO, naive, and too demanding
about some things I find optional. social standards should never be enforced
by law or government, IMO, only through social censure or church discipline.
} BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist,
} quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian
} either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any
} self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his
} statements is troubling.
Ayn Rand wsnt exactly a nest of self-doubts either. Maybe there is a
connection....
} There have been people here which fit your description-
} people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
} of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
} opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
} when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
} calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
} of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
} credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
} posts with the latter two words should be banned
} from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
} so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
} a point there...
I disagree. These are useful terms if corresponding values can be shown. When
people speak of property rights being outdated, I say that is Marxist. When
people want to categorically silence whole groups, I say that is fascist.
Sorry,
HCCRR
In article <906040200$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes:
}HCCRR wrote in message <906003304$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
}
}
}Another spin on your part HCCRR, what a joke you make of yourself. Anyone
}reading this thread knows that I was making a direct response to Stewarts
}comment on Kaa wanting the mam bot to kick out any posts that contained the
}words communist or fascists. Wasn't conversing with you.
Except that everybody who has read this newsgroup the last few months, knows
that you have repeatedly called me "comrade". As to the context of my question,
here is a better unstanding that your comments were in fact directed at all of
us.
============================================================
John D.
}
}It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those
}on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why?
HCCRR
Probably because both are inaccurate statements.
JOHN D.
I think it's
}because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you
}leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash,
}militianoid,loons...............etc.
HCCRR
Those aren't good either and should be used only in the proper context.
JOHN D>
But, that aside, what I find most
}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on
}the militia news group.
HCCRR
Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
=============================================================
You were attacking all of us.
}Very disengenoius HCCRR, but then we expect that from you and the other
}lefties.
Sounds more like you.
}
}
}
}}}
}}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face
}it
}}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
}}
}}Bullshit.
}
}
}
}Really, I bet you find the term Communist tiresome too, dont you?
I find its misuse by you and others quite tiresome.
}I know Kaa does and Stewart and a few others do. Very uncomfortable term for
}you guy's. Good. maybe you will take a closer look at your agenda.
My agenda is not even remotely related to pushing the agenda of Communism.
}
}
}}For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
}}
}}com*mu*nism (noun)
}
}
}More schoolboy bullshit. I'll give you a D- for being able to copy + paste.
You're just unhappy that the rest of the world doesn't agree with your rather
elastic definitions.
}
}
}}[French communisme, from commun common]
}}
}}First appeared 1840
}}
}} 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
}}
}}We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property.
}
}
}Property taxes are used by the States in many places and the States have
}become proxies for the Fed.
Property taxes have been around since the Revolution. The states and local
governments have not collected them at the order of the federal government.
Of course the irony here is that you can't have property taxes without
property, a concept utterly impossible in a communist regime.
Don't pay your taxes the State takes your
}property, with the blessings of the Fed.
They did that 200 years ago as well. Do you think Sheriff's auctions are new
things?
The Fed taking property in large
}sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of ones
}"private property".
The fact that there have been abuses is not the same thing as saying this is a
communist policy. In fact, I, a person you have refered to as a comrade, am
not very happy about these abuses at all. But this is a far cry from the
abolition of property property.
BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather
}fond of the Eco freaks.
Gorbachev is hardly popular among his former Communist buddies. Or haven't you
noticed?
He doesn't want much just wants to control the
}worlds water supply.
He can't control squat. How many votes did he get for president in Russia two
years ago?
After all comrade since water and air are "limited"
}resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's used
}and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know
}what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states
}permission to dig a hole on your own property or fface heavy fines.
I hate to tell you but there have always limits to what you could do on your
own property. Especially if it might endanger your neighbors.
}
}
}} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all
}as
}}needed
}
}SS, Welfare, Subsides, medicare, interstate highway system, Through
}regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of is
}controlled through th Fed in some manner or another.
}Controll = Ownership.
Control is not ownership. The Communists in the 1920s had big debate about
that. Also I might point out that communism failed to produce an interstate
highway system, a project in the United States that helped our economy grow.and
helped many businesses begin trading accross state lines with greater ease.
Not to mention allowing for easier travel for people.
}
}
}}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult
}life in
}}the private sector.
}
}
}You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed.
Except it is not totally controlled. If it were Bill Gates would already be in
jail.
}See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the
}hell out of our buisness?
Not totally no. That would be reckless. You advocate a form of capitalism
that existed in the 19th century when there was no regulation and plenty of
abuse and corruption. Hell today the average worker looks like a king compared
those of the 19th century.
}
}} 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and
}}Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
}}
}}Which none of us subscribe to at all.
}
}
}Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally"
}eliminate the bill of rights.
How does my "agenda" eliminate the bill of rights?
Even if it does create dissent the Fed can
}just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the
}left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
Violence has been used by both left and right in the United States. What
"leftist" actions are you talking about?
}
}
}} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian
}}party controls state-owned means of production
}
}
}
}It's called the Fed.
Oh please.
They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education,
}and the redistribution of wealth.
This is your distorted view, a view that no doubt believes being given a
speeding ticket is also an example of totalitarian communism.
Education the production line of drones
}for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
The Feds doesn't control industry. Regulation is not control. Are you opposed
to laws that protect workers and consumers from abuses we saw in the last
century? BTW these kinds of laws didn't even exist for the most part in the
old Soviet Union. Russia's evironmental policies were God awful as well.
}
}
}}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer
}our
}}system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view
}can
}}legally be held.
}
}
}Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state.
How?
Where
}people are spied on, protected from themseleves
Dare I ask, what are you referring to? Specifics would be nice.
, and are guilty until proven
}innocent.
You mean the same manner you treat those of us who dare to disagree with you?
Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more
}regulation and government control.
Nope. On what basis do you make such a statement?
The Soviets always considered their
}elections to be free and competitive too.
Except theirs weren't free and competitive because there was only one party on
the ballot. Before you make a silly comment about a Democratic/Republican
monopoly, remember there has always been a two party system since the beginning
of the Federal Republic, and is hardly proof of a communist system.
But, guess what, in key positions
}you kept seeing the same names year after year after year.
}I like term limits, how about you?
I oppose term limits, because its up to the people to decide whether or not to
keep their representatives in office. But the fact I might oppose term limits
doesn't prove I am communist either. I know many libertarians who are opposed
to term limits.
}
}} c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
}}withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
}}
}}Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR.
}
}
}It will never happen anywhere.
Well, Christians have their version as well.
Not even in the system people like you are
}pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is
}another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
How am I pushing such an agenda?
}
}} d : communist systems collectively
}}
}}Based on previous definitions.
}
}
}Why don't you want to talk about real communism?
Anytime. I spent most of the 1980s studying real communism as practiced in the
Soviet Union.
Why is it that you and your
}leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about
}it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
I don't care if it goes away or not, but I like it used more accurately and
fairly. I find your pathetic description of a dictionary definition as being
utopian a clear indication that you don't have a leg to stand on to prove to
your bizarre definition of what constitutes communism.
}
}When it comes to Communism it should be talked about in the real sense. We
}have two examples, both of which are relatively current and familiar. China
}and the Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about them. Both
}the result of a huge central bureaucracy, "doing what's good for their
}people". This will *always* happen when to much power is given to a central
}bureaucracy. We are at that point now.
Wrong. The powers of the federal government have been reduced in the last
twenty years over an whole set of domestic concerns. Welfare, transporation,
communications, etc. There are thousands of examples.
People like you want to ever increase
}the authority of the Fed.
Where have I said this? I have supported moves to reduce federal involvment in
welfare and education, and I believe I have stated this in this newsgroup
before. I favor the abolition of the Department of Education for instance.
Everything we do is under the auspices of Big
}Brother, and people like you want to make them even more efficient at
}controlling us.
Well that's funny, since I have opposed such items as the Communications
Decency Act and like legislation. And guess what, we won clearly on that
issue, because unlike real communist systems, we have an independent court
system that can strike down such unconstitutional acts. They had nothing like
it in the old Soviet Union.
}
}You say your free. Think about that the next time you take a shit on your
}government regulated toilet..................comrade.
I usually would be thinking about you.
}
}John
Gray Shockley
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 8:50:00 -0500, John D. wrote:
} In many places you have to get the states permission to dig a hole on your
} own property or fface heavy fines.
---------------------------------------------
This is one of those "you can't win" types of problems.
In my state (Mississippi), there is an ongoing "political war" about large hog
farms. The people in the areas where there are already these "agri-businesses"
have seen their property drop in value and some have had to move because of the
stench.
Locally (Warren County), there is a "political war" going on about a very large
landfill (or as the opponents says, "a big garbage dump") that a property owner
wants to start. The opponents don't want the several hundred garbage trucks
going, night and day, down the roads and they don't want the garbage and the
bulldozers in their county quiet.
From one viewpoint, the owners of the land who want the hog farms and the
garbage dump are just trying to use their land which they honestly bought to
make a living.
From another viewpoint, both instances lower the values of the land which
others just as honestly acquired and - in both instances - the land "next door
- can, potentially, cause health problems.
What to do?
Compromise, usually. Which, of course, leaves no one totally happy and both
sides mumbling about "property rights" but "mumbling" beats the heck out of the
alternatives.
One of the problems with people who hold "economics" to be a "religion" -
whether it be capitalism or socialism - is the "one size fits all" mentality of
whichever system these "true believers" are advocating.
Economic "systems" tend to be similar to other "systems". The "purer" it is,
the less applicable it is to human beings who generally don't fit - neatly -
into anyone's system.
So we can just do the best we can with what we've got.
Gray
John D.
Gray Shockley wrote in message
<906068103$18...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}Economic "systems" tend to be similar to other "systems". The "purer" it
is,
}the less applicable it is to human beings who generally don't fit -
neatly -
}into anyone's system.
}
}So we can just do the best we can with what we've got.
}
}Gray
Theses types of problems are sticklers. Why doesn't one side buy out the
other side? In the end though if the guy bought the property with no
restrictions he should damn well be able to do what he wants with it. Don't
get me wrong here I feel sorry for the people who will lose in this deal but
they also bought land with no restrictions or bought land close to land with
no restrictions. Could make for smarter buyers in the future. Personal
responsibility.
John
MindSpring User
M!ke Schne!der wrote in message
<905836801$67...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <905814302$51...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}rglen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
}}In article <905788218$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}} DD...@VVVwintDELLernet.com (Michae+ Schneder) wrote:
}}}
}}} In article <905758501$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R
Beck
}}} <beck...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
}}}
}}} }Do not look for these so called
}}} }"staunch defenders of the constitution" to giv--
}}}
}}} Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom.
}}}
}}
}}He wont, Mike. A libertarian athiest
}
}
} *Half* right. At least you're getting warm.
}
Am I right that you are a libertarian athiest, or that you wont be confused
with one of *them*?
}
}}is only half a step away from a hedonistic elitist
}
}
} What is one of those? A man who enjoys life without your approval?
}
Oh, gee, I just wish I could enjoy life with my wifes approval! I havent
gotten to the point of considering whether anyone needs
mine........................................................................
..................................
............................................................................
.......................................................................
........................................................OK, you may enjoy
yourself.
}
}}anyway. But who is *them*, Mike? We 'homophobes'? We
}}'christians'? We 'rednecks'?
}
}
} "Staunch defenders of the constitution". (Jesus...)
}
Oh, you dont want to be confused with staunch defenders of the Constitution?
OK, np.
}
}}They say that in the moment of truth you discover who can be relied on to
}}display courage, and stand for what they beleive in and defend their own.
Its
}}good to know how quick you are to point the finger at everyone else. Dont
}}worry about alienating all of *them*, just make sure the libs dont confuse
}}you for one of *them*.
}
}
} Courage is for naught without intelligence to guide it.
And intelligence is for nought without the nerve and resolution to ACT. And
no two libertarians can agree on enough to ever find that source of energy
and purpose, especially athiests at that! Rudolph, by himself, has done more
to get the governments attention than any thousand libertarians!
RGlenCheek
Thomas R Beck
smi...@mountainet.com (Stewart Millen) wrote:
}-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
}On Tue, 15 Sep 98 7:50:00 GMT, Thomas R Beck
}<beck...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote:
}<snip rglenn's and hccrr's comments>
}}}}Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event
}}}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a
}}}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has
}}}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white
}}}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of
}}}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than
}}}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called
}}}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's
}}}}ass about anyone's rights but their's.
}I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably
}just about as far from him on the mainstream political
}spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns
}his children against). :) But he's not a totalitarian. If
}he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not
}approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them
}unfair, maybe even oppressive. But a 'reign of terror'?
}Nope, not by any reasonable definition.
From this I take it you believe the so called "moderate" elements of the
militia/patriot movement would prevail on their more hot headed brethren
in the unlikely event of them achieving real power? I don't share that
opinion.
} And he does
}seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good,
}RGlenn. Keep it up). RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I
}can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong
}religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
Exactly my thoughts, which can be seen in a recent post of
mine where I question RGlenn about his beliefs.
}BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist,
}quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian
}either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any
}self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his
}statements is troubling.
}There have been people here which fit your description-
}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}a point there...
If the entire militai/patriot element were of the nature of RGlenCheek I
myself would have few doubts or fears about their purpose. However,
it is abundantly clear to me from reading the various postings in this NG,
as well as conversations and experiences I have had in actual experience,
that a) An element sympathetic to the aims of the so called militias does
exist and b) They are violently right wing. I try not to falsely label
anyone.
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 17 Sep 98 16:05:01 GMT,
rglen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
}In article
}<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}stewart...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip points of basic agreement>
}}There have been people here which fit your description-
}}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}}a point there...
}
}I disagree. These are useful terms if corresponding
}values can be shown. When people speak of property
}rights being outdated, I say that is Marxist.
A better term would be socialist, as one can believe
that and not be a Marxist per se.
}When
}people want to categorically silence whole groups,
}I say that is fascist.
}
}Sorry,
}
}RGlenCheek
No need to apologize. There are real fascists and
communists in the world, and sometimes they pop up
here in MAM. I think Kaa's comment was tongue-in-
cheek, looking at the context of the post in which
she made it (I know mine was). What gets so tiresome is
when these terms get used as smear words when every
reasonable person knows that isn't true, like calling
you or Bill Kaspar fascists or HCCRR or Kaa communists.
In the end, though, there is justice: the creditability
of the name-caller goes to zilch eventually, and loses
the respect of even his fellow "pros" or "antis".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgI2MMyPOTvd59tlAQFvUQP+PJZFJtqRLKLOr4cH73JaGkyHcx7Jd8Wb
+d61PFlvFR65doLw+d8MSVDAJM62B1KWa+55jf9/InMDwrdccQrzVOsoOmOhMSkN
u9V1eLWoXDXAYgKNEmkrmQkX7NEHG7gFtuYXTTLFiIHxWtUIbAO1rPTKUrHnDB+K
UpCb+yjkm10=
=X+Rl
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 17 Sep 98 14:20:04 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906034800$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}(snip)
}
}}
}}Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
}
}
}No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
}like your buddy Kurt?
I don't read much of Kurt's posts, as he usually gets
involved in pissing contests I find boring, so I don't
know. Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
Kurt has a fine mind, and if he used it more to advocate
his beliefs rather than in these mud-slinging contests,
it would be better employed.
As for your original point, since you can't see the
differences between the various "anti" posters, I
hardly can believe you know what emotionally ticks us
off.
Finally, a point: "fascist" in the US doesn't probably
have the recognition value of "communist"; it's probably
closer to "Bolshevik" in that. Go into another NG and
start calling conservatives "Nazis" and see what type
of reaction you get.
}}}I think it's because it hits too close to home.
}}
}}Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not
}}even close.
}
}In your opinion. Which by the way is not the only
}opinion.
In general usuage, which is the only one that matters.
You can call the sky a "chair" and bicycle a "TV set"
but don't be suprised when no one understands you.
Since you seem so challenged in knowing what a liberal
is, I'll offer up the following URLs:
Steve Kangas's FAQs on Liberalism
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/tenets.htm
Turn Left Liberalism FAQ
http://www.turnleft.com/faq.html
In it you'll see definitions of liberalism, of
libertarianism, of socialism, and communism--and how
they differ from one another.
}}}I also find it
}}}rather telling that you leave out the often used terms
}}}by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid, loons
}}}...............etc.
}}
}}When have I used those terms? Cite them please.
}
}
}I was speaking in general terms. That's why I said
}"often used terms by the antis". If I was directing
}the term directly to you I would have said, often
}used terms by Stewart. Having a little comprhensiion
}problem to day Stew or are you just trying to spin
}this into an issue?
I don't recall a lot of other antis using them either:
Kaa, HCCRR, Wizard, Son, Dave Tharp, or Gray, for
starters. Maybe the Valgoses, Joe Pothier, and Kurt
use them, but they don't classify themselves as
liberal, if I recall. HCCRR, for instance, is capable
of debating anyone reasonably politely even if he
thinks their ideas preposterous--look at his debates
with "International Artist Guild". Again, maybe you
should start paying more attention.
}BTW, I spelled comprehension wrong so you can
}correct me. I know how you lefties love to do that.
Again, don't know a lot of compulsive spell-checkers
among the antis. Too much of a cheap shot, and remember,
we have Dave Tharp on our side.
}}}But, that aside, what I find most
}}}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to
}}}regulate the content on the militia news group.
}}
}}Read my statement again. Kaa suggested (tongue-in-
}}cheek, I think) that those terms be banned because
}}they're *tiresome* and *meaningless*.
}
}Another spin! Outstanding job Stew. I like the way
}you say that now that you've been caught (tongue-in-cheek,
}I think). Excellent!
If you look up that post, you'll see that she also in
the same paragraph suggested handing our programs
for MAM (like in the theater or at a football game),
so people could keep track of who was on what side, and
who was engaged in which feud with another (like Wiz
and Pothier). That sounds pretty tongue-in-cheek to me.
And another thing: a word ban wouldn't work. If you
set the MAMbot up to ban the words "Fascist" and
"communist" then you'd see people deliberately mispelling
words to get around the filter, calling each other
"Kommunist" and "fa$cists". I think Kaa's smart enough
to realize that.
}}Which of those two words do you have problem
}}understanding?
}
}Oh, so you were serious. Well let's see, tiresome,
}meaning you're tired of someone thinking your politics
}is kin to Communism and meaningless because
}you can't believe anyone disagrees with your politics.
Meaningless, because everyone knows (and I suspect
you do too) that HCCRR's not really a communist,
that you're just doing it to get his goat. Heck,
from what I know of him, HCCRR's a businessman,
and about as sterotypically American as apple pie.
Tiresome, because it's been done so often before,
by people with little imagination and whose own
arguments are so weak that they can't "win" unless
they paint their opponents into something they're
not. Much easier to deal with a caricature of your
opponent than the reality, isn't it?
}Gee Stew, sounds like your quite an intolerant fellow.
}Ever get the feeling that you would like to
}go out and burn to death a bunch of "wrong thinking"
}peoples babies? I certainly hope not, I used to think
}you were somewhat level headed......even
}if you did favor communism.
This coming from someone who smears his opponents as
communists? Don't you even presume to lecture me on
tolerance, bud.
So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
because of what we believe (even though you haven't
really defined communism). If that's so, you live in
a nation chock full of "communists"--maybe 80-90 %
or more. What you going to do about it?
}}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist
}}}plot to me.
}}
}}Reading your posts, seems like everything sounds
}}like a Communist plot to you.
}
}
}Nah, Stew.......only sounds like that to Communists.
Don't look now, but it sounds that way to everyone. You're
creditability now's on par with that of David Donnell.
}}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
}}
}}Is that why I push PGP?
}
}
}I don't know why you push PGP Stew. Do you have
}something to hide?
Look who's sounding like the totalitarian now.
}If you do I wouldn't use PGP. I thought a deal was made
}with the Fed for a convenient backdoor into PGP.
Oh? Care to cite any crimes or court cases where
PGP-encrypted information was decrypted and used
as evidence?
}But,
}I wouldn't give that any thought, probably just one
}of those useless conspiracy theories.
Yep, heard it all before. Anything that can change
the system or protect our rights peacefully--like
participation in elections and the political process,
joining political organizations like the ACLU, using
strong encryption or setting up your own remailers,
etc., you guys pooh-pooh. Ironically it's the strategy
you have the least chance of winning--armed revolt
against the government, violence and bloodshed--is the
only thing that gets you excited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgJEWMyPOTvd59tlAQEgpwQAjOZPZ2uCE7zZ1hX5fi0p5ll54QzXmIa8
9FeIFNlP4HZ5xOYKQm04tlMKWp8PE93EYjD8YQ1EsZmCvYzMoG5Rt6TXCfNvORMB
mag7AsO4lbHkABKhV7RELT/STdMbjhIs/G9n66F2ZKXvhR6Uub7dAqZFMeLnCSyg
VzceC0b+KIM=
=385z
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 17 Sep 98 13:50:00 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
<snip>
}Why don't you want to talk about real communism? Why
}is it that you and your leftist buddies want the term
}communist to just go away or only talk about it in the
}text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
We *are* the ones talking about the real, historical,
communism. You're the one making it a catch-all phrase
for people you don't like.
}When it comes to Communism it should be talked about
}in the real sense. We have two examples, both of which
}are relatively current and familiar. China and the
}Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about
}them. Both the result of a huge central bureaucracy,
}"doing what's good for their people". This will *always*
}happen when to much power is given to a central
}bureaucracy. We are at that point now. People like you
}want to ever increase the authority of the Fed.
But many of the worst abuses of rights historically
in the US have been done by states and communities,
not "the Fed". Often the Fed has forced the states
to respect the rights of its citizens, especially
those of minorities. That's the balance of powers
under the Constitution coming into play.
}Everything
}we do is under the auspices of Big Brother, and people
}like you want to make them even more efficient at
}controlling us.
Actually, big central bureaucracies need not have
anything to do with socialism. Why don't you ask dckom
about this?
}You say your free. Think about that the next time you
}take a shit on your government regulated
}toilet..................comrade.
There *are* a lot of government intrusions on its
citizens. There's the property confiscations from
the drug war, laws against consensual sexual activity,
the attempts to regulate the internet ("CDA II" is now
coming out of our wonderful Republican Congress, if
anyone's watching), how the rights of prisoners are
abused, how testimony can be coerced (see the recent
case involving the Prez), and that there exists a legal
mechanism under which the state can *kill* you. But
most of these abuses get little play from you guys.
Apparently your definition of being free "hinges" (pardon
the expression) on your being able to sit on a non-
regulated toilet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgJKAsyPOTvd59tlAQGyeQP/WwzAXTq3fHAxO56launcjOkENrVuqVMj
Q4WRurCZlfXzA2rPLb5Zo1CskpSu1lnrIhpjTCXdltdFIVX0LRy19NF66tTd5m3e
x+fYRKQi+wT1Okh4nd9enX5/zzwKH+ucD/AWSXZqNKNmLvaonBiHHc3pDlvcQQAM
ZVs8nGjXMfU=
=kldn
Kurt Lochner
Stewart Millen wrote:
}
} On Thu, 17 Sep 98 14:20:04 GMT, "John D."
} <U...@forever.com> wrote:
} }
} }Stewart Millen wrote in message
} }<906034800$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} }
} }(snip)
} }}
} }}Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
} }
} }No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
} }like your buddy Kurt?
}
} I don't read much of Kurt's posts, as he usually gets
} involved in pissing contests I find boring, so I don't
} know. Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
Holy Cow!
} Kurt has a fine mind, and if he used it more to advocate
} his beliefs rather than in these mud-slinging contests,
} it would be better employed.
I've expressed my beliefs, on occassion, only to be responded
to with ad hominem attacks and juvenile name-calling. Now
I simply respond in kind to such. Worthwhile comments I
spend more time on, perhaps because I can appreciate that
there certainly are valid opinions other than my own...
But I don't have to counter-argue negative rhetoric, and
that's the 'game' that some of the so-called 'conservatives'
want to play, especially when they're devoid of facts..
} As for your original point, since you can't see the
} differences between the various "anti" posters, I
} hardly can believe you know what emotionally ticks us
} off.
Well said that..
} Finally, a point: "fascist" in the US doesn't probably
} have the recognition value of "communist"; it's probably
} closer to "Bolshevik" in that. Go into another NG and
} start calling conservatives "Nazis" and see what type
} of reaction you get.
Been there, done that, changed the oil in the car with
the t-shirt last weekend.. /&^)
/snip/
} }
} }I was speaking in general terms. That's why I said
} }"often used terms by the antis". If I was directing
} }the term directly to you I would have said, often
} }used terms by Stewart. Having a little comprhensiion
} }problem to day Stew or are you just trying to spin
} }this into an issue?
}
} I don't recall a lot of other antis using them either:
} Kaa, HCCRR, Wizard, Son, Dave Tharp, or Gray, for
} starters. Maybe the Valgoses, Joe Pothier, and Kurt
} use them, but they don't classify themselves as
} liberal, if I recall.
I refer to my occassional political musings as being
'conservatively liberal' and 'liberally conservative'
at the same time.
} HCCRR, for instance, is capable
} of debating anyone reasonably politely even if he
} thinks their ideas preposterous--look at his debates
} with "International Artist Guild". Again, maybe you
} should start paying more attention.
That reminds me of Boil Kasper's remark about the Whigs..
} }But,
} }I wouldn't give that any thought, probably just one
} }of those useless conspiracy theories.
}
} Yep, heard it all before. Anything that can change
} the system or protect our rights peacefully--like
} participation in elections and the political process,
} joining political organizations like the ACLU, using
} strong encryption or setting up your own remailers,
} etc., you guys pooh-pooh. Ironically it's the strategy
} you have the least chance of winning--armed revolt
} against the government, violence and bloodshed--is the
} only thing that gets you excited.
That sums the matter up nicely...
--Thanks for yet another accurate assessment....
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <906048313$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Except that everybody who has read this newsgroup the last few months,
knows
}that you have repeatedly called me "comrade".
Absolutely true...............comrade.
}As to the context of my question,
}here is a better unstanding that your comments were in fact directed at all
of
}us.
Here it comes...........another spin!
}============================================================
}John D.
}}
}}It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those
}}on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why?
A reply to Stewart from John.
}HCCRR
}
}Probably because both are inaccurate statements.
HCCR responding to my reply to Stewart......not to him
}JOHN D.
} I think it's
}}because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you
}}leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash,
}}militianoid,loons...............etc.
Again, my reply to Stewart......Not to HCCRR.
}HCCRR
}Those aren't good either and should be used only in the proper context.
Again HCCR, responding to my reply to Stewart.
}JOHN D>
} But, that aside, what I find most
}}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on
}}the militia news group.
Again, my reply to Stewart......Not to HCCRR.
}HCCRR
}Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
}=============================================================
}You were attacking all of us.
etc................My God man you have put a spin on a spin.
I think this is a new low for you.........what a shame.
}Property taxes have been around since the Revolution.
You really don't want to compare those early property taxes to those of
today............do you?
The states and local
}governments have not collected them at the order of the federal
government.
I didn't say that, you did.
}Of course the irony here is that you can't have property taxes without
}property, a concept utterly impossible in a communist regime.
That's the direction we are going.
}
} Don't pay your taxes the State takes your
}}property, with the blessings of the Fed.
}
}They did that 200 years ago as well. Do you think Sheriff's auctions are
new
}things?
Are you saying they did this with the blessings of the Fed? Or was this
corrupt local politics........
} The Fed taking property in large
}}sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of
ones
}}"private property".
}
}The fact that there have been abuses is not the same thing as saying this
is a
}communist policy.
It's a direction, That's what I said.
In fact, I, a person you have refered to as a comrade, am
}not very happy about these abuses at all.
But, the good outweighs the bad in your opinion so what the hell. Again a
direction, and your party line.
But this is a far cry from the
}abolition of property property.
It's not a far cry if it's your property, right........typical of your
logic.
}
} BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather
}}fond of the Eco freaks.
}
}Gorbachev is hardly popular among his former Communist buddies. Or haven't
you
}noticed?
Because they no what real communism is. But he's a hero to many
Americans. Doesn't that seem odd to you.
} He doesn't want much just wants to control the
}}worlds water supply.
}
}He can't control squat. How many votes did he get for president in Russia
two
}years ago?
He's not in Russia , he's in San Francisco.
} After all comrade since water and air are "limited"
}}resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's
used
}}and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know
}}what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states
}}permission to dig a hole on your own property or face heavy fines.
}
}I hate to tell you but there have always limits to what you could do on
your
}own property. Especially if it might endanger your neighbors.
Always ? Has it always been illegal to build a shed in your back yard
without a permit, or a house, garage, to install a swing set for your kids?
If you have your way everyone will have to get permission to do anything on
the property they rent.
}
}}
}}
}}} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to
all
}}as
}}}needed
}}
}}SS, Welfare, Subsides, Medicare, interstate highway system, Through
}}regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of
is
}}controlled through The Fed in some manner or another.
}}Control = Ownership.
}
}Control is not ownership.
That's dumb. You buy property, build a house and pay all the bills. The
only catch is I will have complete control of that real-estate. Bet it won't
take long for you to change your mind.
The Communists in the 1920s had big debate about
}that.
Who cares. That's exactly what the commies would like people to
believe.....you pay for it and I will use it as *I* see fit ........but
we'll still say it yours. How utterly stupid and Communist.....no wonder you
believe it.
Also I might point out that communism failed to produce an interstate
}highway system,
Hell Communism couldn't produce a car that was worth anything, until Ford
Motor Company built the largest truck plant in the world (at that time)
there. I believe it was in the late 60's early 70's. But again you're not
being truthful here. You failed to mention the terrain, weather and
vastness of the USSR. Don't forget the first Nuclear vessel the commies
built was an icebreaker.
a project in the United States that helped our economy grow.and
}helped many businesses begin trading accross state lines with greater ease.
}Not to mention allowing for easier travel for people.
This was going to happen anyway with or without the Fed.
}
}}
}}
}}}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult
}}life in
}}}the private sector.
}}
}}
}}You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed.
}
}Except it is not totally controlled. If it were Bill Gates would already
be in
}jail.
They're working on it. He's made it in spite of the regulations, but guess
what, they're going to make some new ones so a Bill Gates will never happen
again. Good idea Comrade?
}
}}See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the
}}hell out of our business?
}
}Not totally no. That would be reckless. You advocate a form of capitalism
}that existed in the 19th century when there was no regulation and plenty of
}abuse and corruption.
You don't have any idea what I advocate comrade.
Hell today the average worker looks like a king compared
}those of the 19th century.
So what, a television in 1998 makes a set in 1952 look like hell too.
}}
}}} 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism
and
}}}Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
}}}
}}}Which none of us subscribe to at all.
}}
}}
}}Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally"
}}eliminate the bill of rights.
}
}How does my "agenda" eliminate the bill of rights?
You like to play around the edges a little here a little there until you
ultimately get it all. Your transparent as hell, especially with your posts
concerning the 2nd amendment and you feelings towards "gun huggers". Keep
pushing you guys are going to get your wish.
}
} Even if it does create dissent the Fed can
}}just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the
}}left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
}
}Violence has been used by both left and right in the United States. What
}"leftist" actions are you talking about?
Every case where innocents die at the hand of the Fed. But the most
atrocious of course is Waco. Handled by your BC and your Woman JR.
}}
}}
}}} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single
authoritarian
}}}party controls state-owned means of production
}}
}}
}}
}}It's called the Fed.
}
}Oh please.
Ok wise guy name me ten things that you can do that the Fed has no say in.
Ten things where in no way the Fed has any connection to whatever. Here you
go comrade your big chance to prove how non invasive the Fed is into our
lives.
} They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education,
}}and the redistribution of wealth.
}
}This is your distorted view, a view that no doubt believes being given a
}speeding ticket is also an example of totalitarian communism.
That's a dodge commie boy and you know it. That is exactly the way the Fed
operates. You have the distorted view. Or should I say the sheep view. I
rather approve of ticketing dangerous drivers but, you don't have a clue
about what I think.......except that our Fed is currently out of control and
taking a direction I don't think is right. A direction you like comrade.
}
} Education the production line of drones
}}for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
}
}The Feds doesn't control industry. Regulation is not control.
And again, you are thinking dumb. Regulation is control. If you don't meet
the regulation you will be fined an amount that will bankrupt you if you
don't comply. That's control pal and it's real.
Are you opposed to laws that protect workers and consumers from abuses we
saw in the last century?
Were you there? I wasn't. But, from what I have read, work place protections
were needed in some situations.
BTW these kinds of laws didn't even exist for the most part in the
}old Soviet Union. Russia's evironmental policies were God awful as well.
Actually with all your study you should know the average Russians were not
hard workers under the Communists. The typical worker there missed on
average of two days of work a week and was a drunk consuming about a fifth a
day of their vodka. And, why not, they had nothing to look forward too.
Reminds me of "equal pay for equal work" that you party tried to push a
while back.
}
}}
}}
}}}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I
prefer
}}our
}}}system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view
}}can
}}}legally be held.
}}
}}
}}Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state.
}
}How?
}
}
}Where
}}people are spied on, protected from themselves
}
}Dare I ask, what are you referring to? Specifics would be nice.
How about the FBI's pledged to tap every phone, the attempts by Big Bro to
have all the encryption keys on the internet, and there are many more.
Protecting people from themselves......Seat belt laws, Helmet laws,
trigger locks......and volumes more........It's regulation.......it's
CONTROL.
}
}, and are guilty until proven
}}innocent.
}
}You mean the same manner you treat those of us who dare to disagree with
you?
Not at all, you have no Idea what my politics are, you don't care, it's only
your agenda that you think is important. *You* are the one that goes off on
anyone that disagrees with *you*!
}
}Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more
}}regulation and government control.
}
}Nope. On what basis do you make such a statement?
Your posts.
}
}The Soviets always considered their
}}elections to be free and competitive too.
}
}Except theirs weren't free and competitive because there was only one party
on
}the ballot. Before you make a silly comment about a Democratic/Republican
}monopoly, remember there has always been a two party system since the
beginning
}of the Federal Republic, and is hardly proof of a communist system.
Does that aspect of our system bother you, since you chose to answer for me?
I wouldn't have said that, peculiar you did though. I would have simply said
why? The constitution doesn't lay it out that way. Personally, I think
they're both pretty much the same party. They have a family squabble from
time to time but they're pretty much the same.
} But, guess what, in key positions
}}you kept seeing the same names year after year after year.
}}I like term limits, how about you?
}
}I oppose term limits, because its up to the people to decide whether or not
to
Imagine that, you oppose term limits. The people still decide even with term
limits. You're just full of fear comrade. If your view is the majority view
you can't lose either way, right?
}keep their representatives in office. But the fact I might oppose term
limits
}doesn't prove I am communist either.
You sound guilty.
}Well, Christians have their version as well.
OH, and how do you perceive that? In detail please.
}
} Not even in the system people like you are
}}pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is
}}another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
}
}How am I pushing such an agenda?
Your a big government person HCCR. You are a control freak. You think the
politicians and academics really know what's best for the masses.
}}
}}} d : communist systems collectively
}}}
}}}Based on previous definitions.
}}
}}
}}Why don't you want to talk about real communism?
}
}Anytime. I spent most of the 1980s studying real communism as practiced in
the
}Soviet Union.
Did you go there or just read books. I have nothing against reading, but in
matters of societies and political systems books are only a part of the
story.
}
}Why is it that you and your
}}leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about
}}it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
}
}I don't care if it goes away or not, but I like it used more accurately and
fairly.
What's accuracy.........The dictionary definition does not tell you what
real Communism is. That's delusional. A delusion your side suffers from.
I find your pathetic description of a dictionary definition as being
}utopian a clear indication that you don't have a leg to stand on to prove
to
}your bizarre definition of what constitutes communism.
Does the dictionary tell you that Communism means the secret police bugged
your house and then came in the middle of the night and took your brother to
the mental institution for drug therapy to correct his thinking. Because he
was reading a bible with some friends and listening to radio signals that
were against the law?
Is that what the dictionary tells you comrade? The only pathetic one here is
you. You need to make your living in the public school system. You would fit
the bill nicely.
}}
}}When it comes to Communism it should be talked about in the real sense. We
}}have two examples, both of which are relatively current and familiar.
China
}}and the Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about them. Both
}}the result of a huge central bureaucracy, "doing what's good for their
}}people". This will *always* happen when to much power is given to a
central
}}bureaucracy. We are at that point now.
}
}Wrong. The powers of the federal government have been reduced in the last
}twenty years over an whole set of domestic concerns. Welfare,
transporation,
}communications, etc. There are thousands of examples.
Name me ten where the fed has actually given up control and no longer has
any say whatsoever with these programs.With thousands of examples this
should be a piece of cake.
}
}
} People like you want to ever increase
}}the authority of the Fed.
}
}Where have I said this? I have supported moves to reduce federal
involvment in
}welfare and education, and I believe I have stated this in this newsgroup
}before. I favor the abolition of the Department of Education for instance.
How about abolishing any Fed involvement in public education? Are you ready?
Let's do it.
}
} Everything we do is under the auspices of Big
}}Brother, and people like you want to make them even more efficient at
}}controlling us.
}
}Well that's funny, since I have opposed such items as the Communications
}Decency Act and like legislation. And guess what, we won clearly on that
}issue, because unlike real communist systems, we have an independent court
}system that can strike down such unconstitutional acts. They had nothing
like
}it in the old Soviet Union.
Is that act gone....or as your fond of saying when you lose one, it isn't
over yet? I never have said we are like the USSR was. I said we're heading
in that direction. You just like to spin.
}}
}}You say your free. Think about that the next time you take a shit on your
}}government regulated toilet..................comrade.
}
}
}I usually would be thinking about you.
Kinky. You really do need to get over that, I've told you more than once now
that I don't go that way. But don't worry your party want's to give
*special* rights to people like you.
BTW, don't forget to wipe, the Fed says it should only take three sections
of paper, if it takes more you should change your diet.
John
John D.
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
(snipped)
}}No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
}}like your buddy Kurt?
}
}Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
}Kurt has a fine mind.
Well, Kurt certainly says he has a fine mind.
}As for your original point, since you can't see the
}differences between the various "anti" posters, I
}hardly can believe you know what emotionally ticks us
}off.
I have found that the term commie or comrade does. I also know that you band
together when emotionally ticked off. Kind of a group therapy thing to help
reenforce your belief system. And, you all become emotionally ticked off
when some one dissagrees with you.
}Finally, a point: "fascist" in the US doesn't probably
}have the recognition value of "communist
True. Certain words do illicit certain emotional reactons. Tells alot about
people. I have stated as much in other posts.
}>}}Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not
}}}even close.
}}
}}In your opinion. Which by the way is not the only
}}opinion.
}
}In general usuage, which is the only one that matters.
}You can call the sky a "chair" and bicycle a "TV set"
}but don't be suprised when no one understands you.
Again, your opinion is the only correct one. I happen to agree in this
instance with you, but you wouldn't know that because you see everything as
a personal attack on your ideaology. You've been well conditioned Stew.
}
}Since you seem so challenged in knowing what a liberal
}is,
How do you know what I think a liberal is?
}I don't recall a lot of other antis using them either:
}Kaa, HCCRR, Wizard, Son, Dave Tharp, or Gray, for
}starters. Maybe the Valgoses, Joe Pothier, and Kurt
}use them, but they don't classify themselves as
}liberal,
I can't really say about you Stewart, but all the others you mentioned have
used very derogatory statements towards anyone who challenges their views.
Too much of a cheap shot, and remember,
}we have Dave Tharp on our side.
It's not as bad as it used to be, but still happens when certain people wish
to establish their elitism.
}If you look up that post, you'll see that she also in
}the same paragraph suggested handing our programs
}for MAM (like in the theater or at a football game),
}so people could keep track of who was on what side, and
}who was engaged in which feud with another (like Wiz
}and Pothier). That sounds pretty tongue-in-cheek to me.
Why look up that post. I was responding directly to a quoted statement you
made in this post. If everyone has to start serching Deja news to just
figure out what someone really means..........well that's kind of stupid
don't you think.
}And another thing: a word ban wouldn't work. If you
}set the MAMbot up to ban the words "Fascist" and
}"communist" then you'd see people deliberately mispelling
}words to get around the filter, calling each other
}"Kommunist" and "fa$cists". I think Kaa's smart enough
}to realize that.
Stewart, you screwed up. Put it behind you and forget about it.
}Meaningless, because everyone knows (and I suspect
}you do too) that HCCRR's not really a communist,
}that you're just doing it to get his goat.
Your smarter than he is apparently.
Heck,
}from what I know of him, HCCRR's a businessman,
}and about as sterotypically American as apple pie.
I agree. He's way to trusting of the Fed.
}
}Tiresome, because it's been done so often before,
}by people with little imagination and whose own
}arguments are so weak that they can't "win" unless
}they paint their opponents into something they're
}not. Much easier to deal with a caricature of your
}opponent than the reality, isn't it?
Not true, in this case anyway. When people are wearing blinders sometimes
it's very hard to get them to get a panoramic view. I think you guys, are
wearing blinders.......in some cases.
}This coming from someone who smears his opponents as
}communists? Don't you even presume to lecture me on
}tolerance, bud.
Why is that Stewart, you guys have all the correct bilge on tolerance too?
See how that emotional thing works. Now you know it's not that hard to
figure out what ticks you guys off.
}So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
}because of what we believe (even though you haven't
}really defined communism).
Yep, I haven't defined communist for you guys. No need to if all you will
accept is the dictionary definition. (Sounds close minded doesn't it) You
are also correct in saying I *call* you guys communists.
If that's so, you live in
}a nation chock full of "communists"--maybe 80-90 %
}or more. What you going to do about it?
}
I don't know Stewart, pretty big poblem isn't it.
}}
}}Nah, Stew.......only sounds like that to Communists.
}
}Don't look now, but it sounds that way to everyone. You're
}creditability now's on par with that of David Donnell.
Oh, that really hurts Stew. You wouldn't be playing some of those games here
that you said you didn't participate in. But, fair enough, I did compare you
with Kurt...........although you may have come out worse in this exchange.
}}I don't know why you push PGP Stew. Do you have
}}something to hide?
}
}Look who's sounding like the totalitarian now.
}
}}If you do I wouldn't use PGP. I thought a deal was made
}}with the Fed for a convenient backdoor into PGP.
Hmmm, I ask you if you have something to hide and *you* call me a
totalitarian. ever think I may have been trying to make you aware of
something that may be benificial to you. Nah, that can't be right, because
you guys are always right........right.
}Oh? Care to cite any crimes or court cases where
}PGP-encrypted information was decrypted and used
}as evidence?
No. Do you think they (meaning the Fed) would give a way a tool like that in
court cases? That would be like notifying the Japanese and the Germans that
their codes had been broken during WW II.
C'mon Stewart you guys are supposed to be the intellectual giants here.
}Yep, heard it all before. Anything that can change
}the system or protect our rights peacefully--like
}participation in elections and the political process,
}joining political organizations like the ACLU, using
}strong encryption or setting up your own remailers,
}etc., you guys pooh-pooh.
}Ironically it's the strategy
}you have the least chance of winning--armed revolt
}against the government, violence and bloodshed--is the
}only thing that gets you excited.
You seem to have me pegged, huh Stewart. How do you know what I think? I
know what you guys think, because you guys are always telling us what you
think. The problem is you also tell everyone else what to think. If they
don't buy your academic bullshit, then of course you already know what they
think. Very good Stewart, appreciate it.
I like to indulge you guys, it's telling.
John
BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
Kaa Byington
Stewart Millen wrote:
}
} -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
}
} <U...@forever.com> wrote:
}
} <snip>
}
} }Why don't you want to talk about real communism? Why
} }is it that you and your leftist buddies want the term
} }communist to just go away or only talk about it in the
} }text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
}
} communism. You're the one making it a catch-all phrase
} for people you don't like.
}
} }in the real sense. We have two examples, both of which
} }are relatively current and familiar. China and the
} }Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about
} }them. Both the result of a huge central bureaucracy,
} }"doing what's good for their people". This will *always*
} }happen when to much power is given to a central
} }bureaucracy. We are at that point now. People like you
} }want to ever increase the authority of the Fed.
}
} in the US have been done by states and communities,
} not "the Fed". Often the Fed has forced the states
} to respect the rights of its citizens, especially
} those of minorities. That's the balance of powers
} under the Constitution coming into play.
}
} }we do is under the auspices of Big Brother, and people
} }like you want to make them even more efficient at
} }controlling us.
}
} anything to do with socialism. Why don't you ask dckom
} about this?
}
} }take a shit on your government regulated
} }toilet..................comrade.
}
} citizens. There's the property confiscations from
} the drug war, laws against consensual sexual activity,
} the attempts to regulate the internet ("CDA II" is now
} coming out of our wonderful Republican Congress, if
} anyone's watching), how the rights of prisoners are
} abused, how testimony can be coerced (see the recent
} case involving the Prez), and that there exists a legal
} mechanism under which the state can *kill* you. But
} most of these abuses get little play from you guys.
} Apparently your definition of being free "hinges" (pardon
} the expression) on your being able to sit on a non-
} regulated toilet.
}
}
No one here has complained about the grossest violation of someone's
rights--the release of the Starr report. Grand jury determinations are
kept secret because they are only one side of the case--this has been in
the common law since day one.
Gray Shockley
[prescript: I didn't make it clear that these were small "family farms" that
are being wiped out - sorry.]
---------------------------------------------
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:50:01 -0500, John D. wrote:
} Theses types of problems are sticklers. Why doesn't one side buy out the
} other side?
This has happened time after time. Personally, it bothers me a lot as I'd
rather see a hundred little "family farms" instead of an outfit such as
Archer-Daniels-Midland expand throughout the state.
} In the end though if the guy bought the property with no
} restrictions he should damn well be able to do what he wants with it.
Yah, that's the way it is right now. However, my point is that I would support
legislation to keep the mega-agribusiness outfits as far away as possible. In
other words, I support "governmental intervention" to keep "undersirables"
(including ADM - "the supermarket to the world") out. (Of course, ADM's $5
billion "subsidy" doesn't exactly endear them to me.)
} Don't
} get me wrong here I feel sorry for the people who will lose in this deal
} but they also bought land with no restrictions or bought land close to land
} with no restrictions. Could make for smarter buyers in the future. Personal
} responsibility.
No, not "smarter buyers in the future." When these small farms are gone, they
are gone forever.
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:20:04 -0500, Kaa Byington wrote:
} No one here has complained about the grossest violation of someone's
} rights--the release of the Starr report. Grand jury determinations are kept
} secret because they are only one side of the case--this has been in the
} common law since day one.
M,m,m,m,m - I've got mixed feelings/thoughts about this but my strongest
thoughts say that the Starr report is being released so that *both* sides of
this "case" can be heard.
In my (quite possibly incorrect) opinion, this case isn't about a "law case" as
much as it is about whether a sitting President will finish his term.
There's some disagreement about whether a sitting President can be indicted at
all.
So, I say let's go for the whole sordid mess and play it out in front of the
people of the United States (and anyone else who wants to watch).
And I think - until the release of the Starr report - that the President's
"side" was the only one being presented.
Gray
HCCRR
In article <906137401$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes:
}
}
}}Meaningless, because everyone knows (and I suspect
}}you do too) that HCCRR's not really a communist,
}
}}that you're just doing it to get his goat.
}
}Your smarter than he is apparently.
Oh no Mr. Dumbass, I knew that it was your game. Don't flatter yourself.
}
}Heck,
}}from what I know of him, HCCRR's a businessman,
}}and about as sterotypically American as apple pie.
}
}I agree. He's way to trusting of the Fed.
And you are too paranoid.
}
}
}}So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
}}because of what we believe (even though you haven't
}}really defined communism).
}
} Yep, I haven't defined communist for you guys. No need to if all you will
}accept is the dictionary definition. (Sounds close minded doesn't it) You
}are also correct in saying I *call* you guys communists.
Apparently words really have no meaning for you John D. Okay, two can play at
this game then. You are a fascist. I know you probably don't fit the
definition spelled out in the dictionary, but I feel like you calling that
because according to your logic I can change the meaning to fit me.
}
}
}John
}
}BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
He won twice didn't he? How many of your like minded types done as well? How
many votes did Harry Browne get or Charles Collins or Kevin Phillips?
HCCRR
In article <906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
smi...@mountainet.com (Stewart Millen) writes:
Damn nice work Stew.
HCCRR
In article <906132901$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes:
}HCCRR wrote in message <906048313$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}(snip)
<<lot of the usual nonsense snipped>>
}}Property taxes have been around since the Revolution.
}
}You really don't want to compare those early property taxes to those of
}today............do you?
The fact is that property taxes have been around and they aren't communist.
That was the point. The fact that they might be high is a whole other
question.
}
}
}The states and local
}}governments have not collected them at the order of the federal
}government.
}
}I didn't say that, you did.
I never said the states or the locals collected them. You did, at least you
hinted it was done at the behest of the Feds. Here is your exact comment:
"Property taxes are used by the States in many places and the States have
become proxies for the Fed." Now what does this mean if not that the states
collect property taxes at the behest of the Feds?
}
}
}}Of course the irony here is that you can't have property taxes without
}}property, a concept utterly impossible in a communist regime.
}
}That's the direction we are going.
Not at all. I don't know where you get your information from, but you might
want to double check it.
}
}}
}} Don't pay your taxes the State takes your
}}}property, with the blessings of the Fed.
}}
}}They did that 200 years ago as well. Do you think Sheriff's auctions are
}new
}}things?
}
}Are you saying they did this with the blessings of the Fed? Or was this
}corrupt local politics........
I am saying that Sheriff's auctions have always been around. It is not about
corruption, but about those who can't pay lawfully passed taxes and the
subsequent consequences.
}
}
}} The Fed taking property in large
}}}sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of
}ones
}}}"private property".
}}
}}The fact that there have been abuses is not the same thing as saying this
}is a
}}communist policy.
}
}It's a direction, That's what I said.
You didn't say it quite that way at all. Your comments have established that
there is a communist regime now in America. Are you taking back those kinds of
comments now?
}
}
}In fact, I, a person you have refered to as a comrade, am
}}not very happy about these abuses at all.
}
}But, the good outweighs the bad in your opinion so what the hell. Again a
}direction, and your party line.
}But this is a far cry from the
}}abolition of property property.
The good does outweight the bad. You seem to desire throwing out the whole
system just because there are going to be abuses. That is unrealistic at best.
}
}It's not a far cry if it's your property, right........typical of your
}logic.
I am not sure what you mean by my "logic".
}
}}
}} BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather
}}}fond of the Eco freaks.
}}
}}Gorbachev is hardly popular among his former Communist buddies. Or haven't
}you noticed?
}
}Because they no what real communism is. But he's a hero to many
}Americans. Doesn't that seem odd to you.
Gorbachev is a hero to some Americans because he attempted to reform a
dictatorial regime in the USSR. Some of this misplaced admiration because he
didn't have a real well thought program, and hence the destruction of the USSR.
But his irratic policies did open up the system to allow the chance for
freedom and liberty to come to Russia for the first time in its history. But
the blame Russians have for Gorbachev is a far cry from yours and those on the
right. The Russians hate him because in their view he destroyed the Soviet
Union. Hell some of the conspiracy theorists there think he was an agent of
the United States!
}
}} He doesn't want much just wants to control the
}}}worlds water supply.
}}
}}He can't control squat. How many votes did he get for president in Russia
}two years ago?
}
}He's not in Russia , he's in San Francisco.
Uh, he ran for president of Russia in 1996, do you deny this? As for San
Francisco, he does have an office there, but big deal. He has chosen
evironmentalism as his new program, and for good reason, given the way the
former Communist regime raped Russia's natural resources.
}
}} After all comrade since water and air are "limited"
}}}resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's
}used
}}}and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know
}}}what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states
}}}permission to dig a hole on your own property or face heavy fines.
}}
}}I hate to tell you but there have always limits to what you could do on
}your own property. Especially if it might endanger your neighbors.
}
}Always ?
Yes, its called the common law.
Has it always been illegal to build a shed in your back yard
}without a permit, or a house, garage, to install a swing set for your kids?
Well not until we built great cities in those instances, but essentially yes.
}If you have your way everyone will have to get permission to do anything on
}the property they rent.
My way is for people to act responsible with their property, so that it doesn't
affect the property of their neighbors. I suppose you think it would okay for
a person to let their house go to hell and become a rat trap, bringing down
property values for others.
}}}
}}}} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to
}all as }needed
}}}
}}}SS, Welfare, Subsides, Medicare, interstate highway system, Through
}}}regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of
}is
}}}controlled through The Fed in some manner or another.
}}}Control = Ownership.
}}
}}Control is not ownership.
}
}That's dumb. You buy property, build a house and pay all the bills. The
}only catch is I will have complete control of that real-estate. Bet it won't
}take long for you to change your mind.
There isn't complete control. This is a classic patriot myth. Now if you ask
me if there might be too much regulation, sure there is, but it isn't remotely
within the realm of communist like control.
}
}The Communists in the 1920s had big debate about
}}that.
}
}Who cares.
You do, since you keep thinking you know what the hell communism is.
That's exactly what the commies would like people to
}believe.....you pay for it and I will use it as *I* see fit ........but
}we'll still say it yours. How utterly stupid and Communist.....no wonder you
}believe it.
I believe it because you are not an island. You have to live in society with
all people. Its not communistic, but common sense.
}
}Also I might point out that communism failed to produce an interstate
}}highway system,
}
}Hell Communism couldn't produce a car that was worth anything, until Ford
}Motor Company built the largest truck plant in the world (at that time)
}there. I believe it was in the late 60's early 70's. But again you're not
}being truthful here. You failed to mention the terrain, weather and
}vastness of the USSR. Don't forget the first Nuclear vessel the commies
}built was an icebreaker.
Uh we faced difficult geographic problems too. You also fail to mention that
most of the population, and the economic base I might add, of the former USSR
was in the eastern or European section, a area much smaller. They could have
built one had they desired to do so. But they are a country with little concern
about allowing the free transit of people, ideas, and goods. We do and hence
the greatness of the interstate system.
}
}a project in the United States that helped our economy grow.and
}}helped many businesses begin trading accross state lines with greater ease.
}}Not to mention allowing for easier travel for people.
}
}This was going to happen anyway with or without the Fed.
How? Where there other competing projects at the time? The Feds have been
involved in building a national road system since the early days of the
Republic.
}}}
}}}}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult
}}}life in
}}}}the private sector.
}}}
}}}
}}}You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed.
}}
}}Except it is not totally controlled. If it were Bill Gates would already
}be in
}}jail.
}
}They're working on it. He's made it in spite of the regulations, but guess
}what, they're going to make some new ones so a Bill Gates will never happen
}again. Good idea Comrade?
Yeah, right. We have been hearing that crap for about 60 years, a guess what,
Bill Gateses seem to happen. I have no problems fundementally with people like
Bill Gates. They are economic pioneers, something our system is damned good at
producing, a someone the old Soviet Union never could.
}}
}}}See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the
}}}hell out of our business?
}}
}}Not totally no. That would be reckless. You advocate a form of capitalism
}}that existed in the 19th century when there was no regulation and plenty of
}}abuse and corruption.
}
}You don't have any idea what I advocate comrade.
Funny I was thinking the same about you. But I think I am closer to you on that
score. You dream of world that never really existed and couldn't exist. Like
most in the patriot movement you confuse freedom with license.
}
}
}Hell today the average worker looks like a king compared
}}those of the 19th century.
}
}
}So what, a television in 1998 makes a set in 1952 look like hell too.
The point is that the system you hate so much has allowed the growth of a
middle class such as the world have never seen before. Government programs you
poo poo such as the interstate system or the GI Bill and other federal
educational programs have paved the way for that to rise. Had we relied on the
old economic rules before 1932, there wouldn't have been a middle class that
included both professionals and workers at the local Ford plant.
}}}Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally"
}}}eliminate the bill of rights.
}}
}}How does my "agenda" eliminate the bill of rights?
}
}
}You like to play around the edges a little here a little there until you
}ultimately get it all.
Are we dodging the question again?
Your transparent as hell, especially with your posts
}concerning the 2nd amendment and you feelings towards "gun huggers". Keep
}pushing you guys are going to get your wish.
My view on the second amendment is that I recognize that both views have some
legitimacy. Frankly I haven't fully made up my mind on this issue, and may
have shifted some thanks to the debates I had with Lyan. I use the term gun
huggers in the same vein that you might use the term tree huggers, and that is
to refer to extremists.
}
}}
}} Even if it does create dissent the Fed can
}}}just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the
}}}left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
}}
}}Violence has been used by both left and right in the United States. What
}}"leftist" actions are you talking about?
}
}
}Every case where innocents die at the hand of the Fed. But the most
}atrocious of course is Waco. Handled by your BC and your Woman JR.
Innocents dying at the hands of the Feds eh? So in your view the madman David
Koresh had no responsiblity in the matter, given he wouldn't let his people go.
}}}
}}}
}}}} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single
}authoritarian
}}}}party controls state-owned means of production
}}}
}}}It's called the Fed.
}}
}}Oh please.
}Ok wise guy name me ten things that you can do that the Fed has no say in.
}Ten things where in no way the Fed has any connection to whatever. Here you
}go comrade your big chance to prove how non invasive the Fed is into our
}lives.
Why the hell should I answer your questions when you dodge mine? But I will
try to anyway. First off you confuse regulation of such things as food and
drugs with controlling the means of production. You no doubt consider federal
safety regulations to be the same as above. Secondly, I can't answer your
direct question now because it might take some time. There are no doubt
indirect connections, but most go to providing safety etc for the people of the
United States. Which again is not the same as the communist controlling the
means of production. You just don't get it: Regulation for the purposes of
safety is not the same as actually running shoe factories as was done in the
USSR. We live in country where capitalism is regulated, not directed or owned
by the state, but regulated. If we didn't any idiot with the capacity of
operating a radio station would blow out his competitors with massive
megawattage.
}
}} They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education,
}}}and the redistribution of wealth.
}}
}}This is your distorted view, a view that no doubt believes being given a
}}speeding ticket is also an example of totalitarian communism.
}
}That's a dodge commie boy and you know it.
Maybe I learned it from you.
That is exactly the way the Fed
}operates. You have the distorted view. Or should I say the sheep view. I
}rather approve of ticketing dangerous drivers but, you don't have a clue
}about what I think.......except that our Fed is currently out of control and
}taking a direction I don't think is right. A direction you like comrade.
You assume to know what I think as well. What you call a redistribution of
wealth, is attempt by society to create a safety net for those in society who
have fallen on hardtimes. It was steps like this by FDR et al in the 1930s
that might have saved the United States from a real communist takeover or even
a fascist one. Once again, these steps and others have been an attempt to
bring more Americans into the middle class. To a limited extent it has worked,
but to say that there haven't been problems with such things as welfare would
be inaccurate on my part. Hence in the last 6 years the federal government and
the states have cut welfare rolls and placed stringent requirements on future
recipients. But the fact remains that government action, in particular the
"dreaded" feds have helped all society thru what you view as communist such as
public education etc.
}
}}
}} Education the production line of drones
}}}for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
}}
}}The Feds doesn't control industry. Regulation is not control.
}
}And again, you are thinking dumb
Same to you. Of course you think I am dumb because I don't except your bizarre
meanings for many words.
Regulation is control. If you don't meet
}the regulation you will be fined an amount that will bankrupt you if you
}don't comply. That's control pal and it's real.
But to what purpose is this regulation? Is not there to bankrupt from to
protect. Control would actually running and planning such as was done under
GOSPLAN's five year plans. You are confusing things for obvious reasons.
}
}
}Are you opposed to laws that protect workers and consumers from abuses we
}saw in the last century?
}
}Were you there? I wasn't. But, from what I have read, work place protections
}were needed in some situations.
In most situations, especially in the industrial centers.
}
}BTW these kinds of laws didn't even exist for the most part in the
}}old Soviet Union. Russia's evironmental policies were God awful as well.
}
}
}Actually with all your study you should know the average Russians were not
}hard workers under the Communists.
Did I miss something? I remember making such a claim.
The typical worker there missed on
}average of two days of work a week and was a drunk consuming about a fifth a
}day of their vodka. And, why not, they had nothing to look forward too.
They had nothing to look for because they had nothing to spend money on. In
the old Soviet Union almost all economic activity was directed towards the
defense and space sectors. The consumer sector of the economy was a poor
cousin indeed. This is why there was no incentive. Also alcohol is a social
problem in Russia that predates the communists.
}Reminds me of "equal pay for equal work" that you party tried to push a
}while back.
Are you actually opposed to people being paid the same for the same kind of
work?
}}}
}}}}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I
}prefer our system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only
one view can legally be held.
}}}
}}}Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state.
}}
}}How?
}}
}}Where
}}}people are spied on, protected from themselves
}}
}}Dare I ask, what are you referring to? Specifics would be nice.
}
}
}How about the FBI's pledged to tap every phone
When did they pledge this and did they use that language?
, the attempts by Big Bro to
}have all the encryption keys on the internet,
Something I am opposed too
and there are many more.
}Protecting people from themselves......Seat belt laws, Helmet laws,
}trigger locks......and volumes more........It's regulation.......it's
}CONTROL.
And the purpose is to protect people and others who might be injured by their
irresponsiblity.
}}
}}, and are guilty until proven
}}}innocent.
}}
}}You mean the same manner you treat those of us who dare to disagree with
}you?
}
}
}Not at all, you have no Idea what my politics are, you don't care, it's only
}your agenda that you think is important. *You* are the one that goes off on
}anyone that disagrees with *you*!
Funny coming from a guy who calls those he disagrees with "commies". You are a
damned hypocrite. I have never said my "agenda", which I haven't even spelled
out, is the only important one. Good God, I have preached the doctrine of
diversity here, not the doctrine of only having one view on what constitutes
freedom. That seems to be the province of the so called patriots here. It is
certainly not mine. As for "going off', that is actually an attempt to engage
in debate and dispute certain comments made. I don't se how that is creating a
police state mentality.
}
}}
}}Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more
}}}regulation and government control.
}}
}}Nope. On what basis do you make such a statement?
}Your posts.
Got any details to back that up, or are you going to avoid direct questions
again?
}
}}
}}The Soviets always considered their
}}}elections to be free and competitive too.
}}
}}Except theirs weren't free and competitive because there was only one party
}on
}}the ballot. Before you make a silly comment about a Democratic/Republican
}}monopoly, remember there has always been a two party system since the
}beginning
}}of the Federal Republic, and is hardly proof of a communist system.
}
}
}Does that aspect of our system bother you, since you chose to answer for me?
}I wouldn't have said that, peculiar you did though.
I mention the two party system because in past experience I get static that it
is the same as the communist system, which of course is utter bullshit.
I would have simply said
}why? The constitution doesn't lay it out that way.
It doesn't forbid it either. In fact, the first amendment hints at the right to
create political associations.
Personally, I think
}they're both pretty much the same party.
Gee, what a surprise, and you wonder why I brought it up.
They have a family squabble from
}time to time but they're pretty much the same.
Only in the sense they agree to a certain set of principles, priniciples shared
by the overwhelming bulk of the population. They differ on detail, in fact the
differences ideologically between Democrats and Republicans have been widening
in many areas over the last two decades. The Republicans becoming almost
completely conservative, and the Democrats almost completely liberal.
}
}} But, guess what, in key positions
}}}you kept seeing the same names year after year after year.
}}}I like term limits, how about you?
}}
}}I oppose term limits, because its up to the people to decide whether or not
}to
}
}Imagine that, you oppose term limits. The people still decide even with term
}limits. You're just full of fear comrade.
How does what I just said endicate fear? You mystify me sometimes.
If your view is the majority view
}you can't lose either way, right?
Actually I am in minority inregards to term limits, given the polls over the
last decade, so I don't get your point at all.
}
}}keep their representatives in office. But the fact I might oppose term
}limits
}}doesn't prove I am communist either.
}
}You sound guilty.
How pray tell? Hey how come you cut out the part about libertarians opposing
term limits as well? Does that interfer in your general silliness about being
a communist?
}
}
}}Well, Christians have their version as well.
}
}
}OH, and how do you perceive that? In detail please.
Sure they do, its called the 1000 years that Christ rules have the Tribulation
and the End Times.
}
}}
}} Not even in the system people like you are
}}}pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is
}}}another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
}}
}}How am I pushing such an agenda?
}
}
}Your a big government person HCCR.
I support the concept that government can have a role in addressing many
problems in society, yes. But that doesn't mean I am a "big government" person.
You are a control freak.
Based on what?
You think the
}politicians and academics really know what's best for the masses.
Well you patriots must think you know best for the masses since you call them
sheeple. So I wouldn't there if I were you.
}
}}}
}}}} d : communist systems collectively
}}}}
}}}}Based on previous definitions.
}}}Why don't you want to talk about real communism?
}}
}}Anytime. I spent most of the 1980s studying real communism as practiced in
}the
}}Soviet Union.
}
}
}Did you go there or just read books. I have nothing against reading, but in
}matters of societies and political systems books are only a part of the
}story.
Didn't get a chance to go in 1986, because of little thing called Chernobyl',
but I also talked with many immigrants from there as well as study their
newspapers, books, etc in their own language. But I am pretty confident that I
had a good grasp on the problems that afflicted the Soviet Union. Try me.
}}
}}Why is it that you and your
}}}leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about
}}}it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
}}
}}I don't care if it goes away or not, but I like it used more accurately and
}fairly.
}
}What's accuracy.........The dictionary definition does not tell you what
}real Communism is. That's delusional. A delusion your side suffers from.
Its a hell of lot more accurate than your rather elastic and prejudiced
interpretation is. I find it utterly laughable you think I am a deslusional,
when I have the dictionary backing me up. You are pathetic. I think Stew is
right, you can call a dog a cat all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
}I find your pathetic description of a dictionary definition as being
}}utopian a clear indication that you don't have a leg to stand on to prove
}to
}}your bizarre definition of what constitutes communism.
}
}Does the dictionary tell you that Communism means the secret police bugged
}your house and then came in the middle of the night and took your brother to
}the mental institution for drug therapy to correct his thinking. Because he
}was reading a bible with some friends and listening to radio signals that
}were against the law?
Did this happen to your brother? Is this what you are saying? If so I am
certain there was more to it than just his reading the Bible and listening to
nutcases on the radio. BTW listening to the Shortwave isn't against the law.
I do it every night.
}
}Is that what the dictionary tells you comrade? The only pathetic one here is
}you. You need to make your living in the public school system. You would fit
}the bill nicely.
And where do you get your definitions?
}
}}}
}}}When it comes to Communism it should be talked about in the real sense. We
}}}have two examples, both of which are relatively current and familiar.
}China
}}}and the Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about them. Both
}}}the result of a huge central bureaucracy, "doing what's good for their
}}}people". This will *always* happen when to much power is given to a
}central
}}}bureaucracy. We are at that point now.
}}
}}Wrong. The powers of the federal government have been reduced in the last
}}twenty years over an whole set of domestic concerns. Welfare,
}transporation,
}}communications, etc. There are thousands of examples.
}
}
}Name me ten where the fed has actually given up control and no longer has
}any say whatsoever with these programs.With thousands of examples this
}should be a piece of cake.
Deregulations over radio and television, trucking, airlines, etc. I never said
they were eliminated, but reduced. Safety still has a role to play.
}}
}}
}} People like you want to ever increase
}}}the authority of the Fed.
}}
}}Where have I said this? I have supported moves to reduce federal
}involvment in
}}welfare and education, and I believe I have stated this in this newsgroup
}}before. I favor the abolition of the Department of Education for instance.
}
}
}How about abolishing any Fed involvement in public education? Are you ready?
}Let's do it.
No, the Federal government can still provide help in education just like the GI
bill and the National Defense grants etc..
}
}
}}
}} Everything we do is under the auspices of Big
}}}Brother, and people like you want to make them even more efficient at
}}}controlling us.
}}
}}Well that's funny, since I have opposed such items as the Communications
}}Decency Act and like legislation. And guess what, we won clearly on that
}}issue, because unlike real communist systems, we have an independent court
}}system that can strike down such unconstitutional acts. They had nothing
}like
}}it in the old Soviet Union.
}
}
}Is that act gone....or as your fond of saying when you lose one, it isn't
}over yet?
It was struck down by the Supreme Court, so I would say its gone.
I never have said we are like the USSR was.
Sure you have. After all you equate public education with communism don't you?
I said we're heading
}in that direction. You just like to spin.
You like to spin as well you might add. And also avoid direct questions about
things I have written.
}}
}}}You say your free. Think about that the next time you take a shit on your
}}}government regulated toilet..................comrade.
}}
}}
}}I usually would be thinking about you.
}
}Kinky. You really do need to get over that, I've told you more than once now
}that I don't go that way. But don't worry your party want's to give
}*special* rights to people like you.
Believe me its not kinky.
}
}BTW, don't forget to wipe, the Fed says it should only take three sections
}of paper, if it takes more you should change your diet.
}
}John
Your focus is rather bizarre.
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <906180618$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <906132901$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
and there are many more.
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <906180625$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
}smi...@mountainet.com (Stewart Millen) writes:
}
}Damn nice work Stew.
You guys are a trio now, HCCR, Stewart, and Kurt.
Outstanding!
John D.
Gray Shockley wrote in message
<906162605$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}[prescript: I didn't make it clear that these were small "family farms"
that
}are being wiped out - sorry.]
}---------------------------------------------
Understood
(snipped here and there)
}This has happened time after time. Personally, it bothers me a lot as I'd
}rather see a hundred little "family farms" instead of an outfit such as
}Archer-Daniels-Midland expand throughout the state.
Me too. I'd rather know that the folks providing my food are also eating it.
That means more to me than a Fed stamp.
It is a difficult problem.
}} In the end though if the guy bought the property with no
}} restrictions he should damn well be able to do what he wants with it.
}
}Yah, that's the way it is right now. However, my point is that I would
support
}legislation to keep the mega-agribusiness outfits as far away as possible.
In
}other words, I support "governmental intervention" to keep "undersirables"
}(including ADM - "the supermarket to the world") out.
I can't go along with that. (We could use the dictionary definition here to
clarify what undesirable means.) :) If we do that, then we have to decide
who is undesirable......in that case it's quite possible the little farmers
and people like you and me who would like to see them stay around could
loose.
(Of course, ADM's $5
}billion "subsidy" doesn't exactly endear them to me.)
That may be the best solution. I don't believe in subsidies unless it is an
absolute necessity to the survival of the country. Everyone in buisness has
to make money to keep doing buisness. The Fed should not be able to tilt the
scales to favor anyone. If they do, it's not really a free, fair market is
it.
}
}No, not "smarter buyers in the future." When these small farms are gone,
they
}are gone forever.
I agree, they should be able to compete without Fed interference.
John
John D.
HCCRR wrote in message <906180617$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <906137401$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
}<U...@forever.com> writes:
(snipped)
}}
}}Your smarter than he is apparently.
}
}Oh no Mr. Dumbass, I knew that it was your game. Don't flatter yourself.
Did you......................................Nah, I don't think so comrade
}And you are too paranoid.
Not after Waco.
}}}So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
}}}because of what we believe (even though you haven't
}}}really defined communism).
}}
}} Yep, I haven't defined communist for you guys. No need to if all you will
}}accept is the dictionary definition. (Sounds close minded doesn't it) You
}}are also correct in saying I *call* you guys communists.
}
}Apparently words really have no meaning for you John D.
No Comrade they do have meaning. You guys are just so used to spinning you
don't even know what's happening around you.
Okay, two can play at
}this game then. You are a fascist. I know you probably don't fit the
}definition spelled out in the dictionary, but I feel like you calling that
}because according to your logic I can change the meaning to fit me.
You should have inserted the words Na,Na...Na,Na right after the word
fascist in your second sentence.
}}
}}BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
}
}He won twice didn't he?
Yep, no majority.
How many of your like minded types done as well?
Many times actually.
How many votes did Harry Browne get or Charles Collins or Kevin Phillips?
None, but I'd sure like to see them get a chance at it.
John
John D.
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
}}because of what we believe (even though you haven't
}}really defined communism).
}
}Yep, I haven't defined communist for you guys.
}No need to if all you will accept is the dictionary
}definition. (Sounds close minded doesn't it) You
}are also correct in saying I *call* you guys
}communists.
In other words, you'll call us whatever you think
will score you brownie points, accuracy be damned?
}}If that's so, you live in
}}a nation chock full of "communists"--maybe 80-90 %
}}or more. What you going to do about it?
}}
}
}I don't know Stewart, pretty big poblem isn't it.
Sure can't be done democratically, can it? If you
have your revolution (if that's what you favor)
then you'll be voted out the first free and fair
election. And without democracy there can't be
liberty--or at least history doesn't show us any
examples.
}}}
}}}Nah, Stew.......only sounds like that to Communists.
}}
}}Don't look now, but it sounds that way to everyone.
}}You're creditability now's on par with that of David
}}Donnell.
}
}
}Oh, that really hurts Stew. You wouldn't be playing some
}of those games here that you said you didn't participate
}in. But, fair enough, I did compare you with
}Kurt...........although you may have come out worse in
}this exchange.
Well, Donnell's reputation did sink low enough that
several "pro" posters ended up ignoring or killfilling
him. And he did it just as you are doing--except in his
case liberals were "pagans" instead of "communists".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQY/cyPOTvd59tlAQFnvQP+K3KX0dE33Vss+AA3hHiYcpeCzSA2L+Ht
nPR9Tx9WjrwiMuX4cWQPU5Nm1KWvKBGUON0w/7192iWVDY3RAL8mpj2luT9HeO91
ezFqxW7RqmMVRCAJ+EjH50cokSXTGeRWW/54Lw/TS2F7GA81TAj2H0m8E2UWNNqb
5HxQ7QzoD84=
=xMIH
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}>}}Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not
}}}}even close.
}}}
}}}In your opinion. Which by the way is not the only
}}}opinion.
}}
}}In general usuage, which is the only one that matters.
}}You can call the sky a "chair" and bicycle a "TV set"
}}but don't be suprised when no one understands you.
}
}Again, your opinion is the only correct one.
Again, it's not just *my* opinion you're ignoring,
nor HCCRR's, but the consensus of historians and
poticial scientists. It's like someone saying the moon
is 240,000 miles away and made of rock, and someone
else saying it's made of green cheese. That's *not*
a difference of opinion on par with you liking lemon
pie and me prefering apple.
}I happen
}to agree in this instance with you, but you wouldn't
}know that because you see everything as a personal
}attack on your ideaology. You've been well conditioned
}Stew.
Misrepresenting someone, particularly deliberately
doing so, is usually been seen as a personal attack,
no matter what the manifestation. That's no sign of
"conditioning". Again, go onto a NG and start calling
the conservatives "Nazis", and find out how "well-
conditioned" they are too.
}}
}}Since you seem so challenged in knowing what a liberal
}}is,
}
}How do you know what I think a liberal is?
You keep calling HCCRR and me communists, when we're
not. Just trying to be helpful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQXh8yPOTvd59tlAQHlhgP+NOx9fSguCPpw/s9qV0O7SeQgs31K1wEW
jB4RYU07TqBG4PI7liCrrRwNaAuw7cCmLI3owRVXnzI77JI1ZpS6gWVvvdbEBpmd
AtePsXoEWv3MCQVHon0F+nJwlK8rPiLkuI1SKFBSVIwovCD4AUCQRoQuBceVCVY5
jXmEyKHLFbc=
=9Wtz
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}Yep, heard it all before. Anything that can change
}}the system or protect our rights peacefully--like
}}participation in elections and the political process,
}}joining political organizations like the ACLU, using
}}strong encryption or setting up your own remailers,
}}etc., you guys pooh-pooh. Ironically it's the strategy
}}you have the least chance of winning--armed revolt
}}against the government, violence and bloodshed--is the
}}only thing that gets you excited.
}
}You seem to have me pegged, huh Stewart. How do you
}know what I think? I know what you guys think, because
}you guys are always telling us what you think.
At least half the posts in this NG are from "pro"
posters; they aren't telling us what they think
too? And you haven't done badly yourself. A Dejanews
search reveals that I have made about 360 posts to
MAM, spread out over the period of a year. In
a little over three months (July-Sept, '98) you've
made 158 posts, on target to make 450-600 posts
in a year if you continue. So you're posting at
a faster rate than me, at least.
But feel free. Stop calling HCCRR a "communist"
and tell us what you think. We're all ears...
}The
}problem is you also tell everyone else what to think.
}If they don't buy your academic bullshit, then of course
}you already know what they think. Very good Stewart,
}appreciate it. I like to indulge you guys, it's telling.
"Don't buy academic bullshit"? That sounds anti-
intellectual to me.
}
}BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell
}did you run Clinton?
Voted for him in '92, not in '96 (He miffed me on
several issues). And even in '92, he wasn't whom
I supported in the primaries. But I do appreciate
his reducing the budget deficit--he deserves a lot
of credit for that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQbUsyPOTvd59tlAQG6oQP8C/VtjlQvMV7HbiKVun/xHZqmMDqb9J/J
9gO0GDRveiOFyPkichFUqa0oHqz4ypAg7SD7gmgH5e0VuEDhv/yDn7RF3LJwV3DT
U8H21w6UmrNlGJmHknjrqMQWJkVecWa/iqQVYxj8rHs3RNUseCR2LBuFnOnXHYEa
9t6VBdsiCxQ=
=rX0b
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}}I don't know why you push PGP Stew. Do you have
}}}something to hide?
}}
}}Look who's sounding like the totalitarian now.
}}
}}}If you do I wouldn't use PGP. I thought a deal was made
}}}with the Fed for a convenient backdoor into PGP.
}
}Hmmm, I ask you if you have something to hide and *you*
}call me a totalitarian.
Well, the line "people who use strong non-key escrowed
encryption have something to hide" is one made by
those who think that the government should have the
ability to snoop communications at will--that's why
I made that crack. Sort of a variation of "if you're
innocent, you couldn't possibly mind us searching your
home or person, right?" argument. Also, in totalitarian
regimes there is no privacy--everything is considered
an act with political consequences. It's why teenagers
in Eastern Europe were arrested to listening to American
Jazz music in the 1950s by the Stalinist governments
there.
}ever think I may have been trying to make you aware
}of something that may be benificial to you. Nah, that
}can't be right, because you guys are always right
}........right.
Insofar as PGP having a "back door", the source code
is available and can be examined by any programmer-
so any "back door" could be readily discovered.
As for the algorithms used in PGP (IDEA and RSA)
they too are in the literature and have been peer
reviewed, and no weaknesses have been found.
}}Oh? Care to cite any crimes or court cases where
}}PGP-encrypted information was decrypted and used
}}as evidence?
}
}
}No. Do you think they (meaning the Fed) would give
}a way a tool like that in court cases? That would be
}like notifying the Japanese and the Germans that
}their codes had been broken during WW II.
}C'mon Stewart you guys are supposed to be the
}intellectual giants here.
Actually, I've *made* that argument before. If the
government could break PGP, it would be done by the
NSA, which would guard the fact closely as a government
secret. It wouldn't fritter it away in handing it to the
FBI for the prosecution of drug dealers, pornographers,
or even militia cases. Maybe if a terrorist group
was trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon into New York
City, maybe it would risk acting on any decrypted
information-and even then the NSA would scramble to
try to keep the information out of the public record.
The saying is, "national security issues are not
law enforcement ones". Plus it might well take more
resources than would be practical for routine
decryption-the NSA might have to pick and choose
carefully which messages to decrypt.
And also, there's no guarantee that the NSA can
break PGP. After all, no one in academia has found
a weakness; why believe that mathematicians who
work for the government are any more skilled than
those outside? You're always telling us that the
government is incompetent to run the schools or the
mail; now is it suddenly super-competent here?
The bottom line, for most people, even for those in
the militia movement, PGP probably offers more than
adequate protection. Probably any attacker could
get more information from other lapses in security
(the old "loose lips sink ships") than by attacking
the code. Or by using "rubber truncheon" decryption--
beating or intimidating the passphrase from someone.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQaOsyPOTvd59tlAQHD+QP/flV23pT3BN7TchxJANRR74PwptYKMVDC
+XmN70kcd3MU/SJS6cMJ2QtrNxXuKzy6n7AcIkmaCjJPtJIfb1lOgCHT+VFnwSR7
Dc6w7WkkAjhitQgCcPP+9qVuFpxZUePLTrEwS5vBNzY6GZwQ52hc2yTGFLUDfKz2
33RiXp3KEMQ=
=is3c
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}I don't recall a lot of other antis using them either:
}}Kaa, HCCRR, Wizard, Son, Dave Tharp, or Gray, for
}}starters. Maybe the Valgoses, Joe Pothier, and Kurt
}}use them, but they don't classify themselves as
}}liberal,
}
}I can't really say about you Stewart, but all the
}others you mentioned have used very derogatory
}statements towards anyone who challenges their views.
I don't believe that--"Son of ATF" was almost legendary
in his politeness, even when personally attacked. And
I have a hard time believing that good-natured Dave
Tharp would personally attack anyone--I've never seen
it. As for the others, I've seen some sharp responses,
but your question was on them using terms like "loons",
"militianoid" and "trailer trash", which slander whole
groups (particularly the latter phrase). Even HCCRR,
as sharp a critic of you guys as any, has stated
that he thinks there are good people in the milita
movement and that not all their ideas are outlandish.
}Too much of a cheap shot, and remember,
}}we have Dave Tharp on our side.
}
}It's not as bad as it used to be, but still happens
}when certain people wish to establish their elitism.
Well, it's not limited to "antis"; Guru (admittedly
neither "pro" nor "anti") did it too.
}}If you look up that post, you'll see that she also in
}}the same paragraph suggested handing our programs
}}for MAM (like in the theater or at a football game),
}}so people could keep track of who was on what side, and
}}who was engaged in which feud with another (like Wiz
}}and Pothier). That sounds pretty tongue-in-cheek to me.
}
}
}Why look up that post. I was responding directly to a
}quoted statement you made in this post. If everyone has
}to start serching Deja news to just figure out what
}someone really means..........well that's kind of stupid
}don't you think.
}
}}And another thing: a word ban wouldn't work. If you
}}set the MAMbot up to ban the words "Fascist" and
}}"communist" then you'd see people deliberately mispelling
}}words to get around the filter, calling each other
}}"Kommunist" and "fa$cists". I think Kaa's smart enough
}}to realize that.
}
}Stewart, you screwed up. Put it behind you and forget
}about it.
Ok, believe me now...my remark was tongue-in-cheek,
and I interpreted hers to be too, for the reasons
I stated. End of discussion here?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQX7syPOTvd59tlAQGbdQP/WEFNu5hqO5rLvUy/3WwOzl+uvX0aM7kV
D9WoDiKRi69Mk/WzsypY9iboUR4Pr8fqwSm3SjsSnQ/93mMgPqeOiaTNL8n1bBXK
OdUZyUtIfgeisKtGJ4pgHWcliynJzVC3Sq9MZX09mhc+i9RZFsL3xWUmkPDES5/T
a5KoaKaEa50=
=SkQs
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}Meaningless, because everyone knows (and I suspect
}}you do too) that HCCRR's not really a communist,
}}that you're just doing it to get his goat.
}
}Your smarter than he is apparently.
So you're admitting you're being dishonest about
this?
}Heck,
}}from what I know of him, HCCRR's a businessman,
}}and about as sterotypically American as apple pie.
}
}I agree. He's way to trusting of the Fed.
I meant my comment on HCCRR as a compliment to him.
The record of the US and the American people is far
from flawless, but it's a whole lot better than
most.
}}
}}Tiresome, because it's been done so often before,
}}by people with little imagination and whose own
}}arguments are so weak that they can't "win" unless
}}they paint their opponents into something they're
}}not. Much easier to deal with a caricature of your
}}opponent than the reality, isn't it?
}
}
}Not true, in this case anyway. When people are
}wearing blinders sometimes it's very hard to get
}them to get a panoramic view. I think you guys, are
}wearing blinders.......in some cases.
Well, attacking people is not the way to open
minds. Actually, first you have to do just the
opposite--find and establish points of common
agreement, not keep hacking each other to death
over your points of disagreement. Once you have done
this, you can start discussing your disagreements.
But another thing, to open minds, you have to have
an open mind yourself--so you may see your own
ideas get influenced as well. And you still may end
up just having to agree to disagree on things--it's
the way the world is, and a darn good thing too.
Things would be boring if that was so, and a
diversity of ideas actually makes us stronger.
And people who disagree with you aren't evil, just
different. I'm sure that if I knew personally all
the people on this NG, there would be some of my
political opponents I could trust with my life
savings, and there would be some political allies
I wouldn't trust further than I could throw them.
That's also the way things are.
}}This coming from someone who smears his opponents as
}}communists? Don't you even presume to lecture me on
}}tolerance, bud.
}
}Why is that Stewart, you guys have all the correct
}bilge on tolerance too?
Using smear words at least implies intolerance,
as it (falsely) implies that your opponent is
something not to be tolerated.
}See how that emotional thing works. Now you know it's
}not that hard to figure out what ticks you guys off.
That I don't like to be called intolerant? So,
what did you prove?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQYjsyPOTvd59tlAQFR0gP/Xa5HzZPkdmvSRpo807DAaCtYWAOD2wdT
quyslM43qTcM91DD2pLyKtFMl4Ml2eKri7pf7ybwFaMVtSmqrwXv65FDK0lSAqVh
DJi4mcNaBQyWjkX0u/AUxZuujDBLvsY+61Dcf2AGts7dfgDNb4fgfaWrPT+gK8oI
UFpIiwzJb0w=
=hJs7
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 16:50:01 GMT, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}<906119401$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snipped)
}}}No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
}}}like your buddy Kurt?
}}
}}Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
}}Kurt has a fine mind.
}
}Well, Kurt certainly says he has a fine mind.
Kurt does have a fine mind. I wouldn't care to
tangle with him on his areas of expertise.
}
}}As for your original point, since you can't see the
}}differences between the various "anti" posters, I
}}hardly can believe you know what emotionally ticks us
}}off.
}
}I have found that the term commie or comrade does.
}I also know that you band together when emotionally
}ticked off. Kind of a group therapy thing to help
}reenforce your belief system. And, you all become
}emotionally ticked off when some one dissagrees with
}you.
If we're talking thin skins and emotional reactions,
remember you were the one which jumped into this
thread on the basis of a remark I made to Tom Beck.
That's pretty indicative of a thin skin on your
part, especially since all I did was point out
that you were abusing the term "communist" with
HCCRR (and you've pretty much admitted that you're
doing this, too). Feeling defensive about this,
John?
Secondly, do as I said--go into some NG and start
calling the conservatives "Nazis", and see what
happens. See if a lot of them don't rise to the
defense of their fellows--not because of any "group
therapy to reinforce their belief system" but because
it's both inaccurate and unfair, if not slanderous.
Finally, I find it amusing that I've ended up in
this debate with you as a result of taking a fellow
"anti" (Tom Beck) to task for him misattributing
something to RGlenn Cheek. And HCCRR also made a post
to defend RGlenn. It's not that we are political
bedfellows with RGlenn, it's just that honesty,
in the long run, is the best policy. You, on the
other hand, don't appear to have any qualms lying
if you think it scores political brownie points.
}}Finally, a point: "fascist" in the US doesn't probably
}}have the recognition value of "communist
}
}True. Certain words do illicit certain emotional
}reactons. Tells alot about people. I have stated
}as much in other posts.
On the contrary, using such words doesn't reveal
a lot because emotionally-ladened words tend to inhibit
rational debate. Any idiot can eventually throw
enough insults at someone to provoke a response.
What does that prove?
(snip)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQW/8yPOTvd59tlAQGfWQP8CkpVGr9x38NEqY+MITqGWQHF6iKy0ziB
F01a426rdY9JQXaeTa58y6JS8s6kWalYfMfareJOncfzTLtnIft2+9KzKYzUFC9v
a1sgGQTG0eTvaX03IOGQSgsp5h3yIAuAF8wEfsNsmgviK3YQ7IONGxidZiDHS2fo
aJu3qlWle70=
=4liL
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 7:50:00 GMT, Thomas R Beck
<beck...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote:
}
}smi...@mountainet.com (Stewart Millen) wrote:
}
}
}}-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
}
Ok, some clarification is due on my part. When I
made that remark, I was envisioning a scenario
where RGlenn could re-order the political world
to his desires, as if by waving some magic wand.
I agree with you that a real power take-over,
particularly one which was achieved by violence,
that the moderate elements would likely be pushed
aside by the more radical and violent--I think
any review of violent revolutions reveals that
this is all too probable, and I have said as much
to him in our debates. That's my biggest difference
with him--he at times has made statements (one
just recently, in fact) which give the impression
that he thinks that people like Eric Rudolph can be
'harnessed' to do good. He's fooling himself if
that's the case, IMHO. Remember the quip about how
revolutions devour their children?
}} And he does
}}seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good,
}}RGlenn. Keep it up). RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I
}}can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong
}}religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
}
}Exactly my thoughts, which can be seen in a recent
}post of mine where I question RGlenn about his beliefs.
}
}}BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist,
}}quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian
}}either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any
}}self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his
}}statements is troubling.
}
}}There have been people here which fit your description-
}}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one
}}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their
}}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists"
}}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been
}}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap
}}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your
}}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all
}}posts with the latter two words should be banned
}}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually)
}}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has
}}a point there...
}
}If the entire militai/patriot element were of the
}nature of RGlenCheek I myself would have few doubts
}or fears about their purpose. However, it is abundantly
}clear to me from reading the various postings in this
}NG, as well as conversations and experiences I have had
}in actual experience, that a) An element sympathetic
}to the aims of the so called militias does exist and
}b) They are violently right wing. I try not to falsely
}label anyone.
Essentially, I agree with you. But also keep in mind
that those in the miltia are our fellow citizens, fully
entitled to all their rights under the Constitution.
And also keep in mind that any legal measures taken
against them might be used as a precedent in the future
against other groups--by a President Pat Robertson, say,
against ACT UP. So how does society protect itself while
maintain the protections under the Constitution for
minorities? That's the important question to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgPyaMyPOTvd59tlAQFozwP/Su0kYbNUZ4zrjeMa2dAMqMiC76RN4eHB
8jSlt2po/ozNGUmj0BH/RHziHlVtnjwzRnu6qJE87YYgCVBwodIqaOozSdM9tEDD
6ccyO0psL3RjL1xoyv37Oo78FF7y5Bksef/rBnwOYQTu0A80RxwGdsE+evYx2Nr4
WxxDgw+RgRQ=
=/c15
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 14:35:01 GMT, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
}
}Stewart Millen wrote:
}}
}}On Thu, 17 Sep 98 14:20:04 GMT, "John D."
}}<U...@forever.com> wrote:
}}}
}}}Stewart Millen wrote in message
}}}<906034800$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}
}}}(snip)
}}}}
}}}}Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
}}}
}}}No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
}}}like your buddy Kurt?
}}
}}I don't read much of Kurt's posts, as he usually gets
}}involved in pissing contests I find boring, so I don't
}}know. Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
}
}Holy Cow!
}
}}Kurt has a fine mind, and if he used it more to advocate
}}his beliefs rather than in these mud-slinging contests,
}}it would be better employed.
}
}I've expressed my beliefs, on occassion, only to be
}responded to with ad hominem attacks and juvenile
}name-calling. Now I simply respond in kind to such.
}Worthwhile comments I spend more time on, perhaps
}because I can appreciate that there certainly are
}valid opinions other than my own...
I lurked in MAM for a year or more before posting.
I don't remember your earliest posts, but I do
remember vaguely a time when you weren't involved
in so many pissing contests, before Kasper killfiled
you. So maybe I'm being unfair. Also, I remember
a similar thing happened to Matthew (UK)--his first
posts were quite good, but he got mugged about
as soon as he stepped into this NG. Afterward,
he mostly reverted to insulting people.
}But I don't have to counter-argue negative rhetoric,
}and that's the 'game' that some of the so-called
}'conservatives' want to play, especially when they're
}devoid of facts..
I would suggest that you do. After all, I will read
posts by Joe Pothier and Mr. Wizard, but skip the
pissing-contest threads. I think Joseph should
*unbend* a little and stop regarding every "pro"
poster as an enemy; and I think Mr. Wizard is wrong
in calling Joe a Nazi (he's not). Ideologically I'm
probably closer to Mr. Wizard in most ways than to
Pothier, but I couldn't bear driving Joe to apoplexy
the way Wiz does--out of human sympathy, if nothing
else. That's my two cents on this matter.
In some ways "Son of ATF" was the poster I strive
to emulate the most--he was witty, reserved, kept to
the topic at hand and ignored personal attacks. He
also earned the respect of lots of people on both
sides by doing so. There are others too I admire
a lot for their broad or specialized knowledge (Kaa,
HCCRR, others) but "Son" was tops for keeping his
head. I can't hope to approach his knowledge of
Waco and how the ATF and FBI go about their business,
though.
And there have been some non-anti posters I like.
Guru was the Camille Paglia of MAM: one moment
he could have you doubled up laughing with some
witticism, the next you would be shaking your
head in dismay. I used to really enjoy reading the
Randy/Guru exchanges, as they were both really good
debaters. Bill Kasper, your old adversary, is also
a good writer and a fine poster, though I blanche at
his "heads on spikes" sig file and disagree probably
with more than 80 % of his statements. But both could
say things which almost made you forget the *other*
things they said, and if they agreed with you, they'd
say so--it wasn't just mindless opposition. I'm
probably further away ideologically from RGlennCheek,
but we've been pretty civil in our exchanges as
well, despite that.
Having given you this advice, I'm also in something
of a pissing contest with John D., by my standards.
So maybe the doctor should heal himself first. :)
[snip]
}}I don't recall a lot of other antis using them either:
}}Kaa, HCCRR, Wizard, Son, Dave Tharp, or Gray, for
}}starters. Maybe the Valgoses, Joe Pothier, and Kurt
}}use them, but they don't classify themselves as
}}liberal, if I recall.
}
}I refer to my occassional political musings as being
}'conservatively liberal' and 'liberally conservative'
}at the same time.
If that's a statement that you're practical, I agree
with you. All ideologies are just models of political
and social reality, and thus all should be subjected
to empirical verification. I don't care how nicely
consistent an argument it makes, if the result of your
ideology is a pile of skulls or increased human misery,
then it's time to junk it--at least in that application.
And thanks for the compliments. Again, I shall try to
read more of your posts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQrRcyPOTvd59tlAQGTewP+IbyspgvUkLH8RzMvn9y4V5Z5CDphJX0v
HS96z22Me3IGzSn8hlJRGStgR6VC9ebwmQ0Y3H/pzpw6fC0V2LJOvQBCLEZBzVjA
r7HyqBpdFfjjI0iXJVC5fJZsg1NJXsGx0SDtP7SSlG11/q1s2p9BRPIahAnb979d
QCAsEWXaQXw=
=wG3u
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 18 Sep 98 4:05:00 GMT, "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}And intelligence is for nought without the nerve and
}resolution to ACT. And no two libertarians can agree
}on enough to ever find that source of energy and
}purpose, especially athiests at that! Rudolph, by
}himself, has done more to get the governments attention
}than any thousand libertarians!
But if you go out and stand naked in the middle of the
street, you'll get the government's attention too,
plus that of your neighbors and passers-by. :)
Getting the government's attention doesn't say
anything about the social utility of your acts.
Surely you're not defending Rudolph whose (alledged)
actions are one of murder and hate? And I hope
you're not saying that people like him would be
valuable in the militia--I'd hate to see what
type of government an Eric Rudolph might want to
see set up after any militia revolution and victory,
and to be honest I think you would too, Richard.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgQ3tMyPOTvd59tlAQHTMgQAoHxoNoTM2/1uTYl6C1B5A+cLW9FZJff8
IJh4feJAfLiqMnaTbyEomazRr98Wk3gBeQSLZsnHiMB5xx613uiUGWyLVrhVT2AC
LN3NhIu3MIiBZgGMpD+vMsZcycx48d5QEYwtUN/9F9h2Jyi9Rqr61IKQl3lyXPq4
Nf4vNQZsroE=
=6nfk
Kurt Lochner
Stewart Millen wrote:
}
} Kurt Lochner wrote:
}
} }Stewart Millen wrote:
} }}
} }}On Thu, 17 Sep 98 14:20:04 GMT, "John D."
} }}<U...@forever.com> wrote:
} }}}
} }}}}Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
} }}}
} }}}No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter
} }}}like your buddy Kurt?
} }}
} }}I don't read much of Kurt's posts, as he usually gets
} }}involved in pissing contests I find boring, so I don't
} }}know. Believe it or not, I agree with Bill Kasper there:
} }
} }Holy Cow!
} }
} }}Kurt has a fine mind, and if he used it more to advocate
} }}his beliefs rather than in these mud-slinging contests,
} }}it would be better employed.
} }
} }I've expressed my beliefs, on occassion, only to be
} }responded to with ad hominem attacks and juvenile
} }name-calling. Now I simply respond in kind to such.
} }Worthwhile comments I spend more time on, perhaps
} }because I can appreciate that there certainly are
} }valid opinions other than my own...
}
} I lurked in MAM for a year or more before posting.
A good move, in my consideration. I lurked about three months
} I don't remember your earliest posts, but I do
} remember vaguely a time when you weren't involved
} in so many pissing contests, before Kasper killfiled
} you.
Boil Kasper kept trying to sway me by my basic beliefs,
and often bent the intended meaning of my wordings to
make it seem like I should join his efforts..
I wasn't impressed, as I'd seen this before..
} So maybe I'm being unfair. Also, I remember
} a similar thing happened to Matthew (UK)--his first
} posts were quite good, but he got mugged about
} as soon as he stepped into this NG. Afterward,
} he mostly reverted to insulting people.
I think that we all loose sight of this newsgroup being
merely a hobby from time to time...
} }But I don't have to counter-argue negative rhetoric,
} }and that's the 'game' that some of the so-called
} }'conservatives' want to play, especially when they're
} }devoid of facts..
}
} I would suggest that you do. After all, I will read
} posts by Joe Pothier and Mr. Wizard, but skip the
} pissing-contest threads. I think Joseph should
} *unbend* a little and stop regarding every "pro"
} poster as an enemy; and I think Mr. Wizard is wrong
} in calling Joe a Nazi (he's not). Ideologically I'm
} probably closer to Mr. Wizard in most ways than to
} Pothier, but I couldn't bear driving Joe to apoplexy
} the way Wiz does--out of human sympathy, if nothing
} else. That's my two cents on this matter.
Well, in certain respects, I have to admit/say that you're
correct. This newsgroup doesn't need any more of that,
especially if one were to present still more about how
the 'militia movement' is easily duped by the corporative
"bend" in our national politics these days..
Even then, imagine some will think it necessary for me
to remove my feet so I can put my money where my mouth
is. Which, in fact, I do 'vote' with my money...
} In some ways "Son of ATF" was the poster I strive
} to emulate the most--he was witty, reserved, kept to
} the topic at hand and ignored personal attacks. He
} also earned the respect of lots of people on both
} sides by doing so. There are others too I admire
} a lot for their broad or specialized knowledge (Kaa,
} HCCRR, others) but "Son" was tops for keeping his
} head. I can't hope to approach his knowledge of
} Waco and how the ATF and FBI go about their business,
} though.
Don't take him as infallible, nor I, for that matter..
} And there have been some non-anti posters I like.
} Guru was the Camille Paglia of MAM: one moment
} he could have you doubled up laughing with some
} witticism, the next you would be shaking your
} head in dismay. I used to really enjoy reading the
} Randy/Guru exchanges, as they were both really good
} debaters.
That they are, and I regard both of them highly..
} Bill Kasper, your old adversary, is also
} a good writer and a fine poster, though I blanche at
} his "heads on spikes" sig file and disagree probably
} with more than 80 % of his statements.
That's true also, but of late Boil went of in front
of the "i hate clinton" ng with a comment about Whiggs,
and how the Democrats were going to end the same way..
I found that ironic to some measure, especially with his
alledged'kill-filing' of my moniker..
I'll send it to you if you'd like..
} Having given you this advice, I'm also in something
} of a pissing contest with John D., by my standards.
} So maybe the doctor should heal himself first. :)
That's okay, just keep in mind that this is only a hobby..
} [snip]
} }I refer to my occassional political musings as being
} }'conservatively liberal' and 'liberally conservative'
} }at the same time.
}
} If that's a statement that you're practical, I agree
} with you.
I'm just now breaking into the science profession, and
that I'm blunt with my outlooks is only more evidence of
how I have to be practical.. I hadn't thought of that,
and thank you for mentioning it..
} All ideologies are just models of political
} and social reality, and thus all should be subjected
} to empirical verification. I don't care how nicely
} consistent an argument it makes, if the result of your
} ideology is a pile of skulls or increased human misery,
} then it's time to junk it--at least in that application.
Now *THAT'S* a practical conclusion... Do it some more, please..
} And thanks for the compliments. Again, I shall try to
} read more of your posts.
Okay, I'll skip the pissing matches for now, as I prefer just
heckling sometimes from the gallery. Maybe we could set some
kind of better example to go around here..
--Ooops, that'll probably get "Murphy'd" now that I mentioned it..
HCCRR
In article <906232801$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes:
}HCCRR wrote in message <906180617$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}In article <906137401$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
}}<U...@forever.com> writes:
}
}(snipped)
}
}}}
}}}Your smarter than he is apparently.
}}
}}Oh no Mr. Dumbass, I knew that it was your game. Don't flatter yourself.
}
}
}Did you......................................Nah, I don't think so comrade
Did I what? Ask the question!
}
}
}}And you are too paranoid.
}
}
}Not after Waco.
Like a Waco happens everyday. Sheesh that was five years ago and was a
disaster, hence the Feds have learned how to deal with nutcases like Koresh,
and therefore no more Wacos.
}
}
}}}}So, by your defintion, HCCRR and I are "communists"
}}}}because of what we believe (even though you haven't
}}}}really defined communism).
}}}
}}} Yep, I haven't defined communist for you guys. No need to if all you will
}}}accept is the dictionary definition. (Sounds close minded doesn't it) You
}}}are also correct in saying I *call* you guys communists.
}}
}}Apparently words really have no meaning for you John D.
}
}No Comrade they do have meaning. You guys are just so used to spinning you
}don't even know what's happening around you.
How am I spinning? My definiton of communism is not based on a personal
prejudice as yours is. If anybody is spinning its you.
}
}
}Okay, two can play at
}}this game then. You are a fascist. I know you probably don't fit the
}}definition spelled out in the dictionary, but I feel like you calling that
}}because according to your logic I can change the meaning to fit me.
}
}You should have inserted the words Na,Na...Na,Na right after the word
}fascist in your second sentence.
No, I live such sophomoric comments to you.
}
}}}
}}}BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
}}
}}He won twice didn't he?
}Yep, no majority.
So? The Constitution doesn't require a popular vote majority. He got the
majority in the electoral college, by more than a 100 votes I might add.
}
}How many of your like minded types done as well?
What do you mean "like minded"?
}
}Many times actually.
}
}How many votes did Harry Browne get or Charles Collins or Kevin Phillips?
}
}
}None, but I'd sure like to see them get a chance at it.
They had a chance. Browne and Phillips were on more than 40 state ballots, and
still couldn't break the 1% treshold. As for Collins, he went to every party
to seek a nomination, starting with the GOP then the Libertarians, and finally
the Taxpayers. He is just a nutcase.
}
}John
}
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 20 Sep 98 0:05:07 GMT, Kurt Lochner
<Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
}
}Stewart Millen wrote:
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}I don't remember your earliest posts, but I do
}}remember vaguely a time when you weren't involved
}}in so many pissing contests, before Kasper killfiled
}}you.
}
}Boil Kasper kept trying to sway me by my basic beliefs,
}and often bent the intended meaning of my wordings to
}make it seem like I should join his efforts..
}
}I wasn't impressed, as I'd seen this before..
Well, you can't fault him for trying to sway people
to his side. That's why he posts, after all. And
I'd rather someone try to point out the advanatages
of their position rather than come out pummeling me
with insults.
}}So maybe I'm being unfair. Also, I remember
}}a similar thing happened to Matthew (UK)--his first
}}posts were quite good, but he got mugged about
}}as soon as he stepped into this NG. Afterward,
}}he mostly reverted to insulting people.
}
}I think that we all loose sight of this newsgroup being
}merely a hobby from time to time...
Tell me about it. I'm didn't get in my bike ride
yesterday because of this. I'm heading out right
now in a second. But time pressures keep me from
posting as much as I did this weekend, and during
the week I'm lucky to get a post or two in a day.
Not infallible, but a class act.
}
}}And there have been some non-anti posters I like.
}}Guru was the Camille Paglia of MAM: one moment
}}he could have you doubled up laughing with some
}}witticism, the next you would be shaking your
}}head in dismay. I used to really enjoy reading the
}}Randy/Guru exchanges, as they were both really good
}}debaters.
}
}That they are, and I regard both of them highly..
}
}}Bill Kasper, your old adversary, is also
}}a good writer and a fine poster, though I blanche at
}}his "heads on spikes" sig file and disagree probably
}}with more than 80 % of his statements.
}
}That's true also, but of late Boil went of in front
}of the "i hate clinton" ng with a comment about Whiggs,
}and how the Democrats were going to end the same way..
Now that's interesting. Does he think the Democratic
party's going to fall apart like the Whigs did? If
so, surely he realizes that--continuing the analogy--
what followed was that the other party (the Democrats
of the 1850s) split later and the resulting re-ordering
of the political landscape left the bulk of the 1850s
Democrats out in the political cold for some 20 years.
Is his argument conclude with "he who self-destructs
first wins?"
}I found that ironic to some measure, especially with his
}alledged'kill-filing' of my moniker..
}
}I'll send it to you if you'd like..
Naw, if it comes up, I'll ask it about it. Or I
could retrieve it by Dejanews.
}}Having given you this advice, I'm also in something
}}of a pissing contest with John D., by my standards.
}}So maybe the doctor should heal himself first. :)
}
}That's okay, just keep in mind that this is only a hobby..
}
}
}} [snip]
}}}I refer to my occassional political musings as being
}}}'conservatively liberal' and 'liberally conservative'
}}}at the same time.
}}
}}If that's a statement that you're practical, I agree
}}with you.
}
}I'm just now breaking into the science profession, and
}that I'm blunt with my outlooks is only more evidence of
}how I have to be practical.. I hadn't thought of that,
}and thank you for mentioning it..
BTW, aren't you in physics?
}}All ideologies are just models of political
}}and social reality, and thus all should be subjected
}}to empirical verification. I don't care how nicely
}}consistent an argument it makes, if the result of your
}}ideology is a pile of skulls or increased human misery,
}}then it's time to junk it--at least in that application.
}
}Now *THAT'S* a practical conclusion...
}Do it some more, please..
Will try. Remind me when my anarchist 1/4th surfaces.
}}And thanks for the compliments. Again, I shall try to
}}read more of your posts.
}
}Okay, I'll skip the pissing matches for now, as I prefer
}just heckling sometimes from the gallery. Maybe we could
}set some kind of better example to go around here..
}
}--Ooops, that'll probably get "Murphy'd" now that I
}mentioned it..
Sometimes I think I'm not cut out for all this
debating--I actually like people (better than I like
guns, which probably puts me in a distinct minority
here) so I don't really like to tear into someone.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgViZMyPOTvd59tlAQGbgQP/bgWeP8nyBBlwNxCHUgTTAscMYwuzIMHR
EzlsfZS8ebE5qEkYn1seMWqDQLyX+QVJoq+DG0C2ZWbTdPjFmKxUZwZ5Smhwxrmu
zIZsySLZ8MBGtg57p9lnHf+1pXkI222TPLZQz28+32nHorKsOTfHVWkTRAU4s+sH
1jRXJ4PEf8Y=
=/NIL
Kurt Lochner
Stewart Millen wrote:
}
} Kurt Lochner wrote:
} }
} }Stewart Millen wrote:
} }}
} }and often bent the intended meaning of my wordings to
} }make it seem like I should join his efforts..
} }
} }I wasn't impressed, as I'd seen this before..
}
} Well, you can't fault him for trying to sway people
} to his side. That's why he posts, after all. And
} I'd rather someone try to point out the advanatages
} of their position rather than come out pummeling me
} with insults.
Trouble is, Bill quickly draws down with the insults
more often than expresses his thoughtful opinions,
especially if you disagree with his name-calling/opinions.
Remember, as a "statist" I probably break the mold..
} }}So maybe I'm being unfair. Also, I remember
} }}a similar thing happened to Matthew (UK)--his first
} }}posts were quite good, but he got mugged about
} }}as soon as he stepped into this NG. Afterward,
} }}he mostly reverted to insulting people.
} }
} }I think that we all loose sight of this newsgroup being
} }merely a hobby from time to time...
}
} Tell me about it. I'm didn't get in my bike ride
} yesterday because of this. I'm heading out right
} now in a second. But time pressures keep me from
} posting as much as I did this weekend, and during
} the week I'm lucky to get a post or two in a day.
Like you, I've splurged this weekend, and will have
more to do this next week in my personal life...
} }}In some ways "Son of ATF" was the poster I strive
} }}to emulate the most--he was witty, reserved, kept to
} }}the topic at hand and ignored personal attacks. He
} }}also earned the respect of lots of people on both
} }}sides by doing so. There are others too I admire
} }}a lot for their broad or specialized knowledge (Kaa,
} }}HCCRR, others) but "Son" was tops for keeping his
} }}head. I can't hope to approach his knowledge of
} }}Waco and how the ATF and FBI go about their business,
} }}though.
} }
} }Don't take him as infallible, nor I, for that matter..
}
} Not infallible, but a class act.
He's a thoughtful young man, I know him personally...
} }}Bill Kasper, your old adversary, is also
} }}a good writer and a fine poster, though I blanche at
} }}his "heads on spikes" sig file and disagree probably
} }}with more than 80 % of his statements.
} }
} }That's true also, but of late Boil went of in front
} }of the "i hate clinton" ng with a comment about Whiggs,
} }and how the Democrats were going to end the same way..
}
} Now that's interesting. Does he think the Democratic
} party's going to fall apart like the Whigs did?
Yes, that's what he inferred...
}=> Repeat after *us*:
}=> [...]
}=> The Democratic Party is going the way of the Whiggs...
Yup...
} If so, surely he realizes that--continuing the analogy--
} what followed was that the other party (the Democrats
} of the 1850s) split later and the resulting re-ordering
} of the political landscape left the bulk of the 1850s
} Democrats out in the political cold for some 20 years.
Yeah, I don't think that he realizes the the Libertarian
and Republican'ts of that era are the Demoncrats of today.
And where the hell did all these fundy/Republican't of
today originate from, anyways?
} Is his argument conclude with "he who self-destructs
} first wins?"
Something like that, tho' perhaps unintentionally...
} }I'm just now breaking into the science profession, and
} }that I'm blunt with my outlooks is only more evidence of
} }how I have to be practical.. I hadn't thought of that,
} }and thank you for mentioning it..
}
} BTW, aren't you in physics?
Yup...
} }}All ideologies are just models of political
} }}and social reality, and thus all should be subjected
} }}to empirical verification. I don't care how nicely
} }}consistent an argument it makes, if the result of your
} }}ideology is a pile of skulls or increased human misery,
} }}then it's time to junk it--at least in that application.
} }
} }Now *THAT'S* a practical conclusion...
} }Do it some more, please..
}
} Will try. Remind me when my anarchist 1/4th surfaces.
It's gotta 'breathe' sometime, it will be welcomed here..
} }--Ooops, that'll probably get "Murphy'd" now that I
} }mentioned it..
}
} Sometimes I think I'm not cut out for all this debating--
0h, you're doing better than you think right now..
} I actually like people (better than I like guns,
} which probably puts me in a distinct minority here)
} so I don't really like to tear into someone.
I need to learn that over again...
--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
MindSpring User
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<906247206$26...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
}
}On Fri, 18 Sep 98 4:05:00 GMT, "MindSpring User"
}<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}
}}And intelligence is for nought without the nerve and
}}resolution to ACT. And no two libertarians can agree
}}on enough to ever find that source of energy and
}}purpose, especially athiests at that! Rudolph, by
}}himself, has done more to get the governments attention
}}than any thousand libertarians!
}
}But if you go out and stand naked in the middle of the
}street, you'll get the government's attention too,
}plus that of your neighbors and passers-by. :)
}Getting the government's attention doesn't say
}anything about the social utility of your acts.
This is true, and part of the reason why I wasnt addressing this question of
the morality of Rudolphs actions. I was simply comparing the liklihood of an
athiestic libertarian taking decisive action on his/her beliefs as compared
to that of a thiest, and that is all. Libertarians, and most 'conservatives'
are talk only. When they are needed to stand beside you politically, they
run most of the time, on account of their perceived political 'future'. The
Biblical church will act when the time comes, and it will not be a gentle
rain like Rudolph.
}Surely you're not defending Rudolph whose (alledged)
}actions are one of murder and hate?
I ahve posted on another thread what I think of Rudolph. In short I think
his actions are wrong for many reasons, moral, tactical, and political.
Certainly they are indiscriminate, cowardly, and indefensable.
}And I hope
}you're not saying that people like him would be
}valuable in the militia--I'd hate to see what
}type of government an Eric Rudolph might want to
}see set up after any militia revolution and victory,
}and to be honest I think you would too, Richard.
People like him only in terms of his intelligence, courage and cunning. He
is wrong for what he did, and I pray he will be brought to justice (if my
prayers are any good at all).
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<906240078$26...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
Any 'moderate' leadership that allows such as Rudolph to rise through the
ranks is incompetent. Such can be largely prevented through normal
discipline. In war it is difficult to prevent your troops from killing
prisoners or civilians, but it is an effor t that has to be made. The troops
that will commit brigandry will also commit insurrection. And though not all
troops will be disciplined at all times, a ruthless maverik should never
rise to officer ranks, if so he should be held to a strict standard of
conduct. Violation of war ethics creates resolution in ones enemy, low
morale among owns own forces, and mars the good name of anything one tries
to accomplish. I would not serve with any force led by men like Rudolph, for
many reasons. If necessary, such men should be executed under field courts
martial ala Henry V.
<major snippage>
}}If the entire militai/patriot element were of the
}}nature of RGlenCheek I myself would have few doubts
}}or fears about their purpose. However, it is abundantly
}}clear to me from reading the various postings in this
}}NG, as well as conversations and experiences I have had
}}in actual experience, that a) An element sympathetic
}}to the aims of the so called militias does exist and
}}b) They are violently right wing. I try not to falsely
}}label anyone.
}
}Essentially, I agree with you. But also keep in mind
}that those in the miltia are our fellow citizens, fully
}entitled to all their rights under the Constitution.
}And also keep in mind that any legal measures taken
}against them might be used as a precedent in the future
}against other groups--by a President Pat Robertson, say,
}against ACT UP. So how does society protect itself while
}maintain the protections under the Constitution for
}minorities? That's the important question to me.
}
It is the crux of it for now. But a government that wont discipline its own
misguided officers, is not a government that can be trusted to rule on
constitutional limits to ones actions in all cases. As to your question in
reference to protection; I think that the government has killed more people
at Waco, than any constitutional militiaman has since they started. Your
worries are misplaced.
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
Sorry for the delay; been very busy.
HCCRR wrote in message <905709034$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}In article <905664902$62...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
User"
}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}}
}}HCCRR wrote in message <905631601$39...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}
}}}In article <905621701$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}}User"
}}}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}}}
}}}}
}}}}HCCRR wrote in message
<905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}}}
}}}}}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
}}}}} As for
}}}}}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
}}}}grown up
}}}}}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
}}}}likely
}}}}}to be a communist.
}}}}
}}}}Not likely, just more likely than the average.
}}}
}}}Not likely at all, given the facts.
}}
}}
}}You're saying tha tnationwide, the Dems are no more likely to have Commies
}}in the cubbard than the Publicans? Well, that honesty thing seems rather
}}thin right now.
}
}I guess it depends on the definition of the word communist. Given the
rather
}broad used by most in the patriot movement that would include just about
any
}Democrat. Do you know of any well known communists in the Democratic Party?
Is this a trick question? In which party were Jane Fonda's defenders? To
which party did the Chicoms funnel their donations through LIPO? Which party
has supped with well known commies since the end of WWII? I admit we are
only talking of fractions of percents here, most Dems are solid Americans by
far.
}}
}}}}
}}}}}Remember B-1 Bob's ridiculous attempt to make something of
}}}}}Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969-1970 as a student, a 23 year old
student
}}}}at
}}}}}that. He had no facts, just a blind hatred towards to Clinton.
}}}}
}}}}But that is the kind of thing that they deny clearances for. Clinton
cant
}}}}answer some very sensitive questions about his activities that winter,
}}like
}}}}who sponsored his visit,
}}}
}}}It was traditional mid winter vacation that all Rhode's Scholars take
}}during
}}}their year at Oxford. Nothing sinister about it.
}}}
}}}
}}} which at the time had to be a Communist Party
}}}}official, IIRC.
}}}
}}}You mean to say those running the Rhodes Programs were Communist Party
}}}officials? Or are you talking about the normal granting of travel visas
by
}}the
}}}Soviet Government?
}}}
}}
}}Soviet Government would nt let people in unless they were sponsored by
some
}}Commie Party official and the KGB had to approve it as well, IIRC.
}
}That is hardly accurate. I had friends who went over there for years and
they
}were never sponsored by CPSU officials. As for the KGB, perhaps there was
a
}low level person involved because the KGB had responsiblity of border
control
}in the old USSR. Now if we accept your premise then, that every single
}American who went to the USSR was a communist agent. That would include
}millions upon millions Americans who went there.
}
It would seem that the author I was thinking of had exagerated the
conditions some, if what you say is true. But Clinton was on a $2700 per
year income at the time and such trips to Msocow alone ran around $5000.
Where did the money come from? What was he doing with Group68 and the
communist 'Brittish Peace Council'? Who stole the pages from his State Dept
file that were rumored to include references to him giving up his US
citizenship in protest of the Vietnam war, and of a secret side-trip to
Hanoi?
}
} This was
}}right after some of Clintons more infamous anit-war protests,
}
}That still isn't proof. Lots of Americans entered the USSR during that
time
}who didn't participate in anti war demonstrations. I know of at least 10
}personally, most of whom are right wing in their politics.
Were they also sponsored by Intourist, the Soviet governments travel agency?
Thats sounds like Clinton had pull with the Soviets; why should a young
student have such influence?
} and the
}}following summer he had ties to a known KGB front group, whose name I cant
}}recall off-hand, something like International Peace Committee, etc.
}
}But did he know it was a KGB front group if true? That is another leap on
your
}part based on your general opinion of BIll Clinton.
Not really. I think Clinton wants to be popular, and accomplish some goals
very important to him, but bad for us in many cases, IMO, like gun control.
I have little respect for his private persona, but his economic leadership
has been very good. I think he has been more used by sinister elements than
a coconspirator, but that is not alltogether true either. Clearly he knows
that Lassiter is a convicted Cocaine dealer, as is his brother, Roger. Why
does Clinton have such a fondness for nose candy? That schnouser looks like
a coke-vacuum. If you had a 16 year old daughter, would you trust him alone
with her?
}}I am not saying this proves anything, but raises some questions about why
he
}}was there and who sponsored him.
}
}But I ask again, what is the name of the Communist who sponsored him?
}
}}
}}} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}}}
}}}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}}}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
}}
}}I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont think
}}he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
}}regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
}
}What activities in Moscow? Touring Red Square like countless other
tourists?
}Or do you have hard information that he actually met with some KGB
official,
}and I am not talking about the "minders" that worked at Intourist either.
Did
}he meet with one for the purposes of conducting espionage or sedition?
No, nothing like that. I consider the circumstnces suspiscious, and would
like some response; response he refused to give to the Washington Times in
'92. I think he agreed to coordinate some aspects of his anti-war movement
with the KGB for their mutual bennifit. Is that necessarily treason? I
dunno, I dont think he would have done anything to deliberately cause the
death of American troops. But who knows? Thats why I would like to see an
investigation by anyone but Starr.
}}
}}} Not to mention the Constitution
}}}doesn't require one.
}}
}}Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for
suspiscion,
}}IMO.
}
}He has answered! He was tourist on a student holiday during the Christmas
}break.
A tourist doing what, picniking on the Volga? Gimme a break.
} I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
}}I would get my clearance app revoked.
}
}Who asked him about it? What office debriefed him?
The press, apparently organs in the Rightwing conspiracy, Hilary talks
about.
}}
}}}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}}}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is
there
}}}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify
such
}}}outlandish accusations?
}}
}}No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing with
}}one of there own.
}
}I am looking for even one shred of evidence that Clinton went to the Soviet
}Union for purposes other than tourism. So far there isn't any.
And thanks to someone at the State Dept, there wont be any.
}}
}}Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck
Colson's
}}_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
}
}What does this have to do with your lack of evidence that Clinton was doing
}anything in the USSR other than sampling vodka or piroshki?
Nothing, other than a general reference on Clintons personal character; as
if that is needed anymore.
}
}}}}
}}}}} This has
}}}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}}}}loathing
}}}}}then actual facts.
}}}}
}}}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}}}
}}}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a
}}theory
}}}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his
}}school
}}}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
}}
}}
}}Not in the circumstances.
}
}How? DId he meet with a KGB official, and know that he/she was a KGB
official?
} I mean, come on here, you don't much more than speculation here, the kind
that
}brought ridicule to B-1 Bob for this antics on the House floor in 1992.
Dunno, why wont he tell us himself?
}}
}}
}}}Why is it extreme
}}}}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}}}}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}}}}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
}}}
}}}But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
}}
}}
}}Were the cattle futures only ranks specualtion?
}
}So Hillary made a killing in cattle futures market. Boo hoo. Where is the
}indictment of her that substantiates the claims made by Clinton haters. My
God
}man, don't you think Starr would have loved to indict her over the
something
}that simple if there was clear evidence of wrong doing?
I think he will, after he delivers the second report before the vote on the
Lewinski charges.
}}
}}}}
}}}}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}}}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}}}}
}}}}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
}}}
}}}But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that
Jewell
}}}guy?
}}
}}Yep, I said he was innocent at the time, too.
}
}But a lot of people had him tried, convicted, and sentenced, based on
}speculation.
}Should Jewell be hounded forever with such charges based solely on
speculation?
} This is what is being done to Clinton. Well except for this Monica
business.
This is so weird, i think the Monica thing is his most defensable faus paus.
}}
}}}}
}}}}} And this following
}}}}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan
Republicans
}}I
}}}}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is
that
}}}}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}}}}
}}}}
}}}}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
}}}
}}}Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme right?
}}
}}Aside from Oral envy? Dunno, maybe Penis envy?
}
}ROTFLMAO! Seriously, they have lost all perspective when it comes to
Clinton.
}Don't you agree?
Yes, especially Starr. That doesnt mean the charges arent true, but clearly
it is personal now between the two.
}}
}}}}
}}}}But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic
come
}}}}Jan 2000.
}}}
}}}Depends on how the public reacts. If his approval ratings drop to
Nixonian
}}}levels, then he is history. If they hold near the .500 mark, he could
}}still be
}}}there on the morning of Jan 20, 2001.
}}}
}}RGlenCheek
}}
}
}Thus far his approval ratings are holding at 63%, and this is after the
release
}of the Starr report. Even the calls for his impeachment and resignation
are
}only supported by about 35%. This surprises the hell out of me. But it
proves
}the American people are willing to be more forgiving than some of us. But
as
}this thing festers, the Nixon scenario could come into play. But then
again,
}Clinton is not the Come Back Kid for nothing.
True we'll see. Personally I hope he makes it to a hearing on the more
serious charges and the Lewinski stuff is passed over.
RGlenCheek
Billy Beck
Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
}--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
<hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek. For you to even
type the word "research" after your long history of flat blank-outs
and craven *lies* over the official record of the Foster case is a
gratuitous affront to anyone with a brain in their head.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Kurt Lochner
The effluviant/deviant, known as Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
} Kurt Lochner originally wrote, in a reply to Stewart Millin..
} }} I actually like people (better than I like guns,
} }} which probably puts me in a distinct minority here)
} }} so I don't really like to tear into someone.
} }
} } I need to learn that over again...
} }
} }--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
}
}<ego-tab><hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
} fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
} bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
The first being an actual air-disaster that you won't admit happened,
the latter being an example of how you *NEVER* check the entire set
of facts out in order to preserve your delusional opinions...
} Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek.
Ah, thanks for clearing up just how important 'freedom of speech'
is to your holier-than-thou attitudes...
} For you to even type the word "research" after your [...]
Frilly, I know you don't like this, but I am going into research,
and the reasons why will continue to elude you, no matter how
hard you keep huffing and puffing your ego up..
--Somehow, you being a roadie, doesn't seem to qualify your opinion.
Dan Steward
HCCRR wrote:
} I
} }John
} }
} }BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
}
} He won twice didn't he? How many of your like minded types done as well? How
} many votes did Harry Browne get or Charles Collins or Kevin Phillips?
harry browne was on the ballot in all 50 states. very few of the dozens of
candidates can do that in a presidential election.
of course when you've got the democrats and republicans keeping a libertarian out
of the debates (yes they did) it's very hard to win.
despite all the roadblocks and barriers to ballot access (again created by repubs
& demos) the libertarian party is the third largest party in america.
--
ATTENTION SPAMMERS AND BULK E-MAILERS:
Beginning August 1, 1998, all efforts will be made to track down
all senders of unsolicited commercial or bulk electronic mail. If you do not wish
to be billed at the rate of US$500 per occurrence, you will not send any
unsolicited commercial or bulk electronic mail to any of my
addresses; those addresses are listed below.
Dan Steward
Bill Kasper
On Mon, 21 Sep 98 12:35:01 GMT (just before the Impeachment), wj...@mindspring.com
(Billy Beck) informed us all thusly:
=
=
=Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
=
=}--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
=
= <hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
=fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
=bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
Now Billy, you know its not nice to rub Kurtsie's poopies in his face...
=
= Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek. For you to even
=type the word "research" after your long history of flat blank-outs
=and craven *lies* over the official record of the Foster case is a
=gratuitous affront to anyone with a brain in their head.
=
And now, we'll just wait for Kurtsie to post his standard "I know you are but what am
I?" non-response.
Too bad I've killfiled him, and won't ever see it.
Gee, I feel so...deprived...
---------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper
SIGINT, VR-WC->, Impeachment Detail
"Impeach, indict, saturate, ignite." - Billy Beck
HCCRR
In article <906360601$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}
}Sorry for the delay; been very busy.
No prob.
}
}HCCRR wrote in message <905709034$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}In article <905664902$62...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "MindSpring
}User"
}}<rglen...@mindspring.com> writes:
}}}}}HCCRR wrote in message
}<905618104$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}}}}
}}}}}}Well this is the view from a rather partisan Democrat.
}}}}}} As for
}}}}}}the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, this is understandable. They have
}}}}}grown up
}}}}}}believing any Democrat, is automatically a tax and spend liberal who is
}}}}}likely
}}}}}}to be a communist.
}}}}}
}}}}}Not likely, just more likely than the average.
}}}}
}}}}Not likely at all, given the facts.
}}}
}}}
}}}You're saying tha tnationwide, the Dems are no more likely to have Commies
}}}in the cubbard than the Publicans? Well, that honesty thing seems rather
}}}thin right now.
}}
}}I guess it depends on the definition of the word communist. Given the
}rather broad used by most in the patriot movement that would include just
about
}any Democrat. Do you know of any well known communists in the Democratic
Party?
}
}
}Is this a trick question? In which party were Jane Fonda's defenders?
Given the problems at Chicago in 1968, they weren't Democrats for certain.
To
}which party did the Chicoms funnel their donations through LIPO?
Well that has yet to be proven. I am willing to bet if we dig as deep as some
the GOP committees have, we might find some in the GOP as well. But even if it
is true that the Chinese attempted to give money. where is the proof that the
Democratic Party, as a party, actually solicited those funds? Have I missed
something?
Which party
}has supped with well known commies since the end of WWII?
What well know commies? You mean Khrushchev with Ike in 1959? How about Nixon
with Brezhnev in 1972? Or perhaps you mean Reagan with Gorbachev in 1985?
I admit we are
}only talking of fractions of percents here, most Dems are solid Americans by
}far.
I wonder how many racists and former klan supporters are in the Republican
Party?
The Rhodes Scholarship committee I would guess since they encourage their
students to travel thru Europe during their winter break.
What was he doing with Group68 and the
}communist 'Brittish Peace Council'?
Was he really involved with those groups? Or is this just another rumour?
Who stole the pages from his State Dept
}file that were rumored to include references to him giving up his US
}citizenship in protest of the Vietnam war, and of a secret side-trip to
}Hanoi?
Oh please! Why would a person who wrote a letter to an ROTC official about the
need to keep his political viability intact and then plan to defect to North
Vietnam? That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. I might add further, what
is the source that he actually intended to give up his citizenship to begin
with? Perhaps that's the reason there was no file in the State Department,
there was no such record. Clinton clearly planned a political career in
Arkansas, not North Vietnam.
}
}}
}} This was
}}}right after some of Clintons more infamous anit-war protests,
}}
}}That still isn't proof. Lots of Americans entered the USSR during that
}time
}}who didn't participate in anti war demonstrations. I know of at least 10
}}personally, most of whom are right wing in their politics.
}
}
}Were they also sponsored by Intourist, the Soviet governments travel agency?
Everybody who went to Soviet Union had an Intourist guide to accompany them.
}Thats sounds like Clinton had pull with the Soviets; why should a young
}student have such influence?
It sounds like rank speculation. You raise questions and think they are
answers.
}
}} and the
}}}following summer he had ties to a known KGB front group, whose name I cant
}}}recall off-hand, something like International Peace Committee, etc.
}}
}}But did he know it was a KGB front group if true? That is another leap on
}your
}}part based on your general opinion of BIll Clinton.
}
}
}Not really. I think Clinton wants to be popular, and accomplish some goals
}very important to him, but bad for us in many cases, IMO, like gun control.
That must explain his continuing approval of the 3 out of 5 Americans.
}I have little respect for his private persona, but his economic leadership
}has been very good. I think he has been more used by sinister elements than
}a coconspirator, but that is not alltogether true either. Clearly he knows
}that Lassiter is a convicted Cocaine dealer, as is his brother, Roger.
So guilt by association is the standard we follow now?
Why
}does Clinton have such a fondness for nose candy? That schnouser looks like
}a coke-vacuum. If you had a 16 year old daughter, would you trust him alone
}with her?
I don't know if Clinton does indeed have a fondness for nose candy. This is
based on a comment, made allegedly, by Roger that might not be accurate and
made because the elder Clinton was pressuring the younger to quit. Remember
Clinton told him to face the music. As for 16 year old girls, thus far I
haven't seen any charges that Clinton is a child molester, and a 16 year old is
still a child unlike a 22 year old woman. But eventually the Clinton haters
will get around to accusing him of child molestation since its about the only
crime they haven't accused him of yet.
}}}} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}}}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}}}}
}}}}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}}}}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
}}}
}}}I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont think
}}}he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
}}}regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
}}
}}What activities in Moscow? Touring Red Square like countless other
}tourists?
}}Or do you have hard information that he actually met with some KGB
}official,
}}and I am not talking about the "minders" that worked at Intourist either.
}Did
}}he meet with one for the purposes of conducting espionage or sedition?
}
}
}No, nothing like that. I consider the circumstnces suspiscious,
Let me get this straight, you think that because a 23 year old Oxford student
goes during winter break to the Soviet Union it is a suspicious circumstance?
And that is it?
and would
}like some response; response he refused to give to the Washington Times in
}'92.
Hmmm? I wonder how I would react to a right wing newspaper asking me a leading
question like that? Well since I am not running for president, I would tell
them to blow me.
I think he agreed to coordinate some aspects of his anti-war movement
}with the KGB for their mutual bennifit.
Other than rank speculation, what basis do you have to believe this?
Is that necessarily treason? I
}dunno, I dont think he would have done anything to deliberately cause the
}death of American troops. But who knows? Thats why I would like to see an
}investigation by anyone but Starr.
Well you have to have a hell of lot more to go on then what you have here.
This is the kind of stuff Senator McCarthy used back in the 1950s, taking a few
scattered facts and put a sinister spin on them.
}}}
}}}} Not to mention the Constitution
}}}}doesn't require one.
}}}
}}}Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for
}suspiscion,
}}}IMO.
}}
}}He has answered! He was tourist on a student holiday during the Christmas
}}break.
}A tourist doing what, picniking on the Volga? Gimme a break.
Touring, taking a vacation, seeing the sights, visiting Red Square, etc.
Things that tourists have done in Russia dating back to Ivan the Terrible's
days.
}
}
}} I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
}}}I would get my clearance app revoked.
}}
}}Who asked him about it? What office debriefed him?
}
}The press, apparently organs in the Rightwing conspiracy, Hilary talks
}about.
Well if it was the Washington Times or the American Spectator, I would answer
them either.
}}}
}}}}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}}}}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is
}there
}}}}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify
}such
}}}}outlandish accusations?
}}}
}}}No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing with
}}}one of there own.
}}
}}I am looking for even one shred of evidence that Clinton went to the Soviet
}}Union for purposes other than tourism. So far there isn't any.
}
}And thanks to someone at the State Dept, there wont be any.
In order to establish a crime, you must first prove a crime was committed.
}
}}}
}}}Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck
}Colson's
}}}_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
}}
}}What does this have to do with your lack of evidence that Clinton was doing
}}anything in the USSR other than sampling vodka or piroshki?
}
}Nothing, other than a general reference on Clintons personal character; as
}if that is needed anymore.
I see. So having an over developed libidio is automatic grounds to assume one
is a communist agent? Or perhaps it is because he has lied, that is now the
grounds as well?
}}}}}
}}}}}} This has
}}}}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}}}}}loathing
}}}}}}then actual facts.
}}}}}
}}}}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}}}}
}}}}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a
}}}theory
}}}}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his
}}}school
}}}}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
}}}
}}}
}}}Not in the circumstances.
}}
}}How? DId he meet with a KGB official, and know that he/she was a KGB
}official?
}} I mean, come on here, you don't much more than speculation here, the kind
}that
}}brought ridicule to B-1 Bob for this antics on the House floor in 1992.
}
}Dunno, why wont he tell us himself?
Because it is a ridiculous question. BTW what was his exact response to the
Washington TImes anyway?
}}}
}}}}Why is it extreme
}}}}}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}}}}}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}}}}}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
}}}}
}}}}But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
}}}
}}}
}}}Were the cattle futures only ranks specualtion?
}}
}}So Hillary made a killing in cattle futures market. Boo hoo. Where is the
}}indictment of her that substantiates the claims made by Clinton haters. My
}God
}}man, don't you think Starr would have loved to indict her over the
}something
}}that simple if there was clear evidence of wrong doing?
}
}
}I think he will, after he delivers the second report before the vote on the
}Lewinski charges.
Doubtful at this point. Prosecutors lead with the heavy stuff. Why would he
wait until now to indict Hillary?
}
}}}
}}}}}
}}}}}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}}}}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}}}}}
}}}}}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
}}}}
}}}}But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that
}Jewell
}}}}guy?
}}}
}}}Yep, I said he was innocent at the time, too.
}}
}}But a lot of people had him tried, convicted, and sentenced, based on
}}speculation.
}}Should Jewell be hounded forever with such charges based solely on
}speculation?
}} This is what is being done to Clinton. Well except for this Monica
}business.
}
}This is so weird, i think the Monica thing is his most defensable faus paus.
Its also the only thing Starr has apparently.
}
}}}
}}}}}
}}}}}} And this following
}}}}}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan
}Republicans
}}}I
}}}}}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is
}that
}}}}}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}}}}}
}}}}}
}}}}}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
}}}}
}}}}Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme right?
}}}
}}}Aside from Oral envy? Dunno, maybe Penis envy?
}}
}}ROTFLMAO! Seriously, they have lost all perspective when it comes to
}Clinton.
}}Don't you agree?
}
}
}Yes, especially Starr. That doesnt mean the charges arent true, but clearly
}it is personal now between the two.
Especially considering no other prosecutor would do such a thing against an
average citizen. He would be laughed at by the trial jury.
}
}}}
}}}}}
}}}}}But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic
}come
}}}}}Jan 2000.
}}}}
}}}}Depends on how the public reacts. If his approval ratings drop to
}Nixonian
}}}}levels, then he is history. If they hold near the .500 mark, he could
}}}still be
}}}}there on the morning of Jan 20, 2001.
}}}}
}}}RGlenCheek
}}}
}}
}}Thus far his approval ratings are holding at 63%, and this is after the
}release
}}of the Starr report. Even the calls for his impeachment and resignation
}are
}}only supported by about 35%. This surprises the hell out of me. But it
}proves
}}the American people are willing to be more forgiving than some of us. But
}as
}}this thing festers, the Nixon scenario could come into play. But then
}again,
}}Clinton is not the Come Back Kid for nothing.
}
}True we'll see. Personally I hope he makes it to a hearing on the more
}serious charges and the Lewinski stuff is passed over.
Don't hold your breath.
}
}
}RGlenCheek
HCCRR
In article <906426314$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Dan Steward
<aard...@maverick.net> writes:
}
}
}HCCRR wrote:
}
}} I
}} }John
}} }
}} }BTW, you guys being so smart and all, why the hell did you run Clinton?
}}
}} He won twice didn't he? How many of your like minded types done as well?
}How
}} many votes did Harry Browne get or Charles Collins or Kevin Phillips?
}
}
}harry browne was on the ballot in all 50 states. very few of the dozens of
}candidates can do that in a presidential election.
}
}of course when you've got the democrats and republicans keeping a libertarian
}out of the debates (yes they did) it's very hard to win.
Well you claim there are millions of you guys out there? So where's the votes?
}
}despite all the roadblocks and barriers to ballot access (again created by
}repubs
}& demos) the libertarian party is the third largest party in america.
Actually the Reform Party is at the moment. Check the 1996 results.
Kurt Lochner
Bill Kasper <bill....@usa.net> wrote:
}
/snip!/
}
} Too bad I've killfiled him, and won't ever see it.
Yeah, if you had some cojones, you'd reply with some more of
your laughable "moral absolutes" and other oblique comments
regarding your misinterpretations of Ayn Rand...
} Gee, I feel so...deprived...
--But you're so warm and comfy with your head up your ass...
MindSpring User
Dont worry, Bill, you're not missing a thing...
RGlenCheek
Bill Kasper wrote in message
<906427200$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}On Mon, 21 Sep 98 12:35:01 GMT (just before the Impeachment),
wj...@mindspring.com
}(Billy Beck) informed us all thusly:
}
}=
}=
}=Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
}=
}=}--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
}=
}= <hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
}=fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
}=bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
}
}Now Billy, you know its not nice to rub Kurtsie's poopies in his face...
}
}=
}= Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek. For you to even
}=type the word "research" after your long history of flat blank-outs
}=and craven *lies* over the official record of the Foster case is a
}=gratuitous affront to anyone with a brain in their head.
}=
}
}And now, we'll just wait for Kurtsie to post his standard "I know you are
but what am
}I?" non-response.
}
}Too bad I've killfiled him, and won't ever see it.
}
Billy Beck
Kurt Lochner <Cap...@worldnet.tta.ten> wrote:
}The effluviant/deviant, known as Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}} }--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
}}
}}<ego-tab><hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
}} fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
}} bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
}
}The first being an actual air-disaster that you won't admit happened,...
"Admit"? To *you*? Wotta hoot. What am I gonna do?..."admit"
that your bullshit fictional airplane blew up in the studio between
the bubble-headed bleach blond and the chroma-key? You don't get it,
son. It's not about "the actual air-disaster". It's about your
perception of reality.
}the latter being an example of how you *NEVER* check the entire set
}of facts out in order to preserve your delusional opinions...
Oh, yeah, that's the ticket. As if your "paper bag" is an actual
"fact" amid the entire set.
I've been beating your fucking narrow ass for years now behind
the only "facts" in the case: those alledged in the official
documents. That's where the action is, punk.
}} Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek.
}
}Ah, thanks for clearing up just how important 'freedom of speech'
}is to your holier-than-thou attitudes...
That's exactly right: I *am* "holier" than you, and this isn't a
"freedom of speech" issue, *so*, you can either shut the *fuck* up
*again*, or keep coming on like a waterhead in front of the whole
world. You see, Bagboy, I'm not like your government: I don't have
Rental Car Assault battalions with which to enforce edicts & things
like that, and you know I have no use for 'em anyway.
It's just a bit of derisive advice. That's all. Take it or jam
your foot in it.
}} For you to even type the word "research" after your [...]
}
}Frilly, I know you don't like this, but I am going into research,
}and the reasons why will continue to elude you, no matter how
}hard you keep huffing and puffing your ego up..
Who needs that around *you*? Hell, I've got a sack full of your
*Jodie* Foster URL's to laugh about, not to mention the breathlesss
anticipation of your Vince x-rays, and that single-seat SR-71 of
yours, too. I'm having a laff a minute while...
}--Somehow, you being a roadie, doesn't seem to qualify your opinion.
...I'm banging out the Richard Rorty review between gigs.
Who do you think you could be? Erb?
MindSpring User
HCCRR wrote in message <906429024$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
My grandfather, a union leader and life-long Democrat, died of a heart
attack after watching some of that convention on TV. He hated what he saw,
and regarded it as the destruction of the Democratic party, blaming it for
Humphreys bad position at the time. It took me years to understand what he
was talking about. Is it conspiratorial of me to think that some Republicans
might have bank-rolled the demonstrators?
} To
}}which party did the Chicoms funnel their donations through LIPO?
}
}Well that has yet to be proven. I am willing to bet if we dig as deep as
some
}the GOP committees have, we might find some in the GOP as well.
You're probably right, but are they in the White House?
} But even if it
}is true that the Chinese attempted to give money. where is the proof that
the
}Democratic Party, as a party, actually solicited those funds? Have I
missed
}something?
LIPO has been sponsoring Clinton from at least the early '80's.
} Which party
}}has supped with well known commies since the end of WWII?
}
}What well know commies? You mean Khrushchev with Ike in 1959? How about
Nixon
}with Brezhnev in 1972? Or perhaps you mean Reagan with Gorbachev in 1985?
I'll get back with you on that as a separate post.
} I admit we are
}}only talking of fractions of percents here, most Dems are solid Americans
by
}}far.
}
}I wonder how many racists and former klan supporters are in the Republican
}Party?
Well, David Duke makes at least one (dont bring that up with the RNC), but
that only averages out with the good Senator from W VA, who is a true
statesman, seriously, Sen Byrd.
It sounds like speculation, but then the charge was merely conjecture as
well.
} What was he doing with Group68 and the
}}communist 'Brittish Peace Council'?
}
}Was he really involved with those groups? Or is this just another rumour?
Apparently he had at least two meetings, from what I understand, one each.
These are supposed to be factual, but the way things are coming out in
regard to the Rpeublicans partisanship here, I dunno anymore. How reliable
is Tyrell? I think he is the source for most of the info on Clintons student
activities from what I recall. Im just not sure how reliable that is
anymore.
}Who stole the pages from his State Dept
}}file that were rumored to include references to him giving up his US
}}citizenship in protest of the Vietnam war, and of a secret side-trip to
}}Hanoi?
}
}Oh please! Why would a person who wrote a letter to an ROTC official about
the
}need to keep his political viability intact and then plan to defect to
North
}Vietnam? That makes absolutely no sense whatsover.
And probably why it was only rumor; no one wanted to stand by it.
} I might add further, what
}is the source that he actually intended to give up his citizenship to begin
}with? Perhaps that's the reason there was no file in the State Department,
}there was no such record. Clinton clearly planned a political career in
}Arkansas, not North Vietnam.
Tyrell, again, but what good is he for a reference? Again, I dunno.
}}}
}}} This was
}}}}right after some of Clintons more infamous anit-war protests,
}}}
}}}That still isn't proof. Lots of Americans entered the USSR during that
}}time
}}}who didn't participate in anti war demonstrations. I know of at least 10
}}}personally, most of whom are right wing in their politics.
}}
}}
}}Were they also sponsored by Intourist, the Soviet governments travel
agency?
}
}Everybody who went to Soviet Union had an Intourist guide to accompany
them.
Thats not the same as being _sponsored_ by Intourist, is it?
}}Thats sounds like Clinton had pull with the Soviets; why should a young
}}student have such influence?
}
}It sounds like rank speculation. You raise questions and think they are
}answers.
Yes, it is speculation, and no, I dont think they are answers, but even
enough 0's can add up to infinity. All these charges give the appearance of
the probability of something substantial somewhere. This Lewinski BS has,
perhaps, dispelled my confidence in anything said about Clinton.
}}
}}} and the
}}}}following summer he had ties to a known KGB front group, whose name I
cant
}}}}recall off-hand, something like International Peace Committee, etc.
}}}
}}}But did he know it was a KGB front group if true? That is another leap
on
}}your
}}}part based on your general opinion of BIll Clinton.
}}
}}
}}Not really. I think Clinton wants to be popular, and accomplish some goals
}}very important to him, but bad for us in many cases, IMO, like gun
control.
}
}That must explain his continuing approval of the 3 out of 5 Americans.
That is a reflection of the economy, not his policies in the broader sense.
More specific polls support me on this.
}}I have little respect for his private persona, but his economic leadership
}}has been very good. I think he has been more used by sinister elements
than
}}a coconspirator, but that is not alltogether true either. Clearly he knows
}}that Lassiter is a convicted Cocaine dealer, as is his brother, Roger.
}
}So guilt by association is the standard we follow now?
Well, we cant be too far off the mark when suggesting crimial activity among
laweryers and/or politicians. Can we? I just dont think it is only among the
Democrats anymore.
} Why
}}does Clinton have such a fondness for nose candy? That schnouser looks
like
}}a coke-vacuum. If you had a 16 year old daughter, would you trust him
alone
}}with her?
}
}I don't know if Clinton does indeed have a fondness for nose candy. This
is
}based on a comment, made allegedly, by Roger that might not be accurate and
}made because the elder Clinton was pressuring the younger to quit.
Remember
}Clinton told him to face the music.
Come on, HCCRR. That is substantial to those who, shall I say, have faith? I
do not.
}As for 16 year old girls, thus far I
}haven't seen any charges that Clinton is a child molester, and a 16 year
old is
}still a child unlike a 22 year old woman.
This is according to Mrs Parks; you know of her, dont you? She never said
she saw Bill actually do such, but the circumstances suggested it (party of
old men and young girls). Her husband was shotgunned to death right after
the election, and his widow claims to still have proof of all this. But
then, this is through Tyrell.
}But eventually the Clinton haters
}will get around to accusing him of child molestation since its about the
only
}crime they haven't accused him of yet.
Hey, if its good enough to start a Barbeque in Texas, maybe its good enough
to start an impeachment.
}}}}} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}}}}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}}}}}
}}}}}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}}}}}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
}}}}
}}}}I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont
think
}}}}he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
}}}}regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
}}}
}}}What activities in Moscow? Touring Red Square like countless other
}}tourists?
}}}Or do you have hard information that he actually met with some KGB
}}official,
}}}and I am not talking about the "minders" that worked at Intourist either.
}}Did
}}}he meet with one for the purposes of conducting espionage or sedition?
}}
}}
}}No, nothing like that. I consider the circumstnces suspiscious,
}
}Let me get this straight, you think that because a 23 year old Oxford
student
}goes during winter break to the Soviet Union it is a suspicious
circumstance?
}And that is it?
When it is difficult getting approval from the host country, and very
expensive, and the student stays in expensive hotels, and cant remember much
about it later, well, yes, I do. But simple answers would clear it up, and
there arent any.
} and would
}}like some response; response he refused to give to the Washington Times in
}}'92.
}
}Hmmm? I wonder how I would react to a right wing newspaper asking me a
leading
}question like that? Well since I am not running for president, I would
tell
}them to blow me.
Man, this kneepad thing is really prevalent among the Dems, isnt it? Would
you still tell him such if you just happened to have a cigar on you?
} I think he agreed to coordinate some aspects of his anti-war movement
}}with the KGB for their mutual bennifit.
}
}Other than rank speculation, what basis do you have to believe this?
Only speculation, based on what I would do given the objectives of the
parties involved, but only speculation.
} Is that necessarily treason? I
}}dunno, I dont think he would have done anything to deliberately cause the
}}death of American troops. But who knows? Thats why I would like to see an
}}investigation by anyone but Starr.
}
}Well you have to have a hell of lot more to go on then what you have here.
}This is the kind of stuff Senator McCarthy used back in the 1950s, taking a
few
}scattered facts and put a sinister spin on them.
But it turns out that Sen McCarthy was right about everyone he named. The
Hollywood seven turned out to be unrepentant Communists till the bitter end,
some even remained loyal to Stalin after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But I am not talking of an official inquiry into the matter by a prosecutor.
I am speaking of good ole investigative Journalism; the kind that went
extinct when Clinton got elected.
}}}}
}}}}} Not to mention the Constitution
}}}}}doesn't require one.
}}}}
}}}}Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for
}}suspiscion,
}}}}IMO.
}}}
}}}He has answered! He was tourist on a student holiday during the
Christmas
}}}break.
}
}}A tourist doing what, picniking on the Volga? Gimme a break.
}
}Touring, taking a vacation, seeing the sights, visiting Red Square, etc.
}Things that tourists have done in Russia dating back to Ivan the Terrible's
}days.
Ok, whatever.
}}
}}} I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
}}}}I would get my clearance app revoked.
}}}
}}}Who asked him about it? What office debriefed him?
}}
}}The press, apparently organs in the Rightwing conspiracy, Hilary talks
}}about.
}
}Well if it was the Washington Times or the American Spectator, I would
answer
}them either.
And Salon is any better? Or the New Republic? Or the Wash Post (sans
international section)?
}}}}
}}}}}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}}}}}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is
}}there
}}}}}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify
}}such
}}}}}outlandish accusations?
}}}}
}}}}No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing
with
}}}}one of there own.
}}}
}}}I am looking for even one shred of evidence that Clinton went to the
Soviet
}}}Union for purposes other than tourism. So far there isn't any.
}}
}}And thanks to someone at the State Dept, there wont be any.
}
}In order to establish a crime, you must first prove a crime was committed.
Thats true, no body, no murder.
}}
}}}}
}}}}Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck
}}Colson's
}}}}_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
}}}
}}}What does this have to do with your lack of evidence that Clinton was
doing
}}}anything in the USSR other than sampling vodka or piroshki?
}}
}}Nothing, other than a general reference on Clintons personal character; as
}}if that is needed anymore.
}
}I see. So having an over developed libidio is automatic grounds to assume
one
}is a communist agent? Or perhaps it is because he has lied, that is now
the
}grounds as well?
I never said he was a Comunist agent, only that I suspect he cooperated with
some he knew were KGB to accomplish what he regarded as a worthy end. To
many this is treason, to me it is at best foolishness, at worst cynical
political maneuvering that probably caught the attention of some powerful
people.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}} This has
}}}}}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and
}}}}}}loathing
}}}}}}}then actual facts.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}}}}}
}}}}}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating
a
}}}}theory
}}}}}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his
}}}}school
}}}}}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
}}}}
}}}}
}}}}Not in the circumstances.
}}}
}}}How? DId he meet with a KGB official, and know that he/she was a KGB
}}official?
}}} I mean, come on here, you don't much more than speculation here, the
kind
}}that
}}}brought ridicule to B-1 Bob for this antics on the House floor in 1992.
}}
}}Dunno, why wont he tell us himself?
}
}Because it is a ridiculous question. BTW what was his exact response to
the
}Washington TImes anyway?
I believe it was along the lines of, " ".
}}}}
}}}}}Why is it extreme
}}}}}}for us to pay attention to the details? Maybe you use 'extreme' as
}}}}}}synonymous with 'prudent', or 'concerned' or
}}}}}}'too-attentive-for-Democrat-liking'?
}}}}}
}}}}}But what details are we to pay attention to, rank speculation?
}}}}
}}}}
}}}}Were the cattle futures only ranks specualtion?
}}}
}}}So Hillary made a killing in cattle futures market. Boo hoo. Where is
the
}}}indictment of her that substantiates the claims made by Clinton haters.
My
}}God
}}}man, don't you think Starr would have loved to indict her over the
}}something
}}}that simple if there was clear evidence of wrong doing?
}}
}}
}}I think he will, after he delivers the second report before the vote on
the
}}Lewinski charges.
}
}Doubtful at this point. Prosecutors lead with the heavy stuff. Why would
he
}wait until now to indict Hillary?
Maybe Starr is working up the food chain to the top. :)
I second guess Starr as a diletante; but it seems that the more serious
charges should be given first, suggesting there is nothing to the other
charges that follow. But I will wait and see. Starr's approach seems best
explained by a theory of vendetta.
}}
}}}}
}}}}}}
}}}}}}} Starr investigated Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office, and
}}}}}}}Foster, and found nothing that could be tied to Clinton.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}Not directly, but most would admit it looks suspiscious.
}}}}}
}}}}}But looking suspicious is not proof of anything. Ever heard of that
}}Jewell
}}}}}guy?
}}}}
}}}}Yep, I said he was innocent at the time, too.
}}}
}}}But a lot of people had him tried, convicted, and sentenced, based on
}}}speculation.
}}}Should Jewell be hounded forever with such charges based solely on
}}speculation?
}}} This is what is being done to Clinton. Well except for this Monica
}}business.
}}
}}This is so weird, i think the Monica thing is his most defensable faus
paus.
}
}Its also the only thing Starr has apparently.
It would seem you are right, but Starr has untill Feb or so, it seems. I am
losing my taste for it all. I have been in the aggravating position of
defending a president I oppose, dislike, and would like to see impeached for
high crimes, if it can be proven he committed them. I dont want to see what
is happening now; a partisan feeding frenzy.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}} And this following
}}}}}}}numerous Congressional committees, often chaired by partisan
}}Republicans
}}}}I
}}}}}}}might add, and still they couldn't find anything. The irony here is
}}that
}}}}}}}Clinton has destroyed himself by his personal misbehavior.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}
}}}}}}That is the nature of vice. They consume the participant.
}}}}}
}}}}}Yep. But then again, what vice seems to be consuming the extreme
right?
}}}}
}}}}Aside from Oral envy? Dunno, maybe Penis envy?
}}}
}}}ROTFLMAO! Seriously, they have lost all perspective when it comes to
}}Clinton.
}}}Don't you agree?
}}
}}
}}Yes, especially Starr. That doesnt mean the charges arent true, but
clearly
}}it is personal now between the two.
}
}Especially considering no other prosecutor would do such a thing against an
}average citizen. He would be laughed at by the trial jury.
The seriousness of any perjury charge is dependant, AIUI, on the underlying
accusation. Committing perjury over traffic tickets is not a serious crime,
and cops do it all the time. The underlying charges here are utterly
vaccuous. I think you are right; it would have been laughed out of the
courtroom.
}}}}
}}}}}}
}}}}}}But, all in all, my money says Clinton is going to still be in offic
}}come
}}}}}}Jan 2000.
}}}}}
}}}}}Depends on how the public reacts. If his approval ratings drop to
}}Nixonian
}}}}}levels, then he is history. If they hold near the .500 mark, he could
}}}}still be
}}}}}there on the morning of Jan 20, 2001.
}}}}}
}}}}RGlenCheek
}}}}
}}}
}}}Thus far his approval ratings are holding at 63%, and this is after the
}}release
}}}of the Starr report. Even the calls for his impeachment and resignation
}}are
}}}only supported by about 35%. This surprises the hell out of me. But it
}}proves
}}}the American people are willing to be more forgiving than some of us.
But
}}as
}}}this thing festers, the Nixon scenario could come into play. But then
}}again,
}}}Clinton is not the Come Back Kid for nothing.
}}
}}True we'll see. Personally I hope he makes it to a hearing on the more
}}serious charges and the Lewinski stuff is passed over.
}
}Don't hold your breath.
When discussing politics, never hold your breath, especially if it is my
turn to speak.
RGlenCheek
MindSpring User
FRED C. DOBBS wrote in message
<905920504$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}"Gray Shockley" <gr...@compcomm.com> wrote:
}}
}}On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:20:06 -0500, RGlenCheek wrote:
}}} Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO.
What
}}} was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been
claimed,
}}} Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its
we
}}} on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges
against
}}} a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr
can
}}} do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the
}}} issues.
}}---------------------------------------------
}}You make some very valid points and I think that Starr is an idiot <grin>.
I know you're kidding, Gray, Starr is no idiot. Have you ever watched a
chess game and saw one player make a move that just didnt make sense, then
you saw the point three or four moves later? Is it that way with Starr, or
is he too close to the issues himself now for clear thought?
}}
}}Those hundreds of FBI files bother me though and they bother me a lot. I
was
}}*very* much in favor of President Nixon being impreached as I thought he
was
}}"beneath the dignity" of what a President "should be". One of the main
reasons
}}I was "against" Nixon was his "enemies list".
}}
}}I don't see a great deal of difference between Nixon and Clinton in this
case.
The key perps were the subordinates, and how much responsibility the top guy
has in these things is anyones guess.
}}I think Starr is an idiot partially because he ignored about 80% of his
"case"
}}and paid attention to the "sexual" parts of his investigation.
It truly defies me.
}}About "sex" per se I could care less (unless it concerns me <smile>). But
there
}}have been enough other accusations against President Clinton that I would
think
}}that Starr could have released a few details on the first couple of years
of
}}his "investigation".
}}
}}I see no reason why President Clinton shouldn't be impeached.
}}
}}We deserve better.
}}
How about because he was elected twice to the office, and it has not yet
been proven that he commited a high crime?
}}
} Did you ever think that the sex is just a smoke screen? I agree
}
} that he has more serious matters hanging over his head. To think
}
} that this man is the leader of our country.
} FRED C.DOBBS
I agree Fred, but we have to respect the office and the Constitution.
Clinton was elected by Electoral College majority, twice, and as yet there
is no compelling evidence in the courts of his having committed a high
crime.
RGlenCheek
Kurt Lochner
MindSprung Luser aka RGlenCheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
} Dont worry, Bill, you're not missing a thing...
--Just most of reality, like you...
Kurt Lochner
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
} Kurt Lochner wrote:
}
} }Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
} }} }--Trouble is, professional research requires even more aggression..
} }}
} }}<ego-tab><hah> This, from the guy who brought us a "KC-140" aircraft
} }} fresh off the TEEVEE, and a Colt .38 wrapped in a non-existent paper
} }} bag at Ft. Marcy Park.
} }
} } The first being an actual air-disaster that you won't admit
} } the entire set of facts out in order to preserve your delusional
} } opinions...
}
Run off at the mouth/keys again in a personal attack is my guess..
} }the latter being an example of how you *NEVER* check the entire set
} }of facts out in order to preserve your delusional opinions...
}
} Oh, yeah, that's the ticket. As if your "paper bag" is an actual
} "fact" amid the entire set.
I attempting to demostrate how you *NEVER* check to see if there's
any other information that might falsify your conjecture..
In research, that's referred to as "cooking the data"...
} I've been beating your fucking narrow ass for years now behind
} the only "facts" in the case: those alledged in the official
} documents. That's where the action is, punk.
Instead, you've shown the audience what an intolerant fool
you are, besides showing your ugly ass everytime you selectively
quote only the views, info and sources that suit your lies..
That is, when you've got the cojones to actually participate
in a conversation/interchange of ideas... More usual is your
pathetic adolescent attacks on the person, not the message..
Such as the following...
} }} Shut the *fuck* up, you twisted little geek.
} }
} }Ah, thanks for clearing up just how important 'freedom of speech'
} }is to your holier-than-thou attitudes...
}
} That's exactly right: I *am* "holier" than you, [...]
<chuckling aloud> Yeah, right Frilly..
} }} For you to even type the word "research" after your [...]
} }
} }Frilly, I know you don't like this, but I am going into research,
} }and the reasons why will continue to elude you, no matter how
} }hard you keep huffing and puffing your ego up..
}
} Who needs that around *you*? [...]
Physician, heal thyself.. And learn how to spell "frontier"..
} }--Somehow, you being a roadie, doesn't seem to qualify your opinion.
}
} ...I'm banging out the Richard Rorty review between gigs.
Somehow, I'm not impressed as you think I should be on that..
} Who do you think you could be? Erb?
--Your personal attacks are more proof that you haven't a clue...
Bill Kasper
On Tue, 22 Sep 98 3:20:08 GMT (just before the Impeachment), "MindSpring User"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> informed us all thusly:
<snip Kurt's position #1 in my killfile>
=
=Dont worry, Bill, you're not missing a thing...
<snip>
Via strange psychic powers, I just *knew* that to be the case...
---------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper
SIGINT, VR-WC->
I am calling for an April 15, 1999 boycott of all income tax paperwork,
payments, and interaction with the IRS on behalf of all Americans.
In short, a grass-roots de facto repeal of the 16 Amendment.
Start the new millenium with an old idea: Freedom.
Gray Shockley
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:35:01 -0500, MindSpring User wrote
(in message <906438901$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} I know you're kidding, Gray, Starr is no idiot. Have you ever watched a
} chess game and saw one player make a move that just didnt make sense, then
} you saw the point three or four moves later? Is it that way with Starr, or
} is he too close to the issues himself now for clear thought?
---------------------------------------------
I dunno.
I was glad that Starr's report was going to be released but when I found out it
was *just* about sex (and related "thangs"), I was really burning!
What was Starr doing for the last few years? Is this the best he can do?
If he's "waiting to castle", there's going to be no bishops or knights left to
do anything. If he's thought all this out, then I'm very, very suspicious of
what he's up to.
Remember the child who called "Wolf"? And called it, again and again?
That seems (to me) to be what's been happening. Leaks from the Democrats, leaks
from the Republicans, leaks from Starr's office and they're all wearing the US
public down further and further. People seem to be becoming "numbed" by all
this. Isn't this "interesting"?
When people become "numb", they don't feel anything any more. And they (we) -
when we "go numb" - start ignoring what goes on around us.
Let's just go ahead and get this all out into the open! Impeach President
CLinton. As I said before, an "impeachment" is a "political trial". "Being
impeached" seems to be like "being court-martialed"; everybody seems to think
that either means the object of those proceeding is "guilty". Nope; a
"court-martial" is a military trial; an "impeachment" is a political trial.
Let's get it out into the open and let everything be said.
But I don't think it's gonna happen.
But - any less - and I'm gonna feel ripped-off by the pros.
Gray