Bill Oreilly
Michael Nash
he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
the Bush Administration again, all right?"
-- Bill O'Reilly, March 18th, 2003, on ABC's Good Morning America.
You can email him if you like.
Bobs
Michael Nash wrote:
> "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
> he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
> the Bush Administration again, all right?"
LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
You liberals really are deluded.
> -- Bill O'Reilly, March 18th, 2003, on ABC's Good Morning America.
>
> You can email him if you like.
>
> Ore...@foxnews.com
--
/`_>
/ /
|/
____| __
|RWC \.-`` )
|-03``\ _.'
.-`'---``_.' Bobs
(__...--``
Bobs : 87 : 85 : 86 : 67 : 91 : 93 : 92 601
Paul (planc) : 89 : 88 : 88 : 69 : 80 : 85 : 86 585
Groundhog : 91 : 79 : 92 : 61 : 87 : 81 : 85 576
Walter Mitty : 99 : 69 : 95 : 61 : 82 : 87 : 82 575
Ben Longman : 82 : 89 : 84 : 53 : 83 : 85 : 85 561
Simon Stoivin-Bradford : 94 : 93 : 96 : 59 : -23 : 81 : 90 490
Brent : 80 : 90 : -13 : 63 : 86 : 79 : 95 480
David Covey : 87 : 76 : 88 : 74 : -21 : 81 : 81 466
Sean Byrne : 73 : 91 : 88 : 63 : 82 : -23 : 91 465
Charlie Pearce : 83 : 80 : 80 : 61 : 81 : 79 : -5 459
Andy Mulhearn : -24 : 80 : 71 : 56 : 72 : 88 : 95 438
Lew : 84 : 90 : 93 : 62 : 93 : -26 : -7 389
ET : 89 : 86 : 84 : 57 : 92 : -22 : -12 374
John Williams : 78 : 89 : -14 : 65 : -23 : 89 : 90 374
pure Salt : 95 : 77 : 82 : -56 : 81 : 91 : -18 352
Ian Stewart : 85 : 83 : 84 : 57 : 78 : -41 : -11 335
isimeli : 77 : 79 : 87 : 58 : -24 : -32 : -6 239
Peter Ashford : -21 : 81 : 78 : -62 : 86 : -31 : -3 128
BrentC : -25 : -26 : -7 : -56 : 67 : -27 : 85 11
"Humility is the greatest virtue of all."
Sue Bilstein
news:RFzAb.21481$VV6.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Michael Nash wrote:
>
> > "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
> > he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
> > the Bush Administration again, all right?"
>
> LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
> murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
> hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
> committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
> invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
>
> You liberals really are deluded.
It seems as if Mr O'Reilly was using "clean" in the sense of "not
carrying" - i.e. having no WMD. Which means O'Reilly owes the nation
(American presumably) an apology.
Bobs
Sue Bilstein wrote:
> "Bobs" <bl...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:RFzAb.21481$VV6.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>Michael Nash wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
>>>he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
>>>the Bush Administration again, all right?"
>>
>>LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
>>murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
>>hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
>>committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
>>invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
>>
>>You liberals really are deluded.
>
>
> It seems as if Mr O'Reilly was using "clean" in the sense of "not
> carrying" - i.e. having no WMD. Which means O'Reilly owes the nation
> (American presumably) an apology.
Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
quite a bit larger than NZ.
That doesn't take away from the fact that Saddam is better off gone. THe
liberals never admit to this however.
>
>
>>>-- Bill O'Reilly, March 18th, 2003, on ABC's Good Morning America.
>>>
>>>You can email him if you like.
>>>
>>>Ore...@foxnews.com
>>
>
>
--
Tilly
> Not only bi-polar,
That is really below the belt and totally unnecessary.It is a more a
reflection on yourself than anything else.
Tilly
Karen Hayward-King
>Not only bi-polar, Sues also got a terminal case of BDS and
>MDS..
You really are low at times, Red...
--
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
xlo
news:3fd399c5$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> I assure you I don't remark on her bi-polarity in any kind of
> vindictive way, I merely mention it in passing. As far as
> repellent statist leftist scumbags go, I find Bilstein quite
> amusing and readable.
>
From you Redbaiter - an admitted follower of "Theodore Dalrymple" - I find
it hard to accept that you would look at any mental disorder in a
non-vindictive manner.
Your acceptance of his ranting - that people use mental illness to avoid
taking reponsibility - puts your "mentioning of it in passing" in true
perspective.
Karen Hayward-King
>Karen Hayward-King says
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:44:26 +1300, Redbaiter <don't...@email.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Not only bi-polar, Sues also got a terminal case of BDS and
>> >MDS..
>>
>> You really are low at times, Red...
>>
>Sorry, I don't get it.
You're not that naive, Red..
>
>Bilstein posts here that she is bi-polar, and makes a big deal
>out of the fact that its not really any kind of notable
>affliction, and then you bunch of dimbulbs get pissed if
>Redbaiter mentions it??
>
>I really don't get it.
That fact that Sue is bi-polar and has the courage to be open about
it, has nothing to do with this thread...so why introduce it?
>And it is not as if Bilstein is any kind of ongoing example of
>sweetness and light, as she well knows.
None of us are :-)
>
>I assure you I don't remark on her bi-polarity in any kind of
>vindictive way, I merely mention it in passing. As far as
>repellent statist leftist scumbags go, I find Bilstein quite
>amusing and readable.
Awww, c'mon Red...be honest. You were being vindictive.
>
>The real issue is the much more sad diseases of BDS and MDS that
>she suffers from. Incurable I believe. Must be terrible to have
>both simultaneously.
Nice troll, Red :-)
Geoff McCaughan
> Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
> regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
> hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
> quite a bit larger than NZ.
I really wonder at the mental acuity of some people.
[Saddam HQ - before the war]
OK, so we've got all these weapons, and we're about to be invaded. What do
we do with the weapons?
Ummmm, Arrrr, Errrrr defend ourselves?
Nope too easy - lets *hide them*!!!
Oh good idea - that'll work, then after we've been defeated we'll be able to
say "Nyah nyah! Yaa boo sux, didn't have any weapons after all!".
Sue Bilstein
> Sue Bilstein wrote:
> >
> > It seems as if Mr O'Reilly was using "clean" in the sense of "not
> > carrying" - i.e. having no WMD. Which means O'Reilly owes the nation
> > (American presumably) an apology.
>
>
> Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
> regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
> hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
> quite a bit larger than NZ.
It sounds like there is no evidence that would convince you of the
non-existence of Saddma's WMDs. But that makes your belief religious
rather than scientific, no?
Sue Bilstein
> Redbaiter wrote:
> > Not only bi-polar,
>
> That is really below the belt and totally unnecessary.It is a more a
> reflection on yourself than anything else.
>
It would seem like a losing strategy to use my bipolar disorder as a
term of abuse against me, given that
1) I 'outed' myself on these groups
2) I'm not at all ashamed of being manic depressive
3) No-one except Redbaiter appears to have an issue with it.
In short, he is just making himself look even more of an arse than
usual. The bad news for Redbaiter is that there's no medication for
his condition, and there's no such operation as a personality
transplant (see the Herald cartoon today).
xlo
>
> I mentioned it in the context of Bilstein already suffering from
> the burdens of BSD and MSD. If you want to see being named as
> bi-polar as an insult, then you are the ones with the problem.
>
ROFL.
You get as close as I have ever seen you to making a cringing apology, and
then you fuck up your own argument as well as you do in most of your other
posts.
Gib Bogle
Right on, Sue. Their inability to find any evidence of WMDs is just
taken to prove that he is even more devishly cunning and dangerous than
we already thought. There is no logical argument that will rebutt this
way of thinking, because, as you say, it is based on belief.
Gib
LeftAintRight
> "Bobs" <bl...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:RFzAb.21481$VV6.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>Michael Nash wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
>>>he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
>>>the Bush Administration again, all right?"
>>
>>LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
>>murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
>>hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
>>committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
>>invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
>>
>>You liberals really are deluded.
>
>
> It seems as if Mr O'Reilly was using "clean" in the sense of "not
> carrying" - i.e. having no WMD. Which means O'Reilly owes the nation
> (American presumably) an apology.
Not so fast. The search still has some ways to go.
LeftAintRight
I'll make it real simple.
The search for WMDs is still going on.
Un-der-stand?
We haven't fin-ished yet.
LeftAintRight
IIRC you all accepted Steve's explanation that he wasn't being nasty
when he made his "lame dame" comment.
pour-lay
>
>
>Michael Nash wrote:
>
>> "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
>> he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
>> the Bush Administration again, all right?"
>
>LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
>murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
>hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
>committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
>invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
>
>You liberals really are deluded.
I am absolutely proud to agree with you Bobs.
Sue Bilstein
news:br1amg$1gg$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Gib Bogle wrote:
> >
> > Right on, Sue. Their inability to find any evidence of WMDs is just
> > taken to prove that he is even more devishly cunning and dangerous than
> > we already thought. There is no logical argument that will rebutt this
> > way of thinking, because, as you say, it is based on belief.
>
> I'll make it real simple.
>
> The search for WMDs is still going on.
>
> Un-der-stand?
>
>
> We haven't fin-ished yet.
Do let me know when you find something. I plan to live another 90 years or
so - do you reckon that might be just about enough time?
Morrissey Breen
>
> LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
> murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
> hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
> committed genocide on a native arab race as well.
Yes, and the U.S. State Department tried to cover it up, Bobs, because
the US SUPPORTED Saddam. Why did you not protest against the
murderous Saddam regime back in 1988, when this happened?
[Serena hands Breen a short note. Breen scans it quickly, then speaks
again...]
Okay, Bobs - information just to hand indicates that you were just a
BOY at the time, so we'll let you off this one. Let's rephrase the
question: Why did David Pears, Redbaiter, Wee Willy Wonka, their
hero Bill ("Shut up! Shut up!") O'Reilly and all these other bastions
of liberty, freedom and democracy (but not for Palestine, Chile,
Nicaragua, East Timor, etc., etc.) not protest against the murderous
Saddam regime back in 1988, when this happened?
>
> Oh yeah, and he invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
And the US has invaded how many countries over the last decade? What
is your point?
>
> You liberals really are deluded.
I'm intrigued, Bobs: you use the word "liberal" as if it's a bad
thing. You are proud to be a bigot, are you?
/ /
|/
____| __
|RWC \.-`` )
|-03``\ _.'
.-`'---``_.' MB
(__...--``
"Gullibility is not a virtue."
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>IIRC you all accepted Steve's explanation that he wasn't being nasty
>when he made his "lame dame" comment.
Checking back in that thread, no, I don't think that it was like that
at all. Steve, along with a number of others, said that they did not
know that Cath had a disability. I pointed out that some of them had
actually taken part in threads where she mentioned or discussed her
disability.
I said what I had to say and left it at that. It's all on Google if
you wish to check...I don't use the 'no archive' thing :-)
However, that has nothing to do with Red's comment in this thread :-)
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>We haven't fin-ished yet.
You are out there searching??? :-)
And here I was thinking that it was the US and British :-)
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>I'll make it real simple.
>
>The search for WMDs is still going on.
>
>Un-der-stand?
>
>
>We haven't fin-ished yet.
Was that a quote from Hans Blix?
Peter Metcalfe
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Bobs <bl...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> > LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
> > murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
> > hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
> > committed genocide on a native arab race as well.
> Yes, and the U.S. State Department tried to cover it up, Bobs, because
> the US SUPPORTED Saddam.
Really? I was reading stuff about the Matrix Churchill affair andf
about Halabja, I found the following:
Reagan administration officials say the United States
intercepted Iraqi military communications indicating
that Iraq had used poison has against Kurdish guerrillas.
The officials said the communications were one source
of evidence for US assertions that Iraq had used
chemical weapons against the Kurds.
International Herald Tribune 16th September 1988.
US intercepts of Iraqi military communications were
almost certainly the source for the US State
Department spokesman Charles Redman, who told
reporters on 8 September 1988: 'As a result of our
evaluation of the situation, the United States
government is convinced that Iraq has used chemical
weapons against Kurdish guerrillas ... We condemn
this use of chemical weapons [and] we have expressed
our strong concern to the Iraqi government.' Redman
called the use of poison gas 'abhorrent'.
A few days later secretary of state George Schultz
said that he was 'quite confident' that iraq had used
chemical weapons in its efforts to put down a rebellion
by the Kurds.
p91-91 Trading with the Enemy: Britian's arming of Iraq
John Sweeney, 1993.
The only person quoted as blaming Halabja on the Iranians is
one Simon Henderson in _Instant Empire_ who quotes "an
unnamed diplomatic source and unnamed 'foreign military
observers'". No mention of the State department there
and the sources could have easily been from within the
Arab League.
So where is your source for the US state department
cover-up?
--Peter Metcalfe
Tilly
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:44:26 +1300, Redbaiter <don't...@email.me> wrote:
>
>
>> Not only bi-polar, Sues also got a terminal case of BDS and
>> MDS..
>
> You really are low at times, Red...
Some of the most famous people in history have suffered from bi-polar
disorder. Off the top of my head- Darwin,Florence Nightingale,Van Goch,
Schumann ,Kafka ,
and many ,many others.
Tilly
LeftAintRight
> LeftAintRight says
>
>>Sue Bilstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bobs" <bl...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:RFzAb.21481$VV6.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Nash wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean,
>>>>>he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust
>>>>>the Bush Administration again, all right?"
>>>>
>>>>LOL!!! Saddam is "clean"?? Are you fucking mad? The man is proven
>>>>murdering tyrant a million times over. He gassed his own citizens and
>>>>hanged political opponents and left them to rot in the city streets. He
>>>>committed genocide on a native arab race as well. Oh yeah, and he
>>>>invaded Kuwait. Hardly a clean man.
>>>>
>>>>You liberals really are deluded.
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems as if Mr O'Reilly was using "clean" in the sense of "not
>>>carrying" - i.e. having no WMD. Which means O'Reilly owes the nation
>>>(American presumably) an apology.
>>
>>Not so fast. The search still has some ways to go.
>>
>
> Let them have all the rope they want...
>
Christoper Hitchens makes a good point here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11181.
Even if Saddam had destroyed his declared WMDs he would have been in
serious breach of the U.N. resolutions, which stipulated that they be
handed over and accounted for.
The Left can't win.
LeftAintRight
<sigh>
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
"Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained
stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the
almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons
armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size
of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example,
there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage
Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size
and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets,
aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs,
approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice
was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store
it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size
of the required search effort is enormous."
So there are 130 Iraqi ammunition storage points. 10 have been searched.
120 still remain. And you think the search is over?
LeftAintRight
> LeftAintRight says
>
>
>>>Right on, Sue. Their inability to find any evidence of WMDs is just
>>>taken to prove that he is even more devishly cunning and dangerous than
>>>we already thought. There is no logical argument that will rebutt this
>>>way of thinking, because, as you say, it is based on belief.
>>>
>>>Gib
>>>
>>
>>I'll make it real simple.
>>
>>The search for WMDs is still going on.
>>
>>Un-der-stand?
>>
>>
>>We haven't fin-ished yet.
>>
>
>
> Hey LAR, read this..? Good one by Hitchens.. the left are
> becoming a laffing stock...
>
> The Literal Left by Christopher Hitchens
>
> The truly annoying thing that I find when I am arguing with
> opponents of the regime-change policy in Iraq is their dogged
> literal-mindedness. "Your side said that coalition troops would
> be greeted with 'sweets and flowers!' " Well, I have seen them
> with my own eyes being ecstatically welcomed in several places.
> "But were there actual sweets and flowers?"
>
> HAHAHAHAHAH....
>
> Whole article here...
>
> http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11181
>
Whoops, I just sent you a link to that article. I guess that's what they
call a circular reference. ;-)
LeftAintRight
Yes, yes, very good. Give yourself a chocolate fish. ;-)
LeftAintRight
You make a very good point (seriously) apart from one thing. Saddam was
giving Blix the runaround. For this reason Blix and his team would have
found nothing no matter how much time he spent looking.
LeftAintRight
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:57:15 +1300, LeftAintRight <kda...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>IIRC you all accepted Steve's explanation that he wasn't being nasty
>>when he made his "lame dame" comment.
>
>
> Checking back in that thread, no, I don't think that it was like that
> at all. Steve, along with a number of others, said that they did not
> know that Cath had a disability. I pointed out that some of them had
> actually taken part in threads where she mentioned or discussed her
> disability.
>
> I said what I had to say and left it at that. It's all on Google if
> you wish to check...I don't use the 'no archive' thing :-)
No need, I trust you. And since RB has said he meant no offence then I
think we should "leave it at that" (whether you believe RB or not).
Rachealli
Yeah I saw that ad too... ;-)
--
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
Redbaiter
> >
> > You liberals really are deluded.
>
> I'm intrigued, Bobs: you use the word "liberal" as if it's a bad
> thing.
Authoritarian elitists masquerading as liberals these days
Charlie Reese The Orlando Sentinel
One way to understand American politics better is to realize how
definitions have changed. For example, today's liberals aren't
-- liberals, that is.
Most of them are authoritarian elitists who think people are too
stupid to govern themselves. They have adopted their own ideas
of how to run the country, and, rather than sell those ideas,
they seek to impose their ideas. Like all authoritarians, these
elitists believe that any idea of theirs is revealed truth
because it's their idea.
This is about as far from classical liberalism as you can get.
The classical liberal would today be called a libertarian. He
was primarily interested in liberty and in small, weak
government.
The authoritarian streak in today's pseudo-liberals can be seen
in their viciousness in attacking all who disagree with them, a
common tactic used by communists, Nazis and fascists. They seek
not to engage in a discussion of competing ideas but rather to
exclude their opponents from the debate by branding them as
members of unacceptable groups.
Thus, Americans concerned about immigration, always a legitimate
topic for debate, are depicted by the pseudo-liberals as bigots
or nativists. In other words, there is to be no discussion of
the subject. The pseudo-liberal position is correct, and all who
disagree are evil heretics.
Americans who are concerned about the undue influence of foreign
governments, as was George Washington, are branded as anti-
Semites if the foreign influence that concerns them comes from
Israel. The objective of the tactic is the same: avoid a
legitimate debate on the subject.
Christians who, following their beliefs, condemn homosexual
behavior as a sin, are branded homophobes and bigots. People who
object to pornography are branded as Victorians or Puritans or
sometimes as people who have an unhealthy hangup about sex (as
if customers of pornography didn't).
Men who don't believe that women belong in combat are sexists;
scientists who take note of racial differences in intelligence
quotients are branded as racists; Americans who defend their
Second Amendment rights are called gun nuts; people opposed to
affirmative action and racial quotas are racists; and so on.
Recently a columnist compared Pat Buchanan to Khallid Abdul
Muhammad, which is an outrageous guilt-by-association mudball.
He starts by asking what the two have in common. The true
answer, though not his, is that the two have absolutely nothing
in common.
Buchanan is a Christian gentleman from start to finish, without
an ounce of bigotry or prejudice, while Muhammad is such a
loose-mouthed ranter that he was disowned by Louis Farrakhan.
Buchanan is also one of the most intelligent men in politics
today.
But because Buchanan dares to discuss such topics as runaway
immigration, disastrous trade policies, failure to control our
borders and wasting lives and treasure on stupid foreign
adventures, he is accused of "spreading fear, suspicion and
resentment . . . of subliminal appeals to intolerance." And etc.
and so forth.
The pseudo-liberal American closely resembles the professional
communist. He preaches tolerance while practicing intolerance;
he condemns bigotry while being a bigot; he purports to be for
open debate while silencing all of his opponents; he says he is
for religious tolerance while routinely slandering Christians;
he purports to be for multiculturalism while viciously attacking
the culture native to America, which is European.
These pseudo-liberals should be recognized for what they are:
authoritarians, wearing a disguise, who are the mortal enemies
of a free society and the Bill of Rights.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
>
> >
> > You liberals really are deluded.
>
> I'm intrigued, Bobs: you use the word "liberal" as if it's a bad
> thing. You are proud to be a bigot, are you?
>
Liberalism's obituary
Dennis Prager
December 9, 2003
On Dec. 1, 2003, this obituary headline appeared in the New
York Times: "Sylvia Bernstein, 88, Civil Rights Activist, Dies."
Though the passing of Mrs. Bernstein was reported in almost
every major newspaper in the country, there is a good chance you
missed it.
Too bad. Because the headline and the obituary tell you a great
deal about the moral compass of mainstream American (and world)
journalism.
For, if you read through the entire piece (almost always either
a verbatim or edited Associated Press report), you will come
across this one line: "Members of the Communist Party in the
1940s, the Bernsteins were targets of government scrutiny."
Note the headline: Mrs. Bernstein is described simply as a
"civil rights activist." Indeed the whole obituary is a
laudatory description of her and her husband's work "to
desegregate area restaurants, an amusement park and pools and
playgrounds. She advocated home rule for the District of
Columbia and protested the Vietnam War and the development of
nuclear weapons."
Quite a terrific lady, no?
According to every one of the seven major newspapers I checked,
Mrs. Bernstein was described as essentially a wonderful,
idealistic lady. So what if she was a member of the Communist
Party at a time when Joseph Stalin was murdering and enslaving
more human beings than anyone else had in history? So what if
she was a member of the party that supported those who wished to
destroy America, the land that her parents had fled to in order
to be free people? So what if she remained in the Communist
Party even after it supported the Soviet peace pact with
Hitler's Nazi Germany?
None of this matters to mainstream journalists. For these
people, the fact that a person was a member of the American
Communist Party when it obeyed Joseph Stalin and the Soviet
Communist Party is as irrelevant to a moral assessment of that
person as if she had been a member of a stamp club. In fact, the
only time her membership was even mentioned in the AP obituary
printed in the New York Times, the Washington Post and
elsewhere, was to invoke Mrs. Bernstein's victimhood.
As noted above, in the words of the AP report as printed in the
New York Times: "Members of the Communist Party in the 1940s,
the Bernsteins were targets of government scrutiny."
In the Washington Post's words: " . . . the Bernsteins were
Communist Party members in the mid-1940s and endured long
persecution by the government for their political beliefs."
The poor Bernsteins. Investigated by the American government
for being members of a genocidal, totalitarian, anti-American
party.
Our language has become Orwellian. Communists are described as
"social activists"; and when communists are investigated by a
democratic government, the government is the villain and the
communists are victims.
To better appreciate the nonchalance with which mainstream
(i.e., liberal and leftist) journalists greet Communist Party
affiliation, imagine if Mrs. Bernstein had been a member of the
American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, and had gone on to be a
prominent "social activist" on behalf of right-wing causes in
America. Needless to say, if her death would have been reported
at all, her membership in those organizations and her subsequent
right-wing social activism would not merely have been noted in
passing. They would have been noted in the headline and featured
in the body of the text.
As a New York-born and raised Jewish liberal, when I am asked
when I left liberalism, I answer that I never left it. It left
me -- first and foremost over the issue of communism. At one
time, to be a liberal meant being anti-communist as well as
anti-fascist. Shortly after the death of John F. Kennedy,
however, liberalism ceased being anti-communist. Instead it
became anti-anti-communist.
Though communism is largely dead, this has not changed. That is
why our press regards Sylvia Bernstein merely as a social
activist.
Tilly
> Tilly wrote:
>> Karen Hayward-King wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:44:26 +1300, Redbaiter <don't...@email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not only bi-polar, Sues also got a terminal case of BDS and
>>>> MDS..
>>>
>>> You really are low at times, Red...
>>
>> Some of the most famous people in history have suffered from bi-polar
>> disorder. Off the top of my head- Darwin,Florence Nightingale,Van
>> Goch, Schumann ,Kafka ,
>> and many ,many others.
>>
>> Tilly
>
> Yeah I saw that ad too... ;-)
You did? I read a book about it.
Spike Milligan, Tony Hancock and Peter Sellers were all manic depressives as
well.
Tilly
Rachealli
Ah I think there is an ad on TV listing a whole load of people who suffer
from mental illness.
I heard a theory somewhere that Van Gogh also suffered from migraines. His
paintings were very similar to some people's experience of aura associated
with Migraines.
Redbaiter
> > You liberals really are deluded.
>
> I'm intrigued, Bobs: you use the word "liberal" as if it's a bad
> thing. You are proud to be a bigot, are you?
>
Radical Profiling: You Know You Are a Leftist If...
-You believe John Ashcroft poses a greater danger to America
than Osama bin Laden
-You think President Bush lied to the nation, but his
predecessor did not.
-You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and
Arnold Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California,
but the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Babs
Streisand, Eddie Vedder, and Jeanine Garofalo are foreign policy
experts.
-You are enraged by the so-called mistreatment of Muslim
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have gained weight while dining
on their specially prepared Koran-approved meals, but believe
the world should have stood idly by while Saddam Hussein filled
mass graves.
-You support racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity, but oppose
the adoption of non-discriminatory hiring practices to ensure
ideological diversity on university faculties.
-You supported making rhetoric about human rights central to US
foreign policy under Jimmy Carter, but oppose actually taking
action to make human rights a reality under George W. Bush.
-You believe that trial lawyers taking 33 to 40 percent of a
plaintiff's recovery in lawsuits is just about right, but the
federal government taking this amount of our income in taxes is
not nearly enough.
-You believe Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Yasser Arafat were
fairly and democratically elected, but President Bush was not.
-You root for prisoners when they escape from our oppressive
prisons, but oppose allowing poor children to escape from
failing public schools.
-You believe all conservatives are racist, but do not think
minorities can ever succeed without affirmative action.
-You believe that being the former Governor of a New England
state with 608,827 people is more than adequate experience to
qualify someone to be President in 2004, but being the Governor
of a Southwestern state with 21,325,018 people was wholly
inadequate in 2000.
-You agree with Toni Morrison that President Clinton was "the
first black President," but didn't criticize Al Sharpton for
recently labeling President Bush a "gang leader."
-You believe we could finally get some truth out of the Pentagon
if only Don Rumsfeld would resign and Mohammed Al-Sahhaf was
named as his replacement.
-You believe evangelical Christians are destroying America, but
don't feel threatened by the radical Wahabbi sect that is
perverting Islam.
-You have found where the right to an abortion is written in the
Constitution, but cannot find where the Constitution provides
for a right to bear arms.
-Your car sports the bumper sticker saying that "it will be a
great day when our schools have all the money they need and the
military has to hold bake sales," but oppose allowing the U.S.
military to set up volunteer recruitment tables on college
campuses because of their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
-You believe President Bush is an environmental criminal for
poisoning the water with arsenic, but have never complained
about Saddam Hussein's devastating Iraq and Kuwait's environment
through setting intentional oil well fires and committing
genocide against the Marsh Arabs by draining their wetlands.
-You support campus speech codes that ban pick-up lines and
amorous gazes, but never spoke out against President Clinton's
physical sexual harassment in the White House.
-You can't decide which is worse: the Patriot Act or the Patriot
Missile.
-You support unlimited appeals for convicted criminals, but
believe it is undemocratic for Californians to reverse their
earlier mistake of electing Gray Davis.
-You believe U.S. exports of genetically-modified foods pose a
greater threat to African nations than corrupt dictators like
Zimbabwe's Mugabe.
-You believe welfare is a fundamental human right, but workfare
is a human rights violation.
-You believe religion is a scourge on our society, but that we
will all be saved if we only have our consciousness sufficiently
raised so that we become one with Mother Nature and share your
faith that global warming will kill us all.
If the above has successfully profiled you, congratulations, as
you have won a one-way ticket to Paris aboard the U.S.S.R.
Michael Moore. Your ticket will be held at the nearest Dennis
Kucinich for President rally. Matricular consular cards issued
by foreign governments will be gladly accepted as
identification.
Tarla Star
Bobs wrote:
>
> Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
> regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
> hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
> quite a bit larger than NZ.
>
> That doesn't take away from the fact that Saddam is better off gone.
> THe liberals never admit to this however.
>
I will admit that Saddam was a very evil man and should have been removed.
HOWEVER, removing Saddam was not the purview of he United States. It's
like saying there's this murderer and rapist running Whangamata, and
someone from Dunedin decides to go take him out. The police say, "we'll
take care of it," but the guys from Dunedin take him out anyway. It's
vigilantism. There was no threat to the guys in Dunedin. They just
wanted to get rid of him no matter what.
Tarla Star
Redbaiter quoted:
> Authoritarian elitists masquerading as liberals these days
> Charlie Reese The Orlando Sentinel
>
> One way to understand American politics better is to realize how
> definitions have changed. For example, today's liberals aren't
> -- liberals, that is.
>
> Most of them are authoritarian elitists who think people are too
> stupid to govern themselves. They have adopted their own ideas
> of how to run the country, and, rather than sell those ideas,
> they seek to impose their ideas. Like all authoritarians, these
> elitists believe that any idea of theirs is revealed truth
> because it's their idea.
Holy Shit! That's not too incendiary is it? Look dude, if this is what
you believe, then you've got to stop calling me a liberal. I'm an
anarchist. I believe that men of good will should be able to live in
harmony without law. The words "there oughta be a law..." will never
escape my lips.
>
> This is about as far from classical liberalism as you can get.
> The classical liberal would today be called a libertarian. He
> was primarily interested in liberty and in small, weak
> government.
That's me.
>
> The authoritarian streak in today's pseudo-liberals can be seen
> in their viciousness in attacking all who disagree with them, a
> common tactic used by communists, Nazis and fascists. They seek
> not to engage in a discussion of competing ideas but rather to
> exclude their opponents from the debate by branding them as
> members of unacceptable groups.
Now, Mr. Baiter, you must admit to falling into this category on many an
occasion, mustn't you?
I'm sorry but I had to snip the remaining invective that was made
without any supporting evidence. Simple assertion does not make it so.
Sue Bilstein
> Karen Hayward-King wrote:
> >
> > I said what I had to say and left it at that. It's all on Google if
> > you wish to check...I don't use the 'no archive' thing :-)
>
> No need, I trust you. And since RB has said he meant no offence then I
> think we should "leave it at that" (whether you believe RB or not).
>
The thing is, he makes a bit of a habit of it, this "meaning no offence"
when he slings off at me for being a nutter.
For example the following, from the thread "PETROL TAX FACT":
"Tell me what about that is incorrect. If you can't, then retract
and apologise for your false allegations, or fuck off and stop
polluting this discussion group with your ignorant prejudices,
your lack of even average levels of comprehension and your
insane behaviour.
"All part of being bipolar is it?"
And another earlier post, which has aged out of my newsreader, in which he
dubbed me "bipolar Bilstein" in a list of other people whose names he paired
with insulting epithets. I recall commenting that he insulted the others,
but complimented me.
I haven't seen any comment from Rodbeater that he meant no offence. It's in
his nature to mean offence, let's face it: he's an insult-generating bot.
In fact he does not succeed in offending me - he only makes an arse of
himself.
Redbaiter
>
> >
> > You liberals really are deluded.
>
> I'm intrigued, Bobs: you use the word "liberal" as if it's a bad
> thing. You are proud to be a bigot, are you?
>
Once upon a time, on a farm in Te Kuiti, there was a little red
hen who scratched about the yard until she uncovered quite a few
grains of wheat.
She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant
this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant
it?"
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.
And so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden
grain.
"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment benefit," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so
she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake
the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the
goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors
to see.
They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little
red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."
"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.
And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around
and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen,
"You must not be so greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free
enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn
as much as he wants. But under our modern government
regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of
their labor with those who are lazy and idle."
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red
hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly
understand."
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never
again baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her
bread free.
Helen Klark smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual
initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared, as
long as there was free bread.
Adapted from an FR article.
Sue Bilstein
news:3fd6ec96$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> Sue Bilstein says
>
> > In fact he does not succeed in offending me - he only makes an arse of
> > himself.
> >
>
I've made two posts on this thread about your "bipolar" crack - once
responding to it, and once responding to LAR's claim that you had apologised
for it. That ain't endless whining, Rodbeater.
So what the fuck's your problem, little man?
Tarla Star
Redbaiter wrote:
> Tarla Star says
>
>
>
>>>This is about as far from classical liberalism as you can get.
>>>The classical liberal would today be called a libertarian. He
>>>was primarily interested in liberty and in small, weak
>>>government.
>>
>>That's me.
>
>
> I doubt that very much. No left winger wants these things.
You've jumped to conclusions regarding my political bent. If you
bothered to actually read what I say, then it's quite clear that
although I am someone to the left, I am REALLY far distant from Authority.
>
>>>The authoritarian streak in today's pseudo-liberals can be seen
>>>in their viciousness in attacking all who disagree with them, a
>>>common tactic used by communists, Nazis and fascists. They seek
>>>not to engage in a discussion of competing ideas but rather to
>>>exclude their opponents from the debate by branding them as
>>>members of unacceptable groups.
>>
>>Now, Mr. Baiter, you must admit to falling into this category on many an
>>occasion, mustn't you?
>
>
> Please tell me how "right wing" became a pejorative term.
>
It became synonymous with military action, and big business.
Tarla Star
Redbaiter wrote:
> Tarla Star says
>
>>
>>You've jumped to conclusions regarding my political bent.
>
>
> No I haven't, you have made it abundantly clear with your George
> Bush east babies hysteria.
I've never claimed that he ate babies, just killed them.
>
>
>>If you
>>bothered to actually read what I say, then it's quite clear that
>>although I am someone to the left, I am REALLY far distant from Authority.
>
>
> A contradiction in terms. Leftist are big government
> authoritarians. Always have been, always will be.
Not really. Left leaning individuals believe in social equality. There
are ways to achieve that without resorting to law. Not everyone fits
tidily into a pigeonhole, Mr. Baiter.
>
> Quite often there are posters who come on here and say they are
> not leftists, the are anarchists, or free thinkers or some other
> such denialist bullshit terms, and they always turn out to be
> died in the wool communist fuckwits. I reckon that's what you
> are.
>
>
>>>Please tell me how "right wing" became a pejorative term.
>>>
>>
>>It became synonymous with military action, and big business.
>>
>
> In your mind no doubt.. how superficial..
Not in my mind. Halliburton is an excellent example. So is the foray
into Iraq.
>
> A predictable and politically immature viewpoint that helps
> persuade me I'm right in my assessment of you.
Why must you always resort to name calling? Can't you make your points
without being abusive?
>
DUser
> Tarla Star says
>> > No I haven't, you have made it abundantly clear with your George
>> > Bush east babies hysteria.
>>
>> I've never claimed that he ate babies, just killed them.
>> >
> Oh well, that's quite all right then..
>
>> >>If you
>> >>bothered to actually read what I say, then it's quite clear that
>> >>although I am someone to the left, I am REALLY far distant from Authority.
>> >
>> >
>> > A contradiction in terms. Leftist are big government
>> > authoritarians. Always have been, always will be.
>>
>> Not really. Left leaning individuals believe in social equality. There
>> are ways to achieve that without resorting to law. Not everyone fits
>> tidily into a pigeonhole, Mr. Baiter.
>
> Thought so, brainwashed commie..
>> >
>> > In your mind no doubt.. how superficial..
>>
>> Not in my mind. Halliburton is an excellent example. So is the foray
>> into Iraq.
>
> Like every leftist, you are a brainwashed uninformed waste of
> time. There are so many plain and simple arguments to rebut your
> claims it is just farcical that people such as you still persist
> with such fairy tales.
>> >
>> > A predictable and politically immature viewpoint that helps
>> > persuade me I'm right in my assessment of you.
>>
>> Why must you always resort to name calling? Can't you make your points
>> without being abusive?
>> >
> I said your viewpoint was politically immature. That's not name
> calling. However, I will call you names if I want to, that's
> usenet. But in the meantime, adjectives are sufficient. Here
> goes. You are ignorant, uninformed bigoted brainwashed foolish
> and boring.
>
> Which altogether makes you a cretin. Which still isn't name
> calling, only a subjective opinion, and while cretin might be a
> noun, its not a proper one, so again, its not "name calling".
>
> (btw I know how to pronounce it, I've actually spent some time
> in Crete)
>
[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded
person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus,
Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian. See
Christian.]
xlo
>
> Which altogether makes you a cretin. Which still isn't name
> calling, only a subjective opinion, and while cretin might be a
> noun, its not a proper one, so again, its not "name calling".
>
> (btw I know how to pronounce it, I've actually spent some time
> in Crete)
ummm, is there a link between Crete and cretinism?
"I see a head of unusual form and size, a squat and bloated figure, a stupid
look, bleared hollow and heavy eyes, thick projecting eyelids, and a flat
nose. His face is of a leaden hue, his skin dirty, flabby, covered with
tetters, and his thick tongue hangs down over his moist livid lips. His
mouth, always open and full of saliva, shows teeth going to decay. His chest
is narrow, his back curved, his breath asthmatic, his limbs short,
misshapen, without power. The knees are thick and inclined inward, the feet
flat. The large head drops listlessly on the breast; the abdomen is like a
bag."
Seems familiar, but much closer to home than Crete I suspect.
Karen Hayward-King
>Which altogether makes you a cretin. Which still isn't name
>calling, only a subjective opinion, and while cretin might be a
>noun, its not a proper one, so again, its not "name calling".
>
>(btw I know how to pronounce it, I've actually spent some time
>in Crete)
Ahhhhh...then you'd know of course, that people from Crete are called
Cretans and not Cretins......
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>Karen Hayward-King wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:53:53 +1300, LeftAintRight <kda...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>We haven't fin-ished yet.
>>
>>
>> You are out there searching??? :-)
>>
>> And here I was thinking that it was the US and British :-)
>
>Yes, yes, very good. Give yourself a chocolate fish. ;-)
I would....but they don't seem to have any here :-( Or pineapple
lumps...or eskimos...or jaffas...or hokey pokey ice cream.
I tell you, these Americans just don't know what they're missing!!
LeftAintRight
There's a thin line between genius and madness.
LeftAintRight
AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
LeftAintRight
The Police weren't going to do anything.
LeftAintRight
> "LeftAintRight" <kda...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:br3mvc$ilj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>>Karen Hayward-King wrote:
>>
>>>I said what I had to say and left it at that. It's all on Google if
>>>you wish to check...I don't use the 'no archive' thing :-)
>>
>>No need, I trust you. And since RB has said he meant no offence then I
>>think we should "leave it at that" (whether you believe RB or not).
>>
>
>
> The thing is, he makes a bit of a habit of it, this "meaning no offence"
> when he slings off at me for being a nutter.
>
> For example the following, from the thread "PETROL TAX FACT":
>
> "Tell me what about that is incorrect. If you can't, then retract
> and apologise for your false allegations, or fuck off and stop
> polluting this discussion group with your ignorant prejudices,
> your lack of even average levels of comprehension and your
> insane behaviour.
>
> "All part of being bipolar is it?"
>
> And another earlier post, which has aged out of my newsreader, in which he
> dubbed me "bipolar Bilstein" in a list of other people whose names he paired
> with insulting epithets. I recall commenting that he insulted the others,
> but complimented me.
Whether one believes either Steve or RB when they say they "meant no
offence" is immaterial. No-one can see into their heads. We don't know
if they're lying. Either or both may be telling the truth. I say we
should let it rest because I think that's the best thing to do.
Of course that's not to say one should forget.
>
> I haven't seen any comment from Rodbeater that he meant no offence. It's in
> his nature to mean offence, let's face it: he's an insult-generating bot.
He's the John McInroe of newsgroups and y'all are the linesmen (or
whatever the correct tennis term is).
LeftAintRight
Well I don't know if he meant it as an apology. All I know is that he's
said he meant no offence.
Tilly
>
> AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
They now think he was bi-polar.
Tilly
Peter Metcalfe
Brig...@hotmail.com says...
> LeftAintRight wrote:
> > AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
> They now think he was bi-polar.
The Van Gogh museum, when I was there last, claimed it was
a rare type of epilepsy.
--Peter Metcalfe
Tarla Star
> Tarla Star says
>
>>>Bush east babies hysteria.
>>
>>I've never claimed that he ate babies, just killed them.
>>
>
>
>>>>bothered to actually read what I say, then it's quite clear that
>>>>although I am someone to the left, I am REALLY far distant from Authority.
>>>
>>>
>>>A contradiction in terms. Leftist are big government
>>>authoritarians. Always have been, always will be.
>>
>>Not really. Left leaning individuals believe in social equality. There
>>are ways to achieve that without resorting to law. Not everyone fits
>>tidily into a pigeonhole, Mr. Baiter.
> Thought so, brainwashed commie..
How is what I described in any way Communist?
>
>>>In your mind no doubt.. how superficial..
>>
>>Not in my mind. Halliburton is an excellent example. So is the foray
>>into Iraq.
>
>
> Like every leftist, you are a brainwashed uninformed waste of
> time. There are so many plain and simple arguments to rebut your
> claims it is just farcical that people such as you still persist
> with such fairy tales.
Until you can show evidence that Halliburton isn't making a huge profit
off this war, and that highly placed individuals within the Bush admin.
including Bush himself are not receiving profits from Halliburton, then
my statement stands.
Additionally, it was Conservatives (Republicans) that caused the
invasions of Iraq (1st time), Grenada, Panama, and Iraq again. Even
though Democratic presidents have also made military incursions, the
image of militarism doesn't seem to stick to them.
>
>>>A predictable and politically immature viewpoint that helps
>>>persuade me I'm right in my assessment of you.
>>
>>Why must you always resort to name calling? Can't you make your points
>>without being abusive?
>>
> I said your viewpoint was politically immature. That's not name
> calling. However, I will call you names if I want to, that's
> usenet. But in the meantime, adjectives are sufficient. Here
> goes. You are ignorant, uninformed bigoted brainwashed foolish
> and boring.
And you are unnecessarily rude.
>
> Which altogether makes you a cretin. Which still isn't name
> calling, only a subjective opinion, and while cretin might be a
> noun, its not a proper one, so again, its not "name calling".
If I call you an asshole, does that mean it's not an insult? Get real.
>
> (btw I know how to pronounce it, I've actually spent some time
> in Crete)
Lucky you.
>
> However, if you want to call it insulting, then that's fine with
> me. I make no apologies for insulting people who want to enslave
> me and steal from me by dint of electing their like mentally
> damaged ideologue political cronies to government.
You have some real issues, Dude. Have you thought about getting some
counselling?
>
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Tarla Star wrote:
>> Bobs wrote:
That still doesn't make the guys from Dunedin right.
Sue Bilstein
>
> Well I don't know if he meant it as an apology. All I know is that he's
> said he meant no offence.
>
In what post? I must have missed it. You can post the quote here if you
like.
LeftAintRight
I'm sure the next woman on the rapist's list would disagree.
Bobs
Tarla Star wrote:
As has been pointed out already, your analogy is flawed because you make
the assumption the police were going to do something about it. The
police (or the UN) have done nothing about it for over a decade, so
someone taking the law into their own hands seems fine to me.
Perhaps a better analogy would be
A rapist runs around Dunedin for an entire decade raping people at will,
while the police sit around a table discussing ways to catch him, but
don't actually show any initiative to catch the guy. In the meantime, a
single police station decide to ignore their superiors blundering and
catch the guy themselves. They succeed, but incur the wrath of their
bosses because they didn't receive permission.
>
--
/`_>
/ /
|/
____| __
|RWC \.-`` )
|-03``\ _.'
.-`'---``_.' Bobs
(__...--``
Bobs : 87 : 85 : 86 : 67 : 91 : 93 : 92 601
Paul (planc) : 89 : 88 : 88 : 69 : 80 : 85 : 86 585
Groundhog : 91 : 79 : 92 : 61 : 87 : 81 : 85 576
Walter Mitty : 99 : 69 : 95 : 61 : 82 : 87 : 82 575
Ben Longman : 82 : 89 : 84 : 53 : 83 : 85 : 85 561
Simon Stoivin-Bradford : 94 : 93 : 96 : 59 : -23 : 81 : 90 490
Brent : 80 : 90 : -13 : 63 : 86 : 79 : 95 480
David Covey : 87 : 76 : 88 : 74 : -21 : 81 : 81 466
Sean Byrne : 73 : 91 : 88 : 63 : 82 : -23 : 91 465
Charlie Pearce : 83 : 80 : 80 : 61 : 81 : 79 : -5 459
Andy Mulhearn : -24 : 80 : 71 : 56 : 72 : 88 : 95 438
Lew : 84 : 90 : 93 : 62 : 93 : -26 : -7 389
ET : 89 : 86 : 84 : 57 : 92 : -22 : -12 374
John Williams : 78 : 89 : -14 : 65 : -23 : 89 : 90 374
pure Salt : 95 : 77 : 82 : -56 : 81 : 91 : -18 352
Ian Stewart : 85 : 83 : 84 : 57 : 78 : -41 : -11 335
isimeli : 77 : 79 : 87 : 58 : -24 : -32 : -6 239
Peter Ashford : -21 : 81 : 78 : -62 : 86 : -31 : -3 128
BrentC : -25 : -26 : -7 : -56 : 67 : -27 : 85 11
"Humility is the greatest virtue of all."
Kereru
"Rachealli" <rach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R0gBb.12185$ws.11...@news02.tsnz.net...
I heard it was a form of epilepsy.
Judy
Sue Bilstein
news:lBWBb.12546$ws.11...@news02.tsnz.net...
> "Rachealli" <rach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:R0gBb.12185$ws.11...@news02.tsnz.net...
> >
suffer
> > from mental illness.
> > I heard a theory somewhere that Van Gogh also suffered from migraines.
His
> > paintings were very similar to some people's experience of aura
associated
> > with Migraines.
>
> I heard it was a form of epilepsy.
>
He had seizures. I believe there's a higher proportion of epileptics and
migraineurs among people with bipolar disorder than the population average.
Possibly the underlying causes (still unknown so far) are related.
------------
From PubMed:
Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;159(4):519-26. - The illness of Vincent van
Gogh. - Blumer D.
Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) had an eccentric personality and unstable
moods, suffered from recurrent psychotic episodes during the last 2 years of
his extraordinary life, and committed suicide at the age of 37. Despite
limited evidence, well over 150 physicians have ventured a perplexing
variety of diagnoses of his illness. Henri Gastaut, in a study of the
artist's life and medical history published in 1956, identified van Gogh's
major illness during the last 2 years of his life as temporal lobe epilepsy
precipitated by the use of absinthe in the presence of an early limbic
lesion. In essence, Gastaut confirmed the diagnosis originally made by the
French physicians who had treated van Gogh. However, van Gogh had earlier
suffered two distinct episodes of reactive depression, and there are clearly
bipolar aspects to his history. Both episodes of depression were followed by
sustained periods of increasingly high energy and enthusiasm, first as an
evangelist and then as an artist. ...
-----------
Kay Jamison, the manic depressive psychiatrist who wrote "Touched With Fire:
Manic Depression and the Artistic Temperament", considers Van Gogh had bipol
ar disorder. He had episodes of depression and elation, and committed
suicide: 60-70% of people who commit suicide have a mood disorder according
to Jamison (either BP or unipolar depression). Some have said his illness
was porphyria (the cause of the madness of King George III) - but porphyria
is very rare whereas about 1% of the population have BP, and as Jamison
says, when you hear hoofbeats it's unlikely to be a zebra.
By Jamison's reckoning about 30% of poets have a mood disorder - depression,
cyclothymia or full-blown BP. Rates are less but still significantly higher
than the population average among writers, composers, painters. The
roll-call includes, as well as those mentioned above, Handel; Byron; William
Blake; William Cowper; Coleridge; Ada Lovelace; Ruskin; William James; Henry
James. And for that matter Jimi Hendrix, Van Morrison, Brian Wilson (of the
Beach Boys), Winston Churchill, Mahler, Elgar, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner,
Rachmaninoff and Moussorgsky. In no particular order.
John Cawston
It does when the reports say he is headed for Dunedin.
JC
Tarla Star
Sue Bilstein wrote:
>
> He had seizures. I believe there's a higher proportion of epileptics and
> migraineurs among people with bipolar disorder than the population average.
> Possibly the underlying causes (still unknown so far) are related.
I've never heard of such a thing, where did you source your info?
>
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Tarla Star wrote:
>>>> Bobs wrote:
Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather than
the rule of law was used.
Tarla Star
Bobs wrote:
>
>
> Tarla Star wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bobs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
>>> regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
>>> hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
>>> quite a bit larger than NZ.
>>>
>>> That doesn't take away from the fact that Saddam is better off gone.
>>> THe liberals never admit to this however.
>>>
>> I will admit that Saddam was a very evil man and should have been
>> removed.
>> HOWEVER, removing Saddam was not the purview of he United States. It's
>> like saying there's this murderer and rapist running Whangamata, and
>> someone from Dunedin decides to go take him out. The police say,
>> "we'll take care of it," but the guys from Dunedin take him out
>> anyway. It's vigilantism. There was no threat to the guys in Dunedin.
>> They just wanted to get rid of him no matter what.
>
>
> As has been pointed out already, your analogy is flawed because you make
> the assumption the police were going to do something about it. The
> police (or the UN) have done nothing about it for over a decade, so
> someone taking the law into their own hands seems fine to me.
My assumption regarding the police is not flawed, they were
investigating the crime but were called off by the guys in Dunedin, so
that the Dunedin gang could take care of it themselves however they
pleased.
>
> Perhaps a better analogy would be
>
> A rapist runs around Dunedin for an entire decade raping people at will,
> while the police sit around a table discussing ways to catch him, but
> don't actually show any initiative to catch the guy. In the meantime, a
> single police station decide to ignore their superiors blundering and
> catch the guy themselves. They succeed, but incur the wrath of their
> bosses because they didn't receive permission.
Bad analogy. There was no rapist in Dunedin and he wasn't threatening them.
>
>>
>
Sue Bilstein
news:_e2Cb.26239$VV6.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Believe it or not, I thought it out for myself. The anti-convulsant drugs
are also prescribed as mood stabilisers, and one of them (sodium valproate)
also works against migraine. This suggests that the conditions may have
similar causes.
But I just did a quick google, & here's a "respectable" source saying the
same thing:
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/12/2/283-a
Plus I know & know of so many families in which BP and migraine and/or BP
and epilepsy appear to be inherited together. But that's "anecdotal".
Brian Dooley
wrote:
As in:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience. We must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist".
Bedwetter will perhaps know the author and when.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
wrote:
>"Redbaiter" <don't...@email.me> wrote in message
>news:3fd79719$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>> Which altogether makes you a cretin. Which still isn't name
>> calling, only a subjective opinion, and while cretin might be a
>> noun, its not a proper one, so again, its not "name calling".
>>
>> (btw I know how to pronounce it, I've actually spent some time
>> in Crete)
>
>ummm, is there a link between Crete and cretinism?
Yup, Bedwetter has been there and he's a cretin. Apart from that
no connection whatsoever.
Derived from Latin via French for Christian to indicate a human
creature ie not a beast.
>
>"I see a head of unusual form and size, a squat and bloated figure, a stupid
>look, bleared hollow and heavy eyes, thick projecting eyelids, and a flat
>nose. His face is of a leaden hue, his skin dirty, flabby, covered with
>tetters, and his thick tongue hangs down over his moist livid lips. His
>mouth, always open and full of saliva, shows teeth going to decay. His chest
>is narrow, his back curved, his breath asthmatic, his limbs short,
>misshapen, without power. The knees are thick and inclined inward, the feet
>flat. The large head drops listlessly on the breast; the abdomen is like a
>bag."
>
>Seems familiar, but much closer to home than Crete I suspect.
>
I didn't know that you'd met Bedwetter.
Tarla Star
Sue Bilstein wrote:
> "Tarla Star" <ta...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:_e2Cb.26239$VV6.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>Sue Bilstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He had seizures. I believe there's a higher proportion of epileptics
>
> and
>
>>>migraineurs among people with bipolar disorder than the population
>
> average.
>
>>>Possibly the underlying causes (still unknown so far) are related.
>>
>>I've never heard of such a thing, where did you source your info?
>>
>
> Believe it or not, I thought it out for myself. The anti-convulsant drugs
> are also prescribed as mood stabilisers, and one of them (sodium valproate)
> also works against migraine. This suggests that the conditions may have
> similar causes.
In ONE person. You certainly cannot extrapolate such a thing from a
survey of one.
>
> But I just did a quick google, & here's a "respectable" source saying the
> same thing:
> http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/12/2/283-a
>
> Plus I know & know of so many families in which BP and migraine and/or BP
> and epilepsy appear to be inherited together. But that's "anecdotal".
>
Your link doesn't appear to work. Perhaps you misspelled something?
>
>
>
>
Tarla Star
Redbaiter wrote:
> Tarla Star says
>
>
>>Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>>described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather than
>>the rule of law was used.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, so your a fan of the rule of law and against vigilantism??
When there's already one in place, I obey it...most of the time.
>
> So therefore Saddam should have been left to his murdering and
> genocide?
You're not making sense. If the rule of law had been allowed to go
forth, then perhaps he would have been taken out in another fashion. If
the goal was to take out Saddam, how could Bush declare mission
accomplished? Saddam is still out there, still able to murder and commit
genocide. The vigilantes failed. But perhaps getting the bad guy wasn't
their real goal.
>
> Good grief...
Cheers
>
>
LeftAintRight
So you would've waited for Saddam to be at the point of being able to
use WMDS against the West, and then taken action?
LeftAintRight
>
>
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
>> Tarla Star says
>>
>>
>>> Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>>> described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather
>>> than the rule of law was used.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so your a fan of the rule of law and against vigilantism??
>
>
> When there's already one in place, I obey it...most of the time.
>
>>
>> So therefore Saddam should have been left to his murdering and genocide?
>
>
> You're not making sense. If the rule of law had been allowed to go
> forth, then perhaps he would have been taken out in another fashion.
Like what? Ask him nicely to leave?
If
> the goal was to take out Saddam, how could Bush declare mission
> accomplished? Saddam is still out there, still able to murder and commit
> genocide.
Then why isn't he?
The vigilantes failed. But perhaps getting the bad guy wasn't
> their real goal.
The goal was to remove Saddam from power. That goal has been achieved.
The next goal is to move Iraq to a democracy.
>
>>
>> Good grief...
>
>
> Cheers
>
>>
>>
>
David Pears
>
>Perhaps a better analogy would be
>
>A rapist runs around Dunedin for an entire decade raping people at will,
>while the police sit around a table discussing ways to catch him, but
>don't actually show any initiative to catch the guy. In the meantime, a
>single police station decide to ignore their superiors blundering and
>catch the guy themselves. They succeed, but incur the wrath of their
>bosses because they didn't receive permission.
Still not a good analogy Bobs. To better reflect the involvement of
certain UN security council members, you'd need some police to be
taking bribes from the criminal so that we'd have good cops and bad
cops, just like in the films. At every stage, the bad cops would foil
the good cops, until finally the good cops flaunt the rules in a Dirty
Harry sorta way, dealing to both the criminal and the bad cops.
Where my analogy falls down is that the bad cops weren't sorted out
properly. In fact they're still claiming to be owed protection money
from both the good cops and the victims of the bad cops.
David
Sue Bilstein
> >>
> >
> > Believe it or not, I thought it out for myself. The anti-convulsant
drugs
> > are also prescribed as mood stabilisers, and one of them (sodium
valproate)
> > also works against migraine. This suggests that the conditions may have
> > similar causes.
>
> In ONE person. You certainly cannot extrapolate such a thing from a
> survey of one.
Excuse me? Which one person? I'm afraid I don't follow your drift here.
> >
> > But I just did a quick google, & here's a "respectable" source saying
the
> > same thing:
> > http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/12/2/283-a
> >
> > Plus I know & know of so many families in which BP and migraine and/or
BP
> > and epilepsy appear to be inherited together. But that's "anecdotal".
> >
>
> Your link doesn't appear to work. Perhaps you misspelled something?
> >
It does for me. Have you tried pasting it into your browser?
Karen Hayward-King
Works okay for me as well. Interesting article.
--
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
Tarla Star
"Epilepsy and bipolar disorder are major public health problems in the
United States, with estimates of lifetime prevalence ranging from 5.0%
to 8.0% and 1.0% to 1.6%, respectively....
Third, some patients have both epilepsy and a mood disorder. Although
the prevalence of interictal bipolar disorder has not been formally
assessed, clinical reports suggest a prevalence of bipolar disorder in
patients with epilepsy between 0.1% and 4.3%.5"
Not what I would call an "inherited trait" since there aren't enough
patients who have BOTH to indicate that they fall on the same gene.
Steve B
While we're on "thinking things out for oneself" I have wondered why
some of the dietary recommendations for migraine sufferers (avoid red
wine, cheese, etc) correspond to the foods proscribed for people on
MAO antidepressants. Maybe there's some similarity in the chemical
processes involved.
I've suffered a couple of bad bouts of depression (uniploar as far as
I and the doctors are aware) and was also prone to migraines. No
epilepsy, though.
As a BTW which may help some, I mentioned to an ophthalmologist that
nowadays I suffered occasional disturbance of vision, "like a
migraine, but without the headache".
"I don't think it's an eye problem," he said. "I'd say it's exactly
what you've called it" Something to do with the blood-vessels
hardening so the constriction that causes the visuals still happens,
but not the exapansion that causes the headache; or vice-versa.
He prescribed a prophylactic half-aspirin a day (specifically aspirin,
not other headache remedies) and I haven't had the problem since.
As I say, may help some.
Steve B.
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Tarla Star wrote:
>
>>
>>> So therefore Saddam should have been left to his murdering and genocide?
>>
>>
>>
>> You're not making sense. If the rule of law had been allowed to go
>> forth, then perhaps he would have been taken out in another fashion.
>
>
> Like what? Ask him nicely to leave?
Or Military action if he would not comply. He was allowing inspectors
access to most anything they requested, but that wasn't enough for the
vigilantes.
> If
>
>> the goal was to take out Saddam, how could Bush declare mission
>> accomplished? Saddam is still out there, still able to murder and
>> commit genocide.
>
>
> Then why isn't he?
Who says he isn't? Not the genocide bit, but as long as he lives, he
will seek power.
>
> The vigilantes failed. But perhaps getting the bad guy wasn't
>
>> their real goal.
>
>
> The goal was to remove Saddam from power. That goal has been achieved.
> The next goal is to move Iraq to a democracy.
Well, the STATED goal was to stop the Iraqis from using WMD...which of
course, they've never found, since there weren't any to find. Iraq will
never be a democracy as long as the Americans are calling the shots. You
cannot force a people to accept a form of government that they do not
understand and desire deeply.
Steve B
<kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:50:11 +1300, "Sue Bilstein"
><sue_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tarla Star" <ta...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:n0cCb.26752$VV6.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>> Sue Bilstein wrote:
>
>>> > But I just did a quick google, & here's a "respectable" source saying
>>the
>>> > same thing:
>>> > http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/12/2/283-a
>>> >
>>> > Plus I know & know of so many families in which BP and migraine and/or
>>BP
>>> > and epilepsy appear to be inherited together. But that's "anecdotal".
>>> >
>>>
>>> Your link doesn't appear to work. Perhaps you misspelled something?
>>> >
>>
>>It does for me. Have you tried pasting it into your browser?
>>
>
>Works okay for me as well. Interesting article.
Yes. My brain had a bit of a struggle processing "comorbid"; one of
those words like "noncyborgs", in serious need of a hyphen. Maybe I'm
just not used to US medical jargon.
Steve B.
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
>> Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>> described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather
>> than the rule of law was used.
>>
>
> So you would've waited for Saddam to be at the point of being able to
> use WMDS against the West, and then taken action?
He never had nor never would have had that capability. The US was NEVER
threatened by Iraq. None of his missiles would have made it further than
Israel at best. Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from
American Imperial ambitions.
LeftAintRight
>
>
> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>> Tarla Star wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>>>> So therefore Saddam should have been left to his murdering and
>>>> genocide?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're not making sense. If the rule of law had been allowed to go
>>> forth, then perhaps he would have been taken out in another fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what? Ask him nicely to leave?
>
>
> Or Military action if he would not comply. He was allowing inspectors
> access to most anything they requested, but that wasn't enough for the
> vigilantes.
Wrong. He was giving them the runaround. He was not cooperating.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html
"Raw Data: Hans Blix's Report to the U.N.
...Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer
to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given
grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate
its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating
confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a
genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was
demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of
the world and to live in peace."
LeftAintRight
>
>
> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>
>>> Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>>> described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather
>>> than the rule of law was used.
>>>
>>
>> So you would've waited for Saddam to be at the point of being able to
>> use WMDS against the West, and then taken action?
>
>
> He never had nor never would have had that capability. The US was NEVER
> threatened by Iraq. None of his missiles would have made it further than
> Israel at best.
Given enough time he would have been.
Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American
> Imperial ambitions.
>
So you're saying Saddam wasn't "that bad" huh?
LeftAintRight
> Tarla Star says
>
>
>
>>Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from
>>American Imperial ambitions.
>>
>
>
> Yawn...
>
> Just what this newsgroup needs..
>
> Another lying factless sloganeering US hating narrow minded
> commie brainwashed sixties ignoramus..
Considering that Saddam is a mass murderer who killed hundreds of
thousands of his own people. And considering that the US have no
interest in making Iraq another state of the US or staying there for any
considerable lenght of time. Considering also that the US is working
towards handing power to the Iraqi people. Considering all this the
comment above is puzzling to say the least. In fact it's the kind of
thing you'd expect someone who has been brainwashed by Chomskian
propaganda to say.
>
> Why the fuck doesn't your generation just fucking drop off the
> edge?
>
> You lot, with your mush brained acceptance of any communist lie,
> every stoopid communist fairy tale, have been the biggest
> impediment to the advancement of mankind in centuries.
>
> You have the blood of millions murdered by your political icons
> on your hands.
>
> You have the deaths of millions of sick people who have died
> because of your religious disapproval of science, and you have
> the deaths of millions thru starvation because of the
> combination of your political allegiance to communist
> genocidists and your blind superstitious opposition to the
> economic and political advancement of mankind, all on your
> hands.
>
> The "me" generation. A worldwide plague of fucking ignorant
> parasitical egotistical locusts.
>
Brian Dooley
>Tarla Star wrote:
>
>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>>
>> > Tarla Star wrote:
>>
>> >> Bobs wrote:
>>
>> >>> Let's face it, Sue. The Americans were never going to find any,
>> >>> regardless if the Iraqi's had them or not. The US-led invasion was
>> >>> hardly a secret and the Iraqi's had months to hide them in a country
>> >>> quite a bit larger than NZ.
>> >>>
>> >>> That doesn't take away from the fact that Saddam is better off gone.
>> >>> THe liberals never admit to this however.
The so-called liberals have admitted it from the beginning, and
the fact that you and your like keep repeating it is an
indication of the weakness of your case
>> >>>
>> >> I will admit that Saddam was a very evil man and should have been
>> >> removed.
>> >> HOWEVER, removing Saddam was not the purview of he United States. It's
>> >> like saying there's this murderer and rapist running Whangamata, and
>> >> someone from Dunedin decides to go take him out. The police say,
>> >> "we'll take care of it," but the guys from Dunedin take him out
>> >> anyway. It's vigilantism. There was no threat to the guys in Dunedin.
>> >> They just wanted to get rid of him no matter what.
>> >>
>> > The Police weren't going to do anything.
>>
>> That still doesn't make the guys from Dunedin right.
>
>It does when the reports say he is headed for Dunedin.
My understanding is that the reports said nothing of the sort,
but were made to sound that way.
I was listening to the police band all the time, and I remember
the very first mention that he had Dunedin in his sights. I knew
it was wrong then but I also knew that it had been decided to
take him out at a high level and that he was a goner - as events
subsequently proved.
He should have remembered the loot hidden in his garden.
Kerry
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <MwTBb.25755$VV6.5...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
>Brig...@hotmail.com says...
>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>> > AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
>
>> They now think he was bi-polar.
>
>The Van Gogh museum, when I was there last, claimed it was
>a rare type of epilepsy.
>
Not all that rare, temporal lobe epilepsy
"nicer" I suppose
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
>> Tarla Star says
>>
>>
>>
>>> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American Imperial
>>> ambitions.
>
>
> Considering that Saddam is a mass murderer who killed hundreds of
> thousands of his own people.
And I suppose Augusto Pinochet, and Idi Amin, and Robert Mugabe and any
number of other crazy ass dictators haven't? Why didn't they go after
THEM too?
And considering that the US have no
> interest in making Iraq another state of the US or staying there for any
> considerable lenght of time.
Sez you. There is no withdrawal or removal plan in place.
Considering also that the US is working
> towards handing power to the Iraqi people. Considering all this the
> comment above is puzzling to say the least. In fact it's the kind of
> thing you'd expect someone who has been brainwashed by Chomskian
> propaganda to say.
Actually, I don't read that much Chomsky. Sometimes I find him a bit
over the top for my tastes. However, I do respect his scholarship and
bravery. That aside, I don't see any power being given to the Iraqi
people. Putting puppets in charge is not the same as giving a people
back their country after you've invaded them for no damned good reason.
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Tarla Star wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>>>> described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather
>>>> than the rule of law was used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you would've waited for Saddam to be at the point of being able to
>>> use WMDS against the West, and then taken action?
>>
>>
>>
>> He never had nor never would have had that capability. The US was
>> NEVER threatened by Iraq. None of his missiles would have made it
>> further than Israel at best.
>
>
> Given enough time he would have been.
Yeah, like 20 or 30 years undisturbed. Have you forgotten how severe the
sanctions against Iraq have been for the last 12 years or so? This is a
ridiculous scare tactic and not even worthy of consideration.
>
> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American
>
>> Imperial ambitions.
>>
>
> So you're saying Saddam wasn't "that bad" huh?
How many posts of mine have you read? I have said repeatedly that he is
a very bad man. There are shitloads of them in the world. Taking out the
world's bad men is not the assigned or proper job of the US.
LeftAintRight
>
>
> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>> Redbaiter wrote:
>>
>>> Tarla Star says
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American Imperial
>>>> ambitions.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Considering that Saddam is a mass murderer who killed hundreds of
>> thousands of his own people.
>
Because Mugabe wasn't trying to get WMDs that he could use. And then
there's the oil issue. Simply put, the West could not risk an oil-rich
Middle East ruled by Saddam.
>
> And I suppose Augusto Pinochet, and Idi Amin, and Robert Mugabe and any
> number of other crazy ass dictators haven't? Why didn't they go after
> THEM too?
>
> And considering that the US have no
>
>> interest in making Iraq another state of the US or staying there for
>> any considerable lenght of time.
>
>
> Sez you. There is no withdrawal or removal plan in place.
Doesn't look that way to me.
>
> Considering also that the US is working
>
>> towards handing power to the Iraqi people. Considering all this the
>> comment above is puzzling to say the least. In fact it's the kind of
>> thing you'd expect someone who has been brainwashed by Chomskian
>> propaganda to say.
>
>
> Actually, I don't read that much Chomsky. Sometimes I find him a bit
> over the top for my tastes. However, I do respect his scholarship and
> bravery. That aside, I don't see any power being given to the Iraqi
> people. Putting puppets in charge is not the same as giving a people
> back their country after you've invaded them for no damned good reason.
>
What makes you think the US is putting a puppet government in place?
LeftAintRight
>
>
> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>> Tarla Star wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Calling upon your crystal ball is not part of the situation I have
>>>>> described. Nor is distracting from the fact that vigilantism rather
>>>>> than the rule of law was used.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you would've waited for Saddam to be at the point of being able
>>>> to use WMDS against the West, and then taken action?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He never had nor never would have had that capability. The US was
>>> NEVER threatened by Iraq. None of his missiles would have made it
>>> further than Israel at best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given enough time he would have been.
>
>
> Yeah, like 20 or 30 years undisturbed. Have you forgotten how severe the
> sanctions against Iraq have been for the last 12 years or so? This is a
> ridiculous scare tactic and not even worthy of consideration.
The sanctions didn't stop Saddam spending billions doing up his palaces.
He was playing possum. Once the heat was off it would have taken at most
just a few years for Saddam to have gotten to the point of being able to
use WMDs, IMHO.
>
>>
>> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American
>>
>>> Imperial ambitions.
>>>
>>
>> So you're saying Saddam wasn't "that bad" huh?
>
>
> How many posts of mine have you read? I have said repeatedly that he is
> a very bad man. There are shitloads of them in the world. Taking out the
> world's bad men is not the assigned or proper job of the US.
>
But Saddam was amongst the worse.
Rachealli
>>>
>>> You did? I read a book about it.
>>> Spike Milligan, Tony Hancock and Peter Sellers were all manic
>>> depressives as well.
>>>
>>> Tilly
>>
>>
>> Ah I think there is an ad on TV listing a whole load of people who
>> suffer from mental illness.
>> I heard a theory somewhere that Van Gogh also suffered from
>> migraines. His paintings were very similar to some people's
>> experience of aura associated with Migraines.
>>
>>
>
> AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
No-one will ever really know I guess. But he could have had migraines too.
Rachealli
Many of the tricyclic antidepressants such as amtriptyline can also be
prescribed for migraine. So it seems that the cause of migraine and
depression, etc may be related somewhat.
Rachealli
That's interesting to know. I get Aura without the headache fairly
frequently.
Newsman
wrote:
>LeftAintRight wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK Van Gogh was schizophrenic.
>
>They now think he was bi-polar.
As was Spike Milligan, if by "bi-polar" you mean "manic-depressive".
And he was openly self-confessed at that. He used to voluntarily book
himself into Warlingham Mental Hospital for treatment when things got
too much for him.
A brilliant, mercurial mind who turned 20th Century comedy on its head
and provided the intellectual bedrock of such as Monty Python and all
that followed.
As Clive James once said (maybe I paraphrase him slightly), "humour is
only commonsense running in overdrive". And that was Milligan to a
tee: absurdity to be found at the extremes of the most seemingly
ordinary and "logical".
Tarla Star
LeftAintRight wrote:
> Tarla Star wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>>
>>> Redbaiter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tarla Star says
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American Imperial
>>>>> ambitions.
>>> Considering that Saddam is a mass murderer who killed hundreds of
>>> thousands of his own people.
>>>
>> And I suppose Augusto Pinochet, and Idi Amin, and Robert Mugabe and
>> any number of other crazy ass dictators haven't? Why didn't they go
>> after THEM too?
>>
>
> Because Mugabe wasn't trying to get WMDs that he could use. And then
> there's the oil issue. Simply put, the West could not risk an oil-rich
> Middle East ruled by Saddam.
So someone from the right finally admits that this war is about
controlling Middle East oil. Thanks.
>>
>> And considering that the US have no
>>
>>> interest in making Iraq another state of the US or staying there for
>>> any considerable lenght of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sez you. There is no withdrawal or removal plan in place.
>
>
> Doesn't look that way to me.
Look again:
GUAM, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, currently on
a Pacific tour, told U.S. troops in Guam Friday that there are no plans
for an early withdrawal from Iraq.
The Secretary said U.S. forces will be in Iraq "as long as necessary" to
see that the country is put on a path to democracy, reports the Voice of
America.
>
>>
>> Considering also that the US is working
>>
>>> towards handing power to the Iraqi people. Considering all this the
>>> comment above is puzzling to say the least. In fact it's the kind of
>>> thing you'd expect someone who has been brainwashed by Chomskian
>>> propaganda to say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't read that much Chomsky. Sometimes I find him a bit
>> over the top for my tastes. However, I do respect his scholarship and
>> bravery. That aside, I don't see any power being given to the Iraqi
>> people. Putting puppets in charge is not the same as giving a people
>> back their country after you've invaded them for no damned good reason.
>>
>
> What makes you think the US is putting a puppet government in place?
These sorts of things:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A spokesman for a former Iraqi opposition group
said Friday that he would not accept any interim government appointed by
the U.S.-led coalition.
"We think an appointment of any administration would be against U.N.
resolutions," Hamed Bayati, spokesman for the Supreme Council of the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), told CNN. "It won't be accepted by
the Iraqi people, and the whole region will say, 'This is a puppet
government or a puppet administration appointed by the Americans to
achieve their interests.' "
and
he Washington Post is running a fascination story about oil in Iraq,
specifically what happens to all that oil if the War on Terror sweeps
through. A quote, from former CIA director R. James Woolsey,
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should
be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government
and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their
lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to
persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
Does this strike anyone else as completely preposterous and totally
appalling? Basically, Woolsey is saying that, should we go to war with
Iraq, we'll be setting up a puppet government with the interests of the
good ole U.S. of A. foremost on their agenda, and we'll try really,
really hard to make sure that everyone else in the world can get at some
of that 112 billion barrels of untapped crude.
I have a couple of problems with this scenario. First of all, there's
the classic "If you're not with us, you're against us" logic. Woolsey's
comments imply that if you object to a U.S. led war on Iraq, then you're
clearly siding with the axis of evil, so no oil for you.
Second, it seems to me that the toppling of Saddam should open the doors
for a democratically elected government with the interests of the Iraqi
people in mind, not the interests of Halliburton and Exxon Mobil.
Sue Bilstein
news:9bvCb.12732$ws.12...@news02.tsnz.net...
> Sue Bilstein wrote:
> >
> > Plus I know & know of so many families in which BP and migraine
> > and/or BP and epilepsy appear to be inherited together. But that's
> > "anecdotal".
>
> Many of the tricyclic antidepressants such as amtriptyline can also be
> prescribed for migraine. So it seems that the cause of migraine and
> depression, etc may be related somewhat.
>
That's interesting Racheal, thanks for the info.
Sue Bilstein
news:mbujtvc840m2qg9i3...@4ax.com...
> >
> While we're on "thinking things out for oneself" I have wondered why
> some of the dietary recommendations for migraine sufferers (avoid red
> wine, cheese, etc) correspond to the foods proscribed for people on
> MAO antidepressants. Maybe there's some similarity in the chemical
> processes involved.
FWIW, I read a fascinating account recently by a cheese-loving ex-migraine
sufferer. He described the heroic quantities of smelly blue cheese he used
to eat, and the crushing migraines he suffered. He no longer eats cheese or
gets migraines, but he mourns the marked toning-down of his libido and
sexual sensitivity, the heightened intensity of which seemed to be part of
the cheese-migraine syndrome.
I found it on the Net/Usenet but can't recall where - google giveth, google
taketh away.
... But "cheese migraine sex" found it easily. This piece "Can I, please,
have my migraines back" is quoted on many sites, not surprising: it's great.
And he gives you the MAO connection too.
http://www.engineeringyouth.com/lisuride2.htm
... Ain't neurology *interesting*.
>
> I've suffered a couple of bad bouts of depression (uniploar as far as
> I and the doctors are aware) and was also prone to migraines. No
> epilepsy, though.
>
> As a BTW which may help some, I mentioned to an ophthalmologist that
> nowadays I suffered occasional disturbance of vision, "like a
> migraine, but without the headache".
>
> "I don't think it's an eye problem," he said. "I'd say it's exactly
> what you've called it" Something to do with the blood-vessels
> hardening so the constriction that causes the visuals still happens,
> but not the exapansion that causes the headache; or vice-versa.
>
> He prescribed a prophylactic half-aspirin a day (specifically aspirin,
> not other headache remedies) and I haven't had the problem since.
>
> As I say, may help some.
I had written:
"I suspect that migraines are not much like standard head-aches, i.e. the
pain arises in the brain rather than from swollen veins etc." - and then I
thought, who am I to speculate? So I googled & got
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=A
bstract&list_uids=99283149>
Migraine is an inheritable disease, and the mutation causing a rare variant
of migraine (familial hemiplegic migraine) has now been demonstrated. The
mutated gene encodes a subunit of a brain-specific calcium channel in cell
membranes. Brains of patients with recurrent migraine attacks seem to behave
differently from other brains, also when examined outside attacks, in that
they commonly demonstrate lack of habituation when exposed to serial
stimuli. The patho-physiological process of the attack might well consist of
a spreading cortical depression starting in the occipital region and
gradually involving other parts of the cortex. It is primarily a cerebral
process secondarily accompanied by reduced cerebral blood flow, later
converting into increased flow. The pain of migraine probably is mediated by
way of the trigeminal nerve which releases vasoactive peptides leading to
dilatation of the greater blood vessels. During an attack there is increased
metabolism in cranial parts of the brain stem, demonstrated as areas of
increased blood flow in PET studies. This increased metabolism persists even
when the symptoms of migraine have disappeared after drug treatment, perhaps
because the migraine attacks may be generated in this region. The primary
dysfunction in migraine probably is located in the brain rather than in
blood vessels.
Woo-hoo, am I good or what?
My sister and I are both diagnosed manic depressive. She gets classic
migraines. From age 11 to a few years ago I suffered intermittent attacks
of stomach pain that were a bit like migraine in that the only way to deal
with them was to lie down and sleep. Now, I no longer get the stomach pain,
but I have started to experience a sort of "mild migraine" - light
sensitivity, mild nausea, a slight headache, and a dozy, groggy feeling.
LeftAintRight
>
>
> LeftAintRight wrote:
>
>> Tarla Star wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LeftAintRight wrote:
>>>
>>>> Redbaiter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tarla Star says
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saddam is a bogeyman created to distract from American Imperial
>>>>>> ambitions.
>
>
>>>> Considering that Saddam is a mass murderer who killed hundreds of
>>>> thousands of his own people.
>>>>
>>> And I suppose Augusto Pinochet, and Idi Amin, and Robert Mugabe and
>>> any number of other crazy ass dictators haven't? Why didn't they go
>>> after THEM too?
>>>
>>
>> Because Mugabe wasn't trying to get WMDs that he could use. And then
>> there's the oil issue. Simply put, the West could not risk an oil-rich
>> Middle East ruled by Saddam.
>
>
> So someone from the right finally admits that this war is about
> controlling Middle East oil. Thanks.
Oil is an important factor but the war was never about oil. Oil is what
made Saddam important. If Saddam had no oil AND was not next door to
countries that had oil then he would still be in power. Make of that
what you will.
The West isn't interested in controlling Middle East oil. We are however
interested in making sure that it is not controlled by mass murderer
with terrorist links, esp after 9/11.
>
>>>
>>> And considering that the US have no
>>>
>>>> interest in making Iraq another state of the US or staying there for
>>>> any considerable lenght of time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sez you. There is no withdrawal or removal plan in place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't look that way to me.
>
>
> Look again:
> GUAM, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, currently on
> a Pacific tour, told U.S. troops in Guam Friday that there are no plans
> for an early withdrawal from Iraq.
>
> The Secretary said U.S. forces will be in Iraq "as long as necessary" to
> see that the country is put on a path to democracy, reports the Voice of
> America.
In other words America won't be withdrawing prematurely from Iraq.
That's a good thing not a bad thing.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Considering also that the US is working
>>>
>>>> towards handing power to the Iraqi people. Considering all this the
>>>> comment above is puzzling to say the least. In fact it's the kind of
>>>> thing you'd expect someone who has been brainwashed by Chomskian
>>>> propaganda to say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't read that much Chomsky. Sometimes I find him a bit
>>> over the top for my tastes. However, I do respect his scholarship and
>>> bravery. That aside, I don't see any power being given to the Iraqi
>>> people. Putting puppets in charge is not the same as giving a people
>>> back their country after you've invaded them for no damned good reason.
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think the US is putting a puppet government in place?
>
>
> These sorts of things:
>
> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A spokesman for a former Iraqi opposition group
> said Friday that he would not accept any interim government appointed by
> the U.S.-led coalition.
>
> "We think an appointment of any administration would be against U.N.
> resolutions," Hamed Bayati, spokesman for the Supreme Council of the
> Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), told CNN. "It won't be accepted by
> the Iraqi people, and the whole region will say, 'This is a puppet
> government or a puppet administration appointed by the Americans to
> achieve their interests.' "
We're talking about an interim government. If the spokesman is right
then when the elections come around the interim government will be voted
out and replaced by a government that the Iraqi people do want. That's
the nice thing about democracy.
>
> and
>
> he Washington Post is running a fascination story about oil in Iraq,
> specifically what happens to all that oil if the War on Terror sweeps
> through. A quote, from former CIA director R. James Woolsey,
>
> "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should
> be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
> government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government
> and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their
> lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to
> persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
>
> Does this strike anyone else as completely preposterous and totally
> appalling? Basically, Woolsey is saying that, should we go to war with
> Iraq, we'll be setting up a puppet government with the interests of the
> good ole U.S. of A. foremost on their agenda, and we'll try really,
> really hard to make sure that everyone else in the world can get at some
> of that 112 billion barrels of untapped crude.
Can you really expect any Iraqi govt to work with France or Russia after
what they did?
JD
LeftAintRight <kda...@ihug.co.nz> presented us with:
>
> The West isn't interested in controlling Middle East oil. We are however
> interested in making sure that it is not controlled by mass murderer
> with terrorist links, esp after 9/11.
The House of Saud?
Rachealli
I've struggled with migraines for a while now so I have looked up a lot of
this sort of stuff. There's loads of information on the links between
migraine and depression, etc on the net.
LeftAintRight
Yes, there have been plenty of criticism about why the US isn't going
after the corrupt House of Saud. But for better or worse they are our
allies (a marriage of convenience if there ever was one). Also, recent
terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia appears to have woken them up.