Liberal white supremacist makes donations to Planned Parenthood
dolphs...@hotmail.com
Dave Moore busted donating money to Planned Parenthood - a liberal
organization conducting a black genocide with dollars funded by
liberals-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
Libs = racist
If you support libs = racist
George Graves
(in article
<2ab33c06-9046-4e71...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
Liberals are racists? I thought you lefties painted only Conservatives as
racists? Truth is, everybody is racist to a certain extent. That includes
people of all races. Its a natural defense to preserve ethnicity and culture.
Only in this post-modern, hyper-egalitarian world is it treated as anathema.
Get over it.
dolphs...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:54:29 -0700, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <2ab33c06-9046-4e71-ab21-2691de8c2...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > Dave Moore busted donating money to Planned Parenthood - a liberal
> > organization conducting a black genocide with dollars funded by
> > liberals-
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
>
> > Libs = racist
>
> > If you support libs = racist
>
> Liberals are racists? I thought you lefties painted only Conservatives as
> racists? Truth is, everybody is racist to a certain extent. That includes
> people of all races. Its a natural defense to preserve ethnicity and culture.
> Only in this post-modern, hyper-egalitarian world is it treated as anathema.
> Get over it.
Liberals love to paint others as rednecks who hate black people.
But the sad reality is it's the liberals who support and make abortion
law.
Listen to the libs on the phone -
"I want this money to go to a black abortion. I don't want my kids to
be robbed by black people"
"Understandable, understandable"
Dems kill about half the newborn black babies. Blacks vote
overwhelmingly Dem.
Unbelievable. The white liberal has done a good con job on all
minorities.
dolphs...@hotmail.com
> unborn babies not your own, whether white, black green or purple, is
> downright embarrassing. How did you come to be such an asshole?-
SNAP! Another lib TRAPPED and hung for all to see!
LOL, How did I become such an asshole? Try the black community, you
racist piece of shit:
http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of
their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the
population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being
targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America
that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues,
by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the
founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist
who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black
women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of
Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are
to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080417a.html
Planned Parenthood Has 'Racist Agenda,' MLK's Niece Says
The niece of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is among a group of
pro-life black leaders calling for an end to federal funding for
Planned Parenthood because of what she calls Planned Parenthood's
"racist agenda."
"Planned Parenthood is definitely a racist organization - they have a
racist agenda," Dr. Alveda King told Cybercast News Service. "Since
1970, there has been something like 50 million abortions. About 17
million of those have been blacks. It's black genocide. They are
killing our people and fooling us."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/NATION/772861716
Planned Parenthood decried as 'racist'
A coalition of black leaders and pastors called on the federal
government yesterday to "defund" Planned Parenthood from receiving
$336.7 million annually in government funds and accused the family
planning giant of targeting unborn black children.
Standing on the lawn in front of the Planned Parenthood of
Metropolitan Washington building at 1108 16th St. NW, black leaders
cited a series of YouTube videos recorded by a group of students from
the University of California at Los Angeles.
-----
LIBS = RACIST PIECE OF CRAP
ed
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:54:29 -0700, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article
> > Dave Moore busted donating money to Planned Parenthood - a liberal
> > organization conducting a black genocide with dollars funded by
> > liberals-
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
>
> > Libs = racist
>
> > If you support libs = racist
>
> Liberals are racists? I thought you lefties painted only Conservatives as
> racists? Truth is, everybody is racist to a certain extent.
sorry bub, but that's not the case.
> That includes
> people of all races. Its a natural defense to preserve ethnicity and culture.
> Only in this post-modern, hyper-egalitarian world is it treated as anathema.
> Get over it.
i would suggest it's closer to the truth that racist folks who don't
see a problem with their racism justify it as such.
Mitch
<b01acbae-1a2b-4a69...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kT
<cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 8:59 pm, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 6:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > LIBS = RACIST PIECE OF CRAP
>
> So you hate libs, whatever they are.
>
> Thus, you too are a racist.
WHAT?
NO matter what race they are, he is RACIST because he hates a political
attitude?
If it isn't aboiut RACE, it isn't RACISM!
> Haven't you not noticed this?
<woeff>
dolphs...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 28, 8:59 pm, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 6:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > LIBS = RACIST PIECE OF CRAP
>
LOL
Liberals aren't a race as far as i know.
If they were, they would have died out a long time ago.
>
> Thus, you too are a racist.
Wrong again, kid.
> Haven't you not noticed this?
>
> http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
>
> http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
>
> Why do you hate life? Apparently your racism knows no boundaries.
Your answer -
"I'll spread my sperm all over the world and worry about it later.
Just kill the baby, I don't want to hassle taking precautions. I'm a
lib and I have the right to kill because of my selfish mistakes and
drunken spur of the moment decisions!" - kT aka Lib
dolphs...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <b01acbae-1a2b-4a69-a161-14bb765a1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kT
Yep.
Libs love to play the race card in all discussions and they deal it
from the bottom of the deck.
dolphs...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 28, 9:55 pm, Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> will be identified genetically, and will be given the best
> opportunities to overcome their severe intellectual and emotional
> deficiencies, in order to succeed in a career in the trades, or
> perhaps manual labor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It isn't the rightard that spreads AIDS and kills the baby later
because the lib doesn't believe in God or the sanctity human life.
You're a sick, baby killer.
"Let's par-tay tonight and kill the baby tomorrow! They make a pill
for it now! Let's have sex like dogs and eat shit like pigs. We are
libs!" - kT
dolphs...@hotmail.com
Yup, libs like J Jackson and Al Sharpton make a living that way.
stfranc...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Conspirators
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Note: In an effort to reclaim the meaning of certain highly-charged
words, the word "defense" is replaced by the word "war" in all USG
department names, position titles, and policy boards; for instance,
"Secretary of Defense" is retitled "Secretary of War" to more
accurately reflect the true nature of the position.
1. George W. Bush -- eldest son of Bush crime family; guilty of
election fraud in 2000, 2004; guilty of war crimes, war profiteering,
treason, crimes against humanity; likely signed-off on 9-11 plot
2. Dick Cheney -- former PNAC member; former chairman of CFR; guilty
of war profiteering, treason; was in bunker on 9-11 directing several
"war games"; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about timing of 9-11
activities
3. Donald Rumsfeld -- former Secretary of War and PNAC member; close
friend of Cheney; was at Pentagon on 9-11; once slipped and said "when
that missile hit the Pentagon"
4. Paul Wolfowitz -- Deputy Secretary of War on 9-11; "dual citizen"
of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former
PNAC member; chief architect of Iraq war; forced to resign in World
Bank scandal
5. Richard Perle -- former assistant Secretary of War, chairman War
Policy Board, and PNAC member; "dual citizen" of US and Israel;
Zionist; allegedly gave $100,000 to head of Pakistan's ISI, Mahmoud
Ahmad; nicknamed "Prince of Darkness"
6. Douglas Feith -- effectively in command, with Wolfowitz, of War
Department on 9-11; Undersecretary of War for Policy; "dual citizen"
of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former
PNAC member
7. Dov Zakheim -- Pentagon comptroller when trillion dollars reported
missing on 9-10-01; "dual citizen" of US and Israel; Zionist; Shul
Rabbi; former CFR member; former CEO of fly-by-remote manufacturer;
reputed 9-11 mastermind
8. George Tenet -- director of the CIA on 9-11; was awarded the "Medal
of Freedom" by Bush for his fine work on 9-11; reported to be "dual
citizen" of US and Israel
9. Robert Mueller -- FBI director on 9-11; under his "leadership" FBI
field agents' warnings of an imminent attack were stifled
10. Thomas Pickard -- took over the job of FBI director from Louis
Freeh in August 2001; held this position only for a few weeks before
Richard Mueller became director; former Terror Task Force chief; John
O'Neill complained about sabotage by Pickard
11. Dale Watson -- former Deputy Chief of the CIA at the Counter-
Terrorist Center; appointed Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of the
National Security Division (NSD), FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC in
July 1998; appointed FBI Headquarters Assistant on December 6, 1999 by
the Attorney General; ignored at least four different FBI agents'
warnings including an "urgent cable" from the CIA on August 23rd about
Almihdhar and Alhazmi
12. Dave Frasca -- FBI Radical Fundamentalists Unit Chief; personally
scuttled the work of Kenneth Williams in July 2001 and Coleen Rowley
in August 2001, the Arizona and Minnesota FBI agents who were actively
investigating "terrorist" patsies in CIA-operated flight schools
13. Marion "Spike" Bowman -- FBI agent who thwarted FBI investigations
into both Zacarias Moussaoui and the anthrax attacks on Congress
14. John Ashcroft -- Attorney General on 9-11; protected "terrorist"
patsy Abdussattar Shaikh from subpoena after 9-11; stopped flying
commercial aircraft in 2001
15. Michael Chertoff -- Assistant Attorney General on 9-11; freed over
100 Israeli spies in the US after 9-11; promoted to head Homeland
Security; "dual citizen" of US and Israel; Zionist; likely Mossad
agent
16. Michael Mukasey -- federal judge in New York; presided over 1993
WTC bombing case; active in 9-11 cases, including Larry Silverstein's
insurance claims; oversaw the detained material witnesses of 9-11,
including five dancing Israeli Mossad agents apprehended by FBI;
recently appointed by Bush to be the next Attorney General; radical
Zionist of Russian Jewish parentage; "dual citizen" of US and Israel
17. Ted Olson -- Solicitor General of the United States on 9-11;
alleges that his wife, Barbara, phoned him from AA Flight 77 to report
that it was highjacked by men with knives and box cutters; Flight 77
allegedly crashed into the Pentagon though there was no wreckage of a
757 at the site, no bodies, no luggage, and the hole in the side of
the Pentagon was much too small to accommodate a 757 (Barbara is not
likely alive, but she was not killed at the Pentagon event)
18. Colin Powell -- Secretary of State on 9-11; met with General
Mahmoud Ahmad two days after 9-11; former chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; helped cover up Vietnam My Lai massacre
19. Condi Rice -- National Security Adviser on 9-11; promoted to
Secretary of State; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission while under oath
20. Tommy Thompson -- Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary; hired
Jerome Hauer, former Office of Emergency Center, on 9-10-01
21. Jerome Hauer -- managing director of Kroll and senior adviser to
US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for National Security
and Emergency Management on 9-11; put John O'Neill at the WTC on 9-11;
lied to Dan Rather on CBS News on 9-11 about the controlled demolition
of WTC buildings; director of Giuliani's Office of Emergency
Management from 1996 to 2000
22. Porter Goss -- former House Intelligence Chair; was meeting with
General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11 financier, on
9-11; promoted to Director of CIA, resigned after "hookergate"
23. Bob Graham -- former Florida Senator; was meeting with General
Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; ran
for President in 2004
24. Marc Grossman -- Under Secretary for Political Affairs on 9-11;
met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11
financier, on or shortly after 9-11; "dual citizen" of US and Israel
25. Richard Armitage -- former member of PNAC, Deputy Secretary of
State; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11
financier, shortly after 9-11
26. Philip Zelikow -- led the 9-11 Cover-Up Commission; personally
wrote the 9-11 Omission Commission Report, a best-selling work of
fiction; appointed Counselor of US Department of State; "dual citizen"
of US and Israel
27. Ari Fleischer -- White House spokesman for Bush on 9-11; "dual
citizen" of US and Israel; connected to the extremist group called the
Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics
28. Andrew Card -- Bush's Chief of Staff on 9-11; was with Bush at
Booker Elementary School in Florida on 9-11; claims to have whispered
to Bush, "A second plane hit the second tower, America is under
attack"
29. Karl Rove -- Bush's top strategist, known as "Bush's Brian";
America's Joseph Goebbels; was behind the campaign to oust Georgia
Representative Cynthia McKinney who was the first nationally-known
politician to question Bush's role in 9-11; in June 2005, said,
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared
for war, liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to
prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our
attackers"
30. Richard Meyers -- in charge of USA air defenses on 9-11; lied to
9-11 Omission Commission about reasons for air defense failure on
9-11; promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
31. Ralph Eberhardt -- NORAD Commander on 9-11; fanatical supporter of
missile defense scheme, militarization of space; enthusiastic
supporter of merging law enforcement and the military
32. Larry Arnold -- NORAD Commander Major General on 9-11; has used
9-11 to push militarization of USA
33. Eric Findley -- Canadian Air Force Major General; acting commander
of NORAD on 9-11
34. Montague Winfield -- Major General in charge of Pentagon war room
on 9-10-01, the evening of September 10th he requested a rookie to
stand in for him on 9-11
35. Richard Mies -- former Admiral; ran Global Guardian "war game" on
9-11 out of US Strategic Command (Stratcom) at Offutt Air Force Base;
now CEO of Hicks & Associates, a "strategic consultant" to the USG
dealing in "military transformation"
36. Henry Shelton -- Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9-11;
supported formation of Able Danger
37. Peter Schoomaker -- US Army Chief of Staff; former SOCOM (Special
Operations Command) chief; ran Able Danger
38. Geoffrey Lambert -- Major General; SOCOM (Special Operations
Command) Intel Chief; made Able Danger, the program that tracked patsy
"terrorists", off limits to FBI
39. John Brinkerhoff -- retired US Army Colonel who was a career
senior executive in the Office of Secretary of War; from 1981 to 1983,
FEMA associate director for national preparedness where he developed
plan for martial law; claims intentions of Posse Comitatus are
"misunderstood and misapplied", that USG has "full and absolute
authority" to use troops to quell American uprising; after 9-11,
joined Anser Institute for Homeland Security and wrote "talking
points" supporting revised "national security initiatives" that would
allow imposition of martial law
40. John Lehman -- Reagan's Navy Secretary from 1981 till 1987; claims
US is in religious war against "violent, Islamic Fundamentalism";
member 9-11 Omission Commission; PNAC member
41. Tony Gentry -- Army Intelligence and Security Command General
Counsel; ordered 2.5 terrabytes of Able Danger data destroyed
42. Philip Odeen -- as director of Program Analysis for the National
Security Council, provided staff support to Henry Kissinger from 1971
to 1973; served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of War in Systems
Analysis; named to chair the National War Panel in 1997; former
president of Reynolds and Reynolds; former CEO and president of BDM
International; executive vice president of Washington operations of
TRW
43. Elliot Abrams -- former member of PNAC, National Security Council;
pleaded guilty in 1991 to lying to Congress about Iran-Contra affair;
"dual citizen" of US and Israel; Zionist
44. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- former PNAC member; studied political
science at Yale under Paul Wolfowitz; aid to Cheney; convicted for
lying about outing of Valerie Plame; "dual citizen" of US and Israel;
Zionist
45. Jack Abramoff -- entertained USG "terrorist" patsy Mohammed Atta
on his yacht just before 9-11; convicted criminal lobbyist; ardent
Zionist
46. Jeb Bush -- Florida governor on 9-11; declared martial law in
Florida four days before 9-11; brother of George Bush; PNAC member;
guilty of election fraud in 2000
47. Rudolph Giuliani -- mayor of New York on 9-11; hailed as "hero"
for his "gutsy" leadership on 9-11; allegedly involved with FEMA and
former NYC Police Chief Kerik in Operation Code Angel
48. Bernard Kerik -- NYC Police Chief on 9-11; "sidekick" of Giuliani;
allegedly involved with FEMA in WTC demolition "war games" called
Operation Code Angel
49. Lewis Eisenberg -- chairman Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey on 9-11; authorized transfer of WTC leases to Silverstein and
Lowy just weeks before 9-11; later appointed chairman of Republican
National Committee; Zionist
50. Eliot Spitzer -- New York Attorney General on 9-11; barred his top
aide, Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell, from testifying to
Congress on Able Danger; threw out Karl Schwarz's 9-11 synopsis
51. Richard Holbrooke -- former US ambassador to UN; CFR member; co-
chaired "Independent Task Force on America's Response to Terrorism" in
which the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) was promoted
52. John Deutch -- former Undersecretary of War, director of CIA; co-
authored paper, "Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy" with
Zelikow, Ashton Carter; senior partner at Global Technology Partners,
an affiliate of Rothschild North America; MIT professor; grandson of
Yonah Fischer, Antwerp diamond merchant who ran Zionist Federation of
Belgium
53. Ashton Carter -- co-authored paper, "Catastrophic Terrorism: A
National Policy" with Zelikow and Deutch; senior partner at Global
Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America
54. Michael Ledeen -- became "anti-terrorism" advisor to Secretary of
State, Al Haig in 1981; contacts with mullahs in Iran-Contra affair;
alleged ties to Italian fascist P2 Masonic Lodge; contacts with Libby,
Cheney's Chief of Staff; top NeoCon(vict) advisor to Bush and Karl
Rove; member AEI (American Enterprise Institute); wrote book extolling
fascism
55. Abdussattar Shaikh -- FBI informant to the San Diego office;
helped bring "terrorist" patsies to USA; protected by Attorney General
Ashcroft
56. Abdullah Noman -- worked for the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia; filed 10-15 visas for the patsy 9-11 "hijackers" in the Visa
Express Program
57. Daniel Lewin -- officer in elite, secret unit of Israeli military
called "Sayeret Matkal"; orchestrated activities of Mossad agents in
USA before 9-11; was allegedly stabbed or "shot" by highjacker Satam
al-Suqami before AA flight 11 crashed into the WTC
58. Dominic Suter -- Mossad agent; his front company, Urban Moving
Systems, employed the five Mossad agents caught celebrating in New
York on 9-11
59. Sivan Kurzberg -- driver of van belonging to the celebrating
Israelis; when stopped by police on 9-11, he said "We are Israelis.
We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The
Palestinians are your problem"
60. John Gross -- one of the lead engineers for the flawed NIST report
on why the WTC buildings collapsed; denies existence of molten steel
at the WTC
61. Theresa McAllister -- edited the flawed NIST report on why the WTC
buildings collapsed
62. Ronald Hamburger -- structural engineer and Senior Principal at
Simpson Gumpertz and Heger consulting engineers in San Francisco; was
a principal author of FEMA's initial report on the collapse of the
twin towers; later a key participant in the flawed NIST report on why
the WTC buildings collapsed
63. William Baker -- member of FEMA Probe Team; partner with Skidmore,
Owings, Merrill; contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC
buildings collapsed
64. Harold Nelson -- contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the
WTC buildings collapsed
65. Ramon Gilsanz -- contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the
WTC buildings collapsed
66. Shankar Nair -- contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the
WTC buildings collapsed; quoted in Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001
that "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events
that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center"
67. Gene Corley -- led FEMA/ASCE WTC collapse "investigation"; was the
principle investigator for ASCE and FEMA of the 1995 bombing of the
Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City
68. Paul Mlakar -- part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and
Murrah Federal building attacks
69. Mete Sozen -- part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and
Murrah Federal building attacks
70. Charles Thornton -- partner of Richard Tomasetti; told Karl Koch,
whose company erected the WTC steel, "Karl, we all know what caused
the collapse"; part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah
Federal building attacks
71. Richard Tomasetti -- partner of Charles Thornton; reportedly
behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy
most of the WTC steel evidence
72. Victor Ganzi -- president and CEO of Hearst Corporation since June
1, 2002; the Hearst publication, Popular Mechanics, has repeatedly
tried to debunk the truth of 9-11
73. Benjamin Chertoff -- 25-year-old cousin of Michael Chertoff;
senior "researcher" for Popular Mechanics' hit piece on 9-11 Truth
Movement
74. Kevin Delaney -- FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic
Control Center who destroyed controllers' tapes of 9-11
75. Marvin Bush -- brother of George Bush; on board of Securacom, US-
Kuwaiti company paid $9.2 million to manage WTC security October 1996
to 1998; on board of HCC Insurance, big WTC insurer
76. Wirt Walker -- cousin of George Bush; principal at Securacom, US-
Kuwaiti joint-venture that managed security for WTC, United Airlines,
and Dulles Airport, all of which figured into 9-11
77. Larry Silverstein -- he and partner Frank Lowy obtained 99-year
lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; made several billion dollars on 9-11
insurance fraud; admitted to "pulling" WTC 7; Zionist
78. Frank Lowy -- he and partner Larry Silverstein obtained 99-year
lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; came to Palestine in 1945 from
Hungarian to fight as Golani commando in Israeli "War of
Independence"; Australia's second richest person; in May 2007,
investigated by Israeli police for corruption scandal involving
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; Zionist
79. David Rockefeller -- vice director of the Council on Foreign
Relations (1949-1985), vice president (1950-1970), and chairman
(1970-1985); as chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association
(1958 to 1975) was primary builder of WTC complex; founder and
honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission; president or CEO of
Chase Manhattan Bank, 1961 to 1981; 9-11 was the anniversary of 1973
CIA-sponsored coup plotted by David Rockefeller's cabal and overseen
by Nelson's protégé Henry Kissinger that toppled Chile's President
Salvadore Allende
80. Nicholas Rockefeller -- told film-maker Aaron Russo of coming
catastrophic event eleven months before 9-11
81. Warren Buffett -- was hosting golf charity event at the US
Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha on
9-11 (Bush flew to Offutt afternoon of 9-11); world's second richest
person
82. Rupert Murdoch -- key player in Zionist-controlled corporate media
which began the 9-11 cover-up on day one; connected to individuals who
privatized and leased WTC just weeks before 9-11; vocal supporter of
Zionist extremists Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon; honored by
leading Zionist organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
and the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), in which Silverstein, Lowy, and
Eisenberg all hold senior positions; Zionist who tries to hide his
Jewish heritage
83. Maurice Greenberg -- CEO of American International Group (AIG) on
9-11 which became co-owner of the "private spy agency", Kroll
Associates, in 1993 and was a major share-holder in Marsh & McClennan
whose CEO on 9-11 was Maurice's son Jeffrey; director of the New York
Federal Reserve bank (1988-1995); deputy chairman of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1996; major investor in the Blackstone
Group
84. Jules Kroll -- founder of Kroll Corporation, a "security services"
company which was in charge of "security" at WTC on 9-11; has close
links to CIA and is active private military contractor in Iraq;
Zionist
85. Paul Bremer -- Marsh & McClennan executive on 9-11; Chairman of
the Congressional National Commission on Terrorism, 1999 to 2000; US
Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, 1986 to 1989; Presidential
Envoy to Irag and Adminstrator of the Coaltion Provisional Authority,
May 2003 to December 2004
86. Wallace Hilliard -- with Saudi investors including Shiek Kamal
Adham, Adnan Khashoggi, and Prince Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz. bought
Venice, Florida Huffman Aviation in 1999 where Mohammed Atta and other
alleged 9-11 highjackers allegedly learned to fly; flight school
linked to CIA firm
87. Peter Peterson -- CEO of the Blackstone Group, parent corporation
of one of three lease-holders for WTC 7 on 9-11; also chairman of the
CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9-11; CEO of the
Institute for International Economics in October 2000
88. A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard -- now number three executive director at
the CIA; until 1998, managed firm used to place "put options" on
United Airlines which has left $2.5 million in "profits" unclaimed
89. Mark Loizeaux -- as CEO of CDI was instrumental in "recycling"
steel from WTC crime scene; CDI also buried the rubble from the crime
scene of the Murrah Federal Building
90. Loring Knoblauch -- CEO of Underwriters Labs; said that jet fuel
fires were not "reasonably foreseeable"; resigned suddenly in August
2004 after UL performed tests of WTC floor models where floors did not
collapse and were barely affected
91. Michael Cherkasky -- CEO of Kroll on 9-11; former investigator in
the Manhattan DA's Office from 1978 to 1994; now CEO of insurance-firm
Marsh & McClennan
92. Frank Carlucci -- former Secretary of War; affiliated with PNAC;
served as chairman of the Carlyle Group (1992-2003); on BoD of BDM
International
93. William Kristol -- PNAC co-founder; adherent of Leo Strauss;
editor of The Weekly Standard; strong advocate of the Iraq war; "dual
citizen" of US and Israel; Zionist
94. William Perry -- former Secretary of War; associated with the
Rothschild's banking empire through Global Technology, a Rothschild
affiliate
95. James Woolsey -- former CIA director; PNAC member; claims
"incompetence" was reason for 9-11
96. Newt Gingrich -- former Speaker of the House; PNAC member; reputed
to be a member of the CFR; served on the Pentagon's War Policy Board
97. Henry Kissinger -- long criminal history; wanted for war crimes in
several countries; sat on War Policy Board under Perle; chosen to lead
9-11 Cover-Up Omission Commission; "dual citizen" of US and Israel
98. George H.W. Bush -- Bush crime family Don; Skull and Bones; CIA
operative involved in JFK assassination; former head of CIA; son of
friend shot Reagan when he was VP; war profiteer
99. Tony Blair -- British Prime Minister on 9-11; ally and partner in
crime of George Bush; London
George Graves
(in article
<120fea2e-7457-42ee...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
People are so stupid. I see people on this very NG day-in and day-out who
would never let anything that could even be remotely construed as a racist
comment pass their lips (or the keys on their keyboard) while simultaneously
making fun of people who are overweight or making homophobic remarks. What
makes them stupid is that their "anti-racism" is "received" behavior, in
other words they've been told that racism is BAD but they haven't sense
enough to know that anti-gay sentiment or epithets against obese people is
the SAME THING! They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. They're too dumb to
make the connection themselves that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have. I don't care
about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
George Graves
(in article
<a72d80b3-279a-4b71...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> On Apr 28, 10:21 pm, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 7:06ï¿œpm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> by Nelson's protégé Henry Kissinger that toppled Chile's President
Wow, How did John McCain miss this list. After all, he's a Republican.
ed
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:06:39 -0700, ed wrote
> (in article
not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. They're too dumb to
> make the connection themselves
no george, you have it ass backwards. people don't need to be told
it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
taught to BE racist. kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
believe about 'everyone'.
> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
you're ok with it. and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? maybe
you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? :D
Snit
28d5877b-5b30-4159...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 4/28/08
11:34 PM:
>> People are so stupid. I see people on this very NG day-in and day-out who
>> would never let anything that could even be remotely construed as a racist
>> comment pass their lips (or the keys on their keyboard) while simultaneously
>> making fun of people who are overweight or making homophobic remarks. What
>> makes them stupid is that their "anti-racism" is "received" behavior, in
>> other words they've been told that racism is BAD but they haven't sense
>> enough to know that anti-gay sentiment or epithets against obese people is
>> the SAME THING!
>
> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
Obesity is not "absolutely the result of behavior".
>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. They're too dumb to
>> make the connection themselves
>
> no george, you have it ass backwards. people don't need to be told
> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> taught to BE racist. kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
>> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
>> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
>> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>
> sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
> believe about 'everyone'.
Ditty here.
>> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
>
> i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
> you're ok with it. and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
> before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? maybe
> you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? :D
>
>> I don't care
>> about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
>> cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
>> don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
You are, without a doubt, a bigot.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Dave Moore
Neandercon Bull Shit (NBS) Electronics fer ta
do some turd polishin
http://www.soundergy.com/sleazyrider
dolphs...@hotmail.com
Uhm, I'd stick to the cat urine sniffing, because your art skills
suck, little man.
I thought you "poofed"?
Guess not. LOL
Every bit as scared and phony as your Roth Ladoad (RS) sock.
Dave Moore
On Apr 29, 2:48?am, "Dave Moore" <sock_...@anystate.com> wrote:
> Whittakre busted doing bikepainter on the way to
> Neandercon Bull Shit (NBS) Electronics fer ta
> do some turd polishin
>
> http://www.soundergy.com/sleazyrider
<dolphs...@hotmail.com> wrote
Uhm, I'd stick to the cat urine sniffing,
do what u like, just don't tell me about it
McAsswhiffer,,,, is it you?
...because your art skills
suck, little man.
well,, at least you have your cat urine sniffing
Dave Moore
Lord Valve
> On Apr 28, 9:55 pm, Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b01acbae-1a2b-4a69-a161-14bb765a1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kT
> Rightards have severe genetic deformities. In the future rightards
> will be identified genetically, and will be given the best
> opportunities to overcome their severe intellectual and emotional
> deficiencies, in order to succeed in a career in the trades, or
> perhaps manual labor.
The untermenschen argument. How quaint. Must be a leftoid...
Lord Valve
Founder, HARM (Heavily Armed Rightwing Maniacs)
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 28d5877b-5b30-4159-81de-7f995a985...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 4/28/08
> 11:34 PM:
>
> >> People are so stupid. I see people on this very NG day-in and day-out who
> >> would never let anything that could even be remotely construed as a racist
> >> comment pass their lips (or the keys on their keyboard) while simultaneously
> >> making fun of people who are overweight or making homophobic remarks. What
> >> makes them stupid is that their "anti-racism" is "received" behavior, in
> >> other words they've been told that racism is BAD but they haven't sense
> >> enough to know that anti-gay sentiment or epithets against obese people is
> >> the SAME THING!
>
> > not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
> > behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>
> Obesity is not "absolutely the result of behavior".
actually, it is. even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
lose weight. you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
person ate less, they'd weigh less. :P
> >> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> >> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb to
> >> make the connection themselves
>
> > no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
> > it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> > taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> > don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>
> It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
sure, and extreme ethnocentrism can become racism, but ethnocentrism
itself is different than racism.
Snit
9:31 AM:
> On Apr 28, 11:53Â pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
>> 28d5877b-5b30-4159-81de-7f995a985...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 4/28/08
>> 11:34 PM:
>>
>>>> People are so stupid. I see people on this very NG day-in and day-out who
>>>> would never let anything that could even be remotely construed as a racist
>>>> comment pass their lips (or the keys on their keyboard) while
>>>> simultaneously
>>>> making fun of people who are overweight or making homophobic remarks. What
>>>> makes them stupid is that their "anti-racism" is "received" behavior, in
>>>> other words they've been told that racism is BAD but they haven't sense
>>>> enough to know that anti-gay sentiment or epithets against obese people is
>>>> the SAME THING!
>>
>>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
>>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>>
>> Obesity is not "absolutely the result of behavior".
>
> actually, it is. even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
> lose weight. you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
> things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
> stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
> person ate less, they'd weigh less. :P
And possibly have other health issues. Heck, a person can die their skin
color as well... so is skin color a choice of behavior in your view?
>>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb
>>>> to
>>>> make the connection themselves
>>
>>> no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
>>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
>>> taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
>>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>>
>> It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
>
> sure, and extreme ethnocentrism can become racism, but ethnocentrism
> itself is different than racism.
Most cultures, I would say, have racism as well.
>>>> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
>>>> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
>>>> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>>
>>> sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
>>> believe about 'everyone'.
>>
>> Ditty here.
>>
>>>> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
>>
>>> i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
>>> you're ok with it. Â and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
>>> before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? Â maybe
>>> you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? Â :D
>>
>>>> I don't care
>>>> about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
>>>> cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
>>>> don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
>>
>> You are, without a doubt, a bigot.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And they could possibly win the lotto, too.
> Heck, a person can die their skin
> color as well... so is skin color a choice of behavior in your view?
No amount of politically correct BS by you or any other ultraliberal
kook can get around the fact that overeating and a lack of exercise has
caused the recent rise in exogenous obesity in (at least) this country.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Snit
trollkiller-B8E3...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/29/08 10:13
AM:
You sure do follow me around a lot making up claims for me.
Why?
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 9:31 AM:
> > On Apr 28, 11:53Â pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> >> 28d5877b-5b30-4159-81de-7f995a985...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 4/28/08
> >> 11:34 PM:
>
> >>>> People are so stupid. I see people on this very NG day-in and day-out who
> >>>> would never let anything that could even be remotely construed as a racist
> >>>> comment pass their lips (or the keys on their keyboard) while
> >>>> simultaneously
> >>>> making fun of people who are overweight or making homophobic remarks. What
> >>>> makes them stupid is that their "anti-racism" is "received" behavior, in
> >>>> other words they've been told that racism is BAD but they haven't sense
> >>>> enough to know that anti-gay sentiment or epithets against obese people is
> >>>> the SAME THING!
>
> >>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
> >>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>
> >> Obesity is not "absolutely the result of behavior".
>
> > actually, it is. Â even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
> > lose weight. Â you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
> > things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
> > stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
> > person ate less, they'd weigh less. Â :P
>
> And possibly have other health issues. Â
*sigh*- is this one of your nitpicky semantic games? sure, it's
*possible*, especially if they lose weight in a really dumb way, ok?
but we're obviously talking in broad, general terms here.
> Heck, a person can die their skin
> color as well... so is skin color a choice of behavior in your view?
do you REALLY think that's an analagous situation?
> >>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> >>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb
> >>>> to
> >>>> make the connection themselves
>
> >>> no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
> >>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> >>> taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> >>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>
> >> It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
>
> > sure, and extreme ethnocentrism can become racism, but ethnocentrism
> > itself is different than racism.
>
> Most cultures, I would say, have racism as well.
cultures have racism (as in, racism is part of the culture), or there
are members of most cultures that are racist? the first, i disagree
with. the second, sure, i don't think anyone would argue that, and
it's such a general statement (hey, people are different and have
differnt views!) i'm not sure what it's meant to add...
Snit
10:20 AM:
>>> actually, it is. ?even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
>>> lose weight. ?you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
>>> things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
>>> stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
>>> person ate less, they'd weigh less. ?:P
>>
>> And possibly have other health issues. ?
>
> *sigh*- is this one of your nitpicky semantic games? sure, it's
> *possible*, especially if they lose weight in a really dumb way, ok?
> but we're obviously talking in broad, general terms here.
You are pushing the myth that obesity is always (or, if you prefer your
"softer" position, merely darn near always) the result of behavior of the
obese person... and this is simply not the case.
With - literally - seconds of Googling:
<http://www.obesityinamerica.org/causes.html>
-----
Weight gain and obesity are caused by consuming more calories
than the body needs  most commonly by eating a diet high in
fat and calories, being sedentary or both. However, the
imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned can
also be caused by a number of different obesity-related
factors, including genetic, hormonal, behavioral,
environmental and even cultural. It is important to remember
that obesity is not always simply a behavioral issue.
-----
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19826505.100-single-virus-gene
-may-cause-obesity.html>
-----
If obesity seems to be spreading like a virus, that could be
because it is. We're now closer to understanding how
adenovirus-36 (Ad-36), thought to be responsible for some
cases of obesity, causes fat cells to grow.
-----
<http://www.stvincent.org/ourservices/bariatrics/about/causes/default.htm>
-----
Being seriously overweight is not caused by one single
factor. There are a number of things that may interact and
contribute to one becoming morbidly obese. That's why
St.Vincent Carmel provides a complete range of services to
address all these factors. These include:
? Genetics
? Culture
? Physical inactivity
? Emotional or psychological factors
? Gender
? Age
? High-fat / High Calorie diet
? Medical problems
-----
Discounting behavior as a cause of obesity would be absurd... but it is also
absurd to say that it is the only reason.
>> Heck, a person can die their skin
>> color as well... so is skin color a choice of behavior in your view?
>
> do you REALLY think that's an analagous situation?
Nope. Nor did I say they were... I used that example to show the flaw in
your logic.
>>>>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>>>>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. ?They're too
>>>>>> dumb
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make the connection themselves
>>
>>>>> no george, you have it ass backwards. ?people don't need to be told
>>>>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
>>>>> taught to BE racist. ?kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
>>>>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>>
>>>> It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
>>
>>> sure, and extreme ethnocentrism can become racism, but ethnocentrism
>>> itself is different than racism.
>>
>> Most cultures, I would say, have racism as well.
>
> cultures have racism (as in, racism is part of the culture), or there
> are members of most cultures that are racist? the first, i disagree
> with. the second, sure, i don't think anyone would argue that, and
> it's such a general statement (hey, people are different and have
> differnt views!) i'm not sure what it's meant to add...
The idea is that racism is very, very common and seen in darn near all
cultures - there does seem to be a built in tendency in humans to be racist
(which is not to say all humans are racist!)
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The claim here is true... anyone can see you entered PC mode and spewed
some BS. Obesity, as the rising epidemic it has now become, most
certainly is the result of behavior. Go ahead and claim you didn't fully
understand what ed wrote... that's at least a believable scenario;)
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 10:20 AM:
>
> >>> actually, it is. ?even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
> >>> lose weight. ?you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
> >>> things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
> >>> stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
> >>> person ate less, they'd weigh less. ?:P
>
> >> And possibly have other health issues. ?
>
> > *sigh*- is this one of your nitpicky semantic games? Â sure, it's
> > *possible*, especially if they lose weight in a really dumb way, ok?
> > but we're obviously talking in broad, general terms here.
>
> You are pushing the myth that obesity is always (or, if you prefer your
> "softer" position, merely darn near always) the result of behavior of the
> obese person...
it's not a myth... see below...
> and this is simply not the case.
>
> With - literally - seconds of Googling:
>
> <http://www.obesityinamerica.org/causes.html>
> Â Â -----
> Â Â Weight gain and obesity are caused by consuming more calories
>   than the body needs  most commonly by eating a diet high in
> Â Â fat and calories, being sedentary or both.
oh, look at that, "caused by consuming more calories than the body
needs...", and "most commonly by eating a diet high in fat and
calories, being sedentary or both".
that's not "result of behavior of the obese person"?
> However, the
> Â Â imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned can
> Â Â also be caused by a number of different obesity-related
> Â Â factors, including genetic, hormonal, behavioral,
> Â Â environmental and even cultural. It is important to remember
> Â Â that obesity is not always simply a behavioral issue.
no, 'not always'. i already stated we're talking in general terms,
eh?
> <http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19826505.100-single-viru...
> -may-cause-obesity.html>
> Â Â -----
> Â Â If obesity seems to be spreading like a virus, that could be
> Â Â because it is. We're now closer to understanding how
> Â Â adenovirus-36 (Ad-36), thought to be responsible for some
> Â Â cases of obesity, causes fat cells to grow.
> Â Â -----
yes, maybe for "some" cases.
> <http://www.stvincent.org/ourservices/bariatrics/about/causes/default.htm>
> Â Â -----
> Â Â Being seriously overweight is not caused by one single
> Â Â factor. There are a number of things that may interact and
> Â Â contribute to one becoming morbidly obese. That's why
> Â Â St.Vincent Carmel provides a complete range of services to
> Â Â address all these factors. These include:
> Â Â ? Â Â Genetics
> Â Â ? Â Â Culture
> Â Â ? Â Â Physical inactivity
> Â Â ? Â Â Emotional or psychological factors
> Â Â ? Â Â Gender
> Â Â ? Â Â Age
> Â Â ? Â Â High-fat / High Calorie diet
> Â Â ? Â Â Medical problems
>
> Discounting behavior as a cause of obesity would be absurd... but it is also
> absurd to say that it is the only reason.
genetics, culture, medical conditions, etc, may make you more likely
to be obese, but is it even possible to be obese without taking in
more calories than you expend? i can contrive a couple situations
where you may be required to take in a lot more calories than you
need, but they are extreme outliers.
> >> Heck, a person can die their skin
> >> color as well... so is skin color a choice of behavior in your view?
>
> > do you REALLY think that's an analagous situation?
>
> Nope. Â Nor did I say they were... I used that example to show the flaw in
> your logic.
it would show that if it were analagous, but since it's not... :P
> >>>>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> >>>>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. ?They're too
> >>>>>> dumb
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> make the connection themselves
>
> >>>>> no george, you have it ass backwards. ?people don't need to be told
> >>>>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> >>>>> taught to BE racist. ?kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> >>>>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>
> >>>> It does seem, however, that ethnocentrism is seen in almost all cultures...
>
> >>> sure, and extreme ethnocentrism can become racism, but ethnocentrism
> >>> itself is different than racism.
>
> >> Most cultures, I would say, have racism as well.
>
> > cultures have racism (as in, racism is part of the culture), or there
> > are members of most cultures that are racist? Â the first, i disagree
> > with. Â the second, sure, i don't think anyone would argue that, and
> > it's such a general statement (hey, people are different and have
> > differnt views!) i'm not sure what it's meant to add...
>
> The idea is that racism is very, very common and seen in darn near all
> cultures - there does seem to be a built in tendency in humans to be racist
> (which is not to say all humans are racist!)
you didn't answer the question, so you haven't clarified your comment
(the reason i asked the question), so...
Tao
> Lord Valve
> Founder, HARM (Heavily Armed Rightwing Maniacs)
>
>
BLESSING OF HOLY WATER OUTSIDE MASS
On the basis of age-old custom, water is one of the signs that the
Church often uses in blessing the faithful. Holy water reminds the
faithful of Christ, who is given to us as the supreme divine blessing,
who called himself the living water, and who, with water, established
Baptism for our sake as the sacramental sign of the blessing that brings
salvation.
The blessing of holy water usually takes place on Sunday, in keeping
with the rite given in the Sacramentary. But when the blessing of water
takes place outside Mass, the rite given here may be used by the priest
or deacon. While maintaining the structure and chief elements of the
rite, the celebrant should adapt the celebration to the circumstances of
the place and the people involved.
ORDER OF BLESSING
Introductory Rites
The celebrant begins with these words:
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
All make the Sign of the Cross and reply:
Amen.
The celebrant greets those present, using the following or other
suitable words, taken mainly from Sacred Scripture:
May God, who through water and the Holy Spirit has given us a new birth
in Christ, be with you all.
All make the following or some other suitable reply:
And also with you.
As circumstances suggest, the celebrant may prepare those present for
the blessing in the following or similar words:
The blessing of this water reminds us of Christ, the living water, and
of the sacrament of Baptism, in which we were born of water and the Holy
Spirit. Whenever, therefore, we are sprinkled with this holy water or
use it in blessing ourselves upon entering the church or at home, we
thank God for his priceless gift to us and we ask for his help to keep
us faithful to the sacrament we have received in faith.
Reading of the Word of God
A reader, another person present or the celebrant reads a short text of
sacred Scripture, such as the following:
Listen to the words of the holy gospel according to John: 7:37-39
Let anyone who is thirsty come to me.
On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed,
"Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as
Scripture says: 'Rivers of living water will flow from within him.'"
He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe
in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because
Jesus had not yet been glorified.
The reader concludes:
The gospel of the Lord.
All respond:
Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.
Alternative Readings:
You will draw water joyfully from the springs of salvation. Isaiah 12:1Â6
Oh, come to the water, all you who are thirsty. Isaiah 55:1Â11
She will give him the water of wisdom to drink. Sirach 15:1Â6
Jesus Christ came by water and blood. 1 John 5:1Â6
The Lamb will lead them to the springs of living water. Revelation 7:13Â17
The river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:1Â5
You, too, are clean. John 13:3Â15
Prayer of Blessing
After the reading, the celebrant says:
Let us pray.
All pray briefly in silence; then, with hands out-stretched, the
celebrant says the prayer of blessing:
Blessed are you, Lord, all powerful God, who in Christ, the living water
of salvation, blessed and transformed us. Grant that when we are
sprinkled with this water or make use of it, we will be refreshed
inwardly by the power of the Holy Spirit and continue to walk in the new
life we received at Baptism.
We ask this though Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.
or
Lord, holy Father, look with kindness on your children redeemed by your
Son and born to a new life by water and the Holy Spirit. Grant that
those who are sprinkled with this water may be renewed in body and
spirit and may make a pure offering of their service to you. We ask this
through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.
or the celebrant says:
O God, the Creator of all things, by water and the Holy Spirit you have
given the universe its beauty and fashioned us in your own image.
R. Bless and purify your Church.
O Christ the Lord, from your pierced side you gave us your sacraments as
fountains of salvation.
R. Bless and purify your Church.
O Holy Spirit, giver of life, from the baptismal font of the Church you
have formed us into a new creation in the waters of rebirth.
R. Bless and purify your Church.
After the prayer of blessing, the celebrant sprinkles those present with
holy water, as a suitable song is sung; as circumstances suggest, he may
first say the following words:
Let this water call to mind our Baptism into Christ, who has redeemed us
by his death and resurrection.
R. Amen.
RITE FOR PROVIDING HOLY WATER (Catholic)
Some minor changes have been made in this rite, such as the omission of
certain words, putting salt into the water only once, and the use of the
short conclusion for the orations (see "Ephemerides Liturgicae" 75
[1961] 426). The holy-water font is a counterpart of the baptismal font;
and the sacramental use of holy water is related to the great sacrament
of water, baptism. Easter is the day par excellence for baptism, and
every Sunday is a little Easter. Consequently, on the Lord's day the
Church blesses water to be used in the ceremony of renewal of baptism,
for as often as she sprinkles us with the blessed water a sign is given
us of that sacrament which once bestowed the gift of life. The rubrics
direct that the water may be blessed either in the church proper or in
the sacristy. For the edification of the people it might be well to
perform this blessing in the sight of the people, at least occasionally.
The practice of putting salt into the water comes no doubt from the
incident of the miraculous cure of the poisonous well (see 4 Kings
2.19-21), where the prophet Eliseus used salt to purify the water of the
well.
1. On Sundays, or whenever this blessing takes place, salt and fresh
water are prepared in the church or in the sacristy. The priest, vested
in surplice and purple stole, says:
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
2. The exorcism of salt follows:
God's creature, salt, I cast out the demon from you by the living + God,
by the true + God, by the holy + God, by God who ordered you to be
thrown into the water-spring by Eliseus to heal it of its barrenness.
May you be a purified salt, a means of health for those who believe, a
medicine for body and soul for all who make use of you. May all evil
fancies of the foul fiend, his malice and cunning, be driven afar from
the place where you are sprinkled. And let every unclean spirit be
repulsed by Him who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and
the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
Almighty everlasting God, we humbly appeal to your mercy and goodness to
graciously bless + this creature, salt, which you have given for
mankind's use. May all who use it find in it a remedy for body and mind.
And may everything that it touches or sprinkles be freed from
uncleanness and any influence of the evil spirit; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
Exorcism of the water:
God's creature, water, I cast out the demon from you in the name of God
+ the Father almighty, in the name of Jesus + Christ, His Son, our Lord,
and in the power of the Holy + Spirit. May you be a purified water,
empowered to drive afar all power of the enemy, in fact, to root out and
banish the enemy himself, along with his fallen angels. We ask this
through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming to judge both
the living and the dead and the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
O God, who for man's welfare established the most wonderful mysteries in
the substance of water, hearken to our prayer, and pour forth your
blessing + on this element now being prepared with various purifying
rites. May this creature of yours, when used in your mysteries and
endowed with your grace, serve to cast out demons and to banish disease.
May everything that this water sprinkles in the homes and gatherings of
the faithful be delivered from all that is unclean and hurtful; let no
breath of contagion hover there, no taint of corruption; let all the
wiles of the lurking enemy come to nothing. By the sprinkling of this
water may everything opposed to the safety and peace of the occupants of
these homes be banished, so that in calling on your holy name they may
know the well-being they desire, and be protected from every peril;
through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
3. Now the priest pours the salt into the water in the form of a cross,
saying:
May this salt and water be mixed together; in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.
Let us pray.
God, source of irresistible might and king of an invincible realm, the
ever-glorious conqueror; who restrain the force of the adversary,
silencing the uproar of his rage, and valiantly subduing his wickedness;
in awe and humility we beg you, Lord, to regard with favor this creature
thing of salt and water, to let the light of your kindness shine upon
it, and to hallow it with the dew of your mercy; so that wherever it is
sprinkled and your holy name is invoked, every assault of the unclean
spirit may be baffled, and all dread of the serpent's venom be cast out.
To us who entreat your mercy grant that the Holy Spirit may be with us
wherever we may be; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
4. On Sundays after the water is blessed and before Mass begins the
celebrant sprinkles the altar, himself, the ministers, and the people as
prescribed in the Missal and in the ceremony of the Ritual given below.
5. Christ's faithful are permitted to take holy water home with them to
sprinkle the sick, their homes, fields, vineyards, and the like. It is
recommended too that they put it in fonts in the various rooms, so that
they may use it to bless themselves daily and frequently.
Rites Of Exorcism, Prayers Of Exorcism
EXORCISM
I cast out you noxious vermin, by God + the Father almighty, by Jesus +
Christ, His only-begotten Son, and by the Holy + Spirit. May you
speedily be banished from our land and fields, lingering here no longer,
but passing on to places where you can do no harm. In the name of the
almighty God and the entire heavenly court, as well as in the name of
the holy Church of God, we pronounce a curse on you, that wherever you
go you may be cursed, decreasing from day to day until you are
obliterated. Let no remnant of you remain anywhere, except what might be
necessary for the welfare and use of mankind. Be pleased to grant our
request, you who are coming to judge both the living and the dead and
the world by fire.
All: Amen.
The places infested are sprinkled with holy water.
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN EXORCISM LITURGY (fourth c. CE, Greek and Coptic text)
Formula for exorcism:
Preparations
Use seven olive branches. Tie the ends of six of them together [into
loops?] Use the remaining one as a whip during the procedure. This
procedure is known to be effective, and should not be made public.
Liturgy to be recited over William Whitikre
Put the branches in front of him and, standing behind him recite:
Hail God of Abraham!
Hail God of Isaac!
Hail God of Jacob!
Jesus the righteous
Holy Spirit
Son of the Father,
below the seven
within the seven
Come Yao Sabaoth!
Direct your power to William Whitikre. Drive Satan, this unclean demon
within him, away I command you, demon, whoever you may be, by the power
of Sabarbarbathioth
Sabarbarbathiouth
Sabarbarbathioneth
Sabarbarbaphai
Come out, demon, whoever you may be Stay away from William Whitikre
Quickly! Now! Come out, demon! I bind you with unbreakable chains of
adamantine! I cast you into the abyss of Hell!
After The Exorcism
After the demon is cast out, hang tin amulet on the sufferer with
following written on it:
Bor phor phorba phor phorba bes charin baubo te phor borphorba phorbabor
baphorba pharbraie phorba pharba phorphor phorba bophor phorba phorphor
phorba boborborba pamphorba phorphor phorba. Protect (Patient's Name)
On another amulet put the mark S
PRAYER OF EXORCISM
The following is a simple exorcism prayer that can be said by priests or
laity. The term "exorcism" does NOT always denote a solemn exorcism
involving a person possessed by the devil. In general, the term denotes
prayers to "curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing
harm." As St. Peter had written in Holy Scripture, "your adversary the
devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour."
(I.St.Peter V. 8)
PRAYER AGAINST SATAN AND THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS - Published by Order of
H.H. Pope Leo XIII
The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible,
as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from
doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same
purpose, as any approved prayer Its use is recommended whenever action
of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations
and even storms and various calamities. It could be used as a solemn
exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin), to expel the
devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church and
only with a Bishop's permission.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel
Most glorious Prince of the Heavenly Armies, Saint Michael the
Archangel, defend us in "our battle against principalities and powers,
against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the spirits of
wickedness in the high places" (Eph., VI,12). Come to the assistance of
men whom God has created to His likeness and whom He has redeemed at a
great price from the tyranny of the devil. Holy Church venerates thee as
her guardian and protector; to thee, the Lord has entrusted the souls of
the redeemed to be led into heaven. Pray therefore the God of Peace to
crush Satan beneath our feet, that he may no longer retain men captive
and do injury to the Church. Offer our prayers to the Most High, that
without delay they may draw His mercy down upon us; take hold of "the
dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan", bind him that he
may no longer seduce the nations" (Apoc. XX,2).
EXORCISM
In the Name of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, strengthened by the
intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Blessed
Michael the Archangel, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and all
the Saints. (and powerful in the holy authority of our ministry)*, we
confidently undertake to repulse the attacks and deceits of the devil.
* Lay people omit the parenthesis above.
Psalm 67
God arises; His enemies are scattered and those who hate Him flee before
Him.
As smoke is driven away, so are they driven; as wax melts before the
fire, so the wicked perish at the presence of God.
V. Behold the Cross of the Lord, flee bands of enemies.
R. He has conquered, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the offspring of David.
V. May thy mercy, Lord, descend upon us.
R. As great as our hope in Thee.
[The crosses below indicate a blessing to be given if a priest recites
the Exorcism; if a lay person recites it, they indicate the Sign of the
Cross to be made silently by that person.]
We drive you from us, whoever you may be, unclean spirits, all satanic
powers, all infernal invaders, all wicked legions, assemblies and sects;
in the Name and by the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, + may you be
snatched away and driven from the Church of God and from the souls made
to the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the Precious Blood of
the Divine Lamb. + Most cunning serpent, you shall no more dare to
deceive the human race, persecute the Church, torment God's elect and
sift them as wheat.+ The Most High God commands you,+ He with whom, in
your great insolence, you still claim to be equal; "He who wants all men
to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim., II,4).
God the Father commands you. + God the Son commands you. + God the Holy
Ghost commands you. + Christ, God's Word made flesh, commands you; + He
who to save our race outdone through your envy, "humbled Himself,
becoming obedient even unto death" (Phil.,II,8); He who has built His
Church on the firm rock and declared that the gates of hell shall not
prevail against Her, because He will dwell with Her "all days even to
the end of the world" (Mat., XXVIII, 20). The sacred Sign of the Cross
commands you, + as does also the power of the mysteries of the Christian
Faith. + The glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands you. +
The blood of the Martyrs and the pious intercession of all the Saints
command you. +
Thus, cursed dragon, and you, diabolical legions, we adjure you by the
living God, + by the true the holy God, + by the God "who so loved the
world that He gave up His only Son, that every soul believing in Him
might not perish but have life everlasting" (St.John, III); stop
deceiving human creatures and pouring out to them the poison of eternal
damnation; stop harming the Church and hindering her liberty. Begone,
Satan, inventor and master of all deceit, enemy of man's salvation. Give
place to Christ in whom you have found none of your works; give place to
the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church acquired by Christ at the
price of His Blood. Stoop beneath the all-powerful Hand of God; tremble
and flee when we invoke the Holy and terrible Name of Jesus, this Name
which causes hell to tremble, this Name to which the Virtues, Powers and
Dominations of Heaven are humbly submissive, this Name which the
Cherubim and Seraphim praise unceasingly repeating: Holy, Holy, Holy is
the Lord, the God of Armies.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto Thee.
V. May the Lord be with thee.
R. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray. - God of heaven, God of earth, God of Angels, God of
Archangels, God of Patriarchs, God of Prophets, God of Apostles, God of
Martyrs, God of Confessors, God of Virgins, God who has power to give
life after death and rest after work, because there is no other God than
Thee and there can be no other, for Thou art the Creator of all things,
visible and invisible, of whose reign there shall be no end, we humbly
prostrate ourselves before Thy glorious Majesty and we beseech Thee to
deliver us by Thy power from all the tyranny of the infernal spirits,
from their snares, their lies and their furious wickedness; deign, O
Lord, to grant us Thy powerful protection and to keep us safe and sound.
We beseech Thee through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
From the snares of the devil, deliver us, O Lord.
That Thy Church may serve Thee in peace and liberty, we beseech Thee to
hear us.
That Thou may crush down all enemies of Thy Church, we beseech Thee to
hear us.
(Holy water is sprinkled in the place where we may be.)
Imprimatur: +Henri, O.M.I.
Vicar Apostolic of James Bay - Aug. 15, 1967, Source: The Catholic
Dispatch (cd...@earthlink.net)
George Graves
(in article
<41e0d6f6-cb8e-4dbb...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
That's patent nonsense! It doesn't make any difference what the cause is, if
you throw epithets around, against people who are different only because they
are different, then you are a bigot!
>>
>> And possibly have other health issues. Â
>
> *sigh*- is this one of your nitpicky semantic games? sure, it's
> *possible*, especially if they lose weight in a really dumb way, ok?
> but we're obviously talking in broad, general terms here.
You're talking through your ass. Many obese people have no choice, it's a
genetic predisposition. But that's irrelevant. You are making fun of them
because they are different, and based on that difference alone. That's
bigotry. You cannot make a case for it being anything else.
No clue? Gee, what a champion of the incredibly obvious you are!
George Graves
(in article
<28d5877b-5b30-4159...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
>
>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. They're too dumb
>> to
>> make the connection themselves
>
> no george, you have it ass backwards. people don't need to be told
> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> taught to BE racist. kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
Then why do people knee-jerk at racist remarks, but not homophobic remarks?
>
>> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
>> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
>> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>
> sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
> believe about 'everyone'.
Ah, then you're a liar. That explains it. (everyone is either a racist or a
liar)
>
>> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
>
> i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
> you're ok with it. and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
> before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? maybe
> you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? :D
>
>> I don't care
>> about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
>> cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
>> don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
That's why there are quotes around it.
ed
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:20:53 -0700, ed wrote
> >>> actually, it is. Â even if you have a disease- if you eat less, you
> >>> lose weight. Â you may want to say that weight gain has factors tied to
> >>> things other than behavior, or people react differently to different
> >>> stimuli that causes them to be obese, but no matter what, if an obese
> >>> person ate less, they'd weigh less. Â :P
>
> That's patent nonsense! Â It doesn't make any difference what the cause is, if
> you throw epithets around, against people who are different only because they
> are different, then you are a bigot!
well, i would never throw around an epithet just because someone is
'different' (if you're talking about physical characteristics- if
you're talking about individual character and such, well, that's
different), nor did i suggest it was ok. that doesn't mean i think
being bigotted against the obese and those of a different race or
sexual orientation is the same thing.
> >> And possibly have other health issues. Â
>
> > *sigh*- is this one of your nitpicky semantic games? Â sure, it's
> > *possible*, especially if they lose weight in a really dumb way, ok?
> > but we're obviously talking in broad, general terms here.
>
> You're talking through your ass. Many obese people have no choice, it's a
> genetic predisposition.
a *predisposition*, not an uncontrollable condition. the very meaning
of the word 'predisposition' means there's an enviromental component-
it's still up to the individuals actions whether they fall 'victim' to
the predisposition.
> But that's irrelevant. You are making fun of them
> because they are different, and based on that difference alone.
where did i make fun of anyone?
> That's
> bigotry. You cannot make a case for it being anything else.
seems i've touched a nerve or something, eh?
says the guy who doesn't seem to know who he's replying to, eh? :P
Snit
11:07 AM:
I have shown where you were wrong to say that obesity is "absolutely the
result of behavior"... and even wrong to say that it is clear it generally
is... there are a lot of factors.
I provided you with the use of your logic applied to skin color and you
dodged it... both could be considered a person's choice but in both cases
that is looking at it from a very narrow view point (so in *that* way, yes,
they are analogous, but they are not overall).
--
BU__SH__
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
<snip>
i liked how you ignored all the points where i showed you that the
articles you posted supported my points about behavior and the
*general* case. :P
> > you didn't answer the question, so you haven't clarified your comment
> > (the reason i asked the question), so...
>
> I have shown where you were wrong to say that obesity is "absolutely the
> result of behavior"... and even wrong to say that it is clear it generally
> is... there are a lot of factors.
uh, yeah, you 'showed' me that it's wrong to state it's "absolutely"
the result of behavior, after i stated i was talking about the
*general* case...
> I provided you with the use of your logic applied to skin color and you
> dodged it... both could be considered a person's choice but in both cases
> that is looking at it from a very narrow view point (so in *that* way, yes,
> they are analogous, but they are not overall).
your narrow view point example was an extreme example, whereas my
'narrow' point was the general case. you see the difference, no?
Snit
1:57 PM:
> On Apr 29, 1:53Â pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
>> 57c43edb-f5f9-43e7-906f-1d51d3676...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on
> <snip>
>
> i liked how you ignored all the points where i showed you that the
> articles you posted supported my points about behavior and the
> *general* case. :P
They support it as *a* cause... which is not in contention.
>>> you didn't answer the question, so you haven't clarified your comment
>>> (the reason i asked the question), so...
>>
>> I have shown where you were wrong to say that obesity is "absolutely the
>> result of behavior"... and even wrong to say that it is clear it generally
>> is... there are a lot of factors.
>
> uh, yeah, you 'showed' me that it's wrong to state it's "absolutely"
> the result of behavior, after i stated i was talking about the
> *general* case...
Well, you changed the goal post to the "general" case after I pointed out
you were wrong... and then I showed that even for the "general" case things
are not so cut and dry.
>> I provided you with the use of your logic applied to skin color and you
>> dodged it... both could be considered a person's choice but in both cases
>> that is looking at it from a very narrow view point (so in *that* way, yes,
>> they are analogous, but they are not overall).
>
> your narrow view point example was an extreme example, whereas my
> 'narrow' point was the general case. you see the difference, no?
I see you dodging my point: both weight and skin color can be attributed to
choices people make... and there is some truth to both... but it is still
completely unacceptable to use either to push a bigoted attack.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1:57 PM:
> > On Apr 29, 1:53Â pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> >> 57c43edb-f5f9-43e7-906f-1d51d3676...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on
> > <snip>
>
> > i liked how you ignored all the points where i showed you that the
> > articles you posted supported my points about behavior and the
> > *general* case. Â :P
>
> They support it as *a* cause... which is not in contention.
can someone who has *all* of the other 'causes' (other than taking in
more calories than they expend) still get obese without overeating
(relative to energy expenditure)? if not, i would argue the others
aren't causes at all- contributors surely, but not causes (and no,
it's not a semantic difference).
> >>> you didn't answer the question, so you haven't clarified your comment
> >>> (the reason i asked the question), so...
>
> >> I have shown where you were wrong to say that obesity is "absolutely the
> >> result of behavior"... and even wrong to say that it is clear it generally
> >> is... there are a lot of factors.
>
> > uh, yeah, you 'showed' me that it's wrong to state it's "absolutely"
> > the result of behavior, after i stated i was talking about the
> > *general* case...
>
> Well, you changed the goal post to the "general" case after I pointed out
> you were wrong...
no, it was always about the general case, i just didn't think i had to
qualify it for everyone- this tidbit of info will make your life
easier snit: when people are talking about a large group of people,
and they make broad, encompassing statements, *most* times *most*
people are *generally* making generalizations, ok? :D so if you
ever "catch" me making statements like 'all', 'every', 'never', etc,
you can go ahead and pre-apply this filter, eh? :P
> and then I showed that even for the "general" case things
> are not so cut and dry.
so answer me this- can someone get obese w/out taking in more calories
than they expend?
> >> I provided you with the use of your logic applied to skin color and you
> >> dodged it... both could be considered a person's choice but in both cases
> >> that is looking at it from a very narrow view point (so in *that* way, yes,
> >> they are analogous, but they are not overall).
>
> > your narrow view point example was an extreme example, whereas my
> > 'narrow' point was the general case. Â you see the difference, no?
>
> I see you dodging my point: both weight and skin color can be attributed to
> choices people make... and there is some truth to both...
i'm not dodging anything- i addressed it directly, and my point is
there is a LOT more truth to one than the other.
> but it is still
> completely unacceptable to use either to push a bigoted attack.
i guess that depends on what you mean when you talk of an 'attack'- i
think criticizing someone for their actions versus criticizing someone
for their circumstances is two very different things. whether
criticizing them for their actions is acceptable or not depends on the
circumstances, and i would absolutely not make a blanket statement
that it is 'completely unacceptable'.
Snit
2:41 PM:
The fact people can starve themselves and lose weight is not in
contention... what is in contention is your comments about obesity being
chiefly caused by people's choices - that simply has not been shown to be
the case *and* I have referenced info that shows it is clearly questionable
*at best*.
You were wrong to say obesity is "absolutely the result of behavior", and
even your later "softer" stance that is generally the case is unsupported.
You also talk about criticizing someone for their actions in relation to
obesity, as though it would be OK to belittle someone merely for being
overweight. I do hope that you see why that would be wrong.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
ronald_mc...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 29, 12:16 am, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 7:03�pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 8:59 pm, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 6:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > > > LIBS = RACIST PIECE OF CRAP
>
> > > So you hate libs, whatever they are.
>
>
> > Liberals aren't a race as far as i know.
>
> > If they were, they would have died out a long time ago.
> > > Thus, you too are a racist.
>
>
> You're willing to kill abortionists. Check the van out down the
> street, the feds are all over your ass.
>
> > > Haven't you not noticed this?
>
>
> > >http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
>
> > > Why do you hate life? Apparently your racism knows no boundaries.
>
> > Your answer -
>
> You didn't answer the question.-
Yes I did. The answer is prevention.
Castration for repeat abortionist.
ronald_mc...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 29, 12:20 am, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 7:57�pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 9:55 pm, Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
>
> > > > <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 28, 8:59 pm, dolphstarb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 28, 6:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > LIBS = RACIST PIECE OF CRAP
>
> > > > > So you hate libs, whatever they are.
>
>
> > > > NO matter what race they are, he is RACIST because he hates a political
> > > > attitude?
> > > > If it isn't aboiut RACE, it isn't RACISM!
>
>
> > > will be identified genetically, and will be given the best
> > > opportunities to overcome their severe intellectual and emotional
> > > deficiencies, in order to succeed in a career in the trades, or
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It isn't the rightard that spreads AIDS and kills the baby later
> > because the lib doesn't believe in God or the sanctity human life.
>
> Fuck your God, your Messiah and your so called book.
>
..and the liberal exposes himself.
> Clear enough? I doubt it. Your god is a fantasy, your religion a
> fraud, and your book is fiction. Clearer now?
>
> Human life is dependent upon all other life. There is no sanctity of
> human life.-
I have to admit. You are a perfect example of why abortion should be
legal.
You win.
O'Leary III
> Liberals love to paint others as rednecks who hate black people.
>
> But the sad reality is it's the liberals who support and make abortion
> law.
White people get a majority of the abortions. Republicans don't want to
lose future Republicans.
ed
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:34:38 -0700, ed wrote
> > not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
> > behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>
> Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. it makes you MORE LIKELY to
be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. :P
> >> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> >> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb
> >> to
> >> make the connection themselves
>
> > no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
> > it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> > taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> > don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>
> Then why do people knee-jerk at racist remarks, but not homophobic remarks?
huh? i'm not sure what you mean? homophobia is a taught behavior as
well.
> >> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
> >> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
> >> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>
> > sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
> > believe about 'everyone'.
>
> Ah, then you're a liar. That explains it. (everyone is either a racist or a
> liar)
nope, sorry, neither. only racists think that everyone is a closet
racise. :P
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>
> a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. it makes you MORE LIKELY to
> be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. :P
>
>
crappy food, early and often while under, or no-exercising. It's *the*
Rx for 'Murkin Waddler.
It's simple, it's truth and phatphux just want no part of that action-
they're all about excuses / blame, hay8 and internalization of anger.
They externalize at the all-U-kin-eat buffet, open fridge door, various
middle management-stuck / sociopathic 'jobs', or anonymously on-line
here in abusenet* :-) mvm
>
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
*Doubts? Check responses to this.
Snit
2:16 PM:
> On Apr 29, 12:56Â pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:34:38 -0700, ed wrote
> <snip>
>>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
>>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>>
>> Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
>
> a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. it makes you MORE LIKELY to
> be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. :P
But it is also not "absolutely the result of behavior"
<http://www.obesityinamerica.org/causes.html>
-----
Weight gain and obesity are caused by consuming more calories
than the body needs  most commonly by eating a diet high in
fat and calories, being sedentary or both. However, the
imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned can
also be caused by a number of different obesity-related
factors, including genetic, hormonal, behavioral,
environmental and even cultural. It is important to remember
that obesity is not always simply a behavioral issue.
-----
Before you focused on the first sentence and pretended that meant the source
agreed with you. This time read the last sentence.
Your comment:
"[obesity] is absolutely the result of behavior"
Source
"It is important to remember that obesity is not always
simply a behavioral issue."
Do you still think you and the source are in agreement?
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
George Graves
(in article
<23efc697-850b-4d34...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Apr 29, 12:56Â pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:34:38 -0700, ed wrote
> <snip>
>>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
>>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>>
>> Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
>
> a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. it makes you MORE LIKELY to
> be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. :P
>
>>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb
>>>> to
>>>> make the connection themselves
>>
>>> no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
>>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
>>> taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
>>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>>
>> Then why do people knee-jerk at racist remarks, but not homophobic remarks?
>
> huh? i'm not sure what you mean? homophobia is a taught behavior as
> well.
It's irrelevant. Its bigotry. Making fun of people who are different, whether
that difference is natural or not, is BIGOTRY. And you've just summed up how
phony modern "political correctness" actually is. most people knee-jerk at
racist remarks, because, like Pavlov's dogs, they have been conditioned by
media and school social situations and were probably carefully taught to knee
jerk at racist remarks. But in typical liberal fashion, people's programmers
forgot to hammer into them the underlying principles of bigotry. Therefore
most people do not recognize when they are acting in a bigoted fashion. All
they can do react to trigger words and phrases in a totally non-thinking and
automatic way.
>>>> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
>>>> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
>>>> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>>
>>> sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
>>> believe about 'everyone'.
>>
>> Ah, then you're a liar. That explains it. (everyone is either a racist or a
>> liar)
>
> nope, sorry, neither. only racists think that everyone is a closet
> racise. :P
>
>>>> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
>>
>>> i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
>>> you're ok with it. Â and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
>>> before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? Â maybe
>>> you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? Â :D
>>
>>>> I don't care
>>>> about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
>>>> cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
>>>> don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
>>
>> That's why there are quotes around it.
Because what everybody else knee jerks and calls racism, I call culturalism
and it's not based on any ethnic physical characteristics. Its based on
culture. Now that's bigotry too, and I recognize that it is. In the brave new
world of multiculturalism and liberal political correctness, one should never
judge another human being at all. But I grew up before terms like diversity
and multiculturalism became the tools of social reform and I don't agree with
their precepts. My experience has been that multiculturalism doesn't enrich
Western culture, it dilutes it. Cultural diversity doesn't foster unity, it
fosters divisiveness. I strongly suspect that if the same conditions existed
in WWII as exist now. We not only wouldn't have won, but a certain faction of
this society would be clamoring for us to withdraw from the conflict, and
many more would be openly on the axis side.
Elvis Kabong
"George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C448D91C...@news.comcast.net...
You mean like self-acclaimed "dittohead" conservatives who hate Americans
exercising and enjoying their rights and freedoms, who hate all liberals and
calls them "American-haters, traitors, commies" as well as giving the word
"liberal" a negative connotation? Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
conservative
and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like that
to go aping about with.
ed
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:16:22 -0700, ed wrote
> (in article
> > On Apr 29, 12:56Â pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:34:38 -0700, ed wrote
> > <snip>
> >>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result of
> >>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>
> >> Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
>
> > a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. Â it makes you MORE LIKELY to
> > be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. Â :P
>
> >>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
> >>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. Â They're too dumb
> >>>> to
> >>>> make the connection themselves
>
> >>> no george, you have it ass backwards. Â people don't need to be told
> >>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
> >>> taught to BE racist. Â kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
> >>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>
> >> Then why do people knee-jerk at racist remarks, but not homophobic remarks?
>
> > huh? Â i'm not sure what you mean? Â homophobia is a taught behavior as
> > well.
>
> It's irrelevant. Its bigotry. Making fun of people who are different, whether
> that difference is natural or not, is BIGOTRY.
you're making a bullshit argument george, as nobody's advocating
making fun of people who are different- i specifically said "well, i
would never throw around an epithet just because
well, i would never throw around an epithet just because someone is
'different' (if you're talking about physical characteristics- if
you're talking about individual character and such, well, that's
different), nor did i suggest it was ok."
> And you've just summed up how
> phony modern "political correctness" actually is. Â most people knee-jerk at
> racist remarks, because, like Pavlov's dogs, they have been conditioned by
> media and school social situations and were probably carefully taught to knee
> jerk at racist remarks. But in typical liberal fashion, people's programmers
> forgot to hammer into them the underlying principles of bigotry. Therefore
> most people do not recognize when they are acting in a bigoted fashion. All
> they can do react to trigger words and phrases in a totally non-thinking and
> automatic way.
no george, you're just making bullshit arguments, suggesting i
advocate making fun of fat people and such, when i specifically said
that was not the case. YOU are the one guilty of a knee jerk reaction
here.
> >>>> that bigotry is BIGOTRY irrespective of the
> >>>> target. That makes most people's heartfelt admonition that they aren't
> >>>> racists as phony as most other Liberal "beliefs".
>
> >>> sorry, but i'm not racist (or homophobic), no matter what you want to
> >>> believe about 'everyone'.
>
> >> Ah, then you're a liar. That explains it. (everyone is either a racist or a
> >> liar)
>
> > nope, sorry, neither. Â only racists think that everyone is a closet
> > racise. Â :P
>
> >>>> I have no problem with my so-called "racism" and I never have.
>
> >>> i didn't say you had a problem with it- i have no problem believing
> >>> you're ok with it. Â and why is now your "so-called 'racism'," whereas
> >>> before you didn't need to qualify it or put quotes around it? Â maybe
> >>> you do have a *bit* of a problem with it after all, eh? Â :D
>
> >>>> I don't care
> >>>> about skin color or other ethnic traits but I do care about culture and
> >>>> cultures other than Western European cultures have no worth to me. But I
> >>>> don't kid myself or anyone else about it.
>
> >> That's why there are quotes around it.
>
> Because what everybody else knee jerks and calls racism,
why do you keep responding to yourself at the end of the posts?
<snip>
George Graves
(in article <ffMUj.832$hv2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
Not at all. Its liberals who have given the word "liberal" a negative
connotation, not conservatives (and I don't know what you mean by "ditto
head").
> Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
> morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
> conservative
> and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
> 60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
> conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like that
> to go aping about with.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have personal
issues to me. But if you don't like the general American public's rejection
of "leftism", I propose that you move to Cuba or North Korea. Those places
should be liberal enough for you. But none of that has anything to do with
the type of bigotry we were discussing.
George Graves
(in article
<23b9084f-47ec-432d...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
Really? Is that why I didn't use the word YOU anywhere? I wasn't tyalking
about you specifically or maybe even generally, I was talking about how phony
most people's sense of political correctness is.
ed
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:47:15 -0700, ed wrote
> (in article
actually, you DID use the word you, but that's beside the point- this
is more bullshit george- if you weren't talking about me, why would
you be arguing to me about a point i already said i agreed with?
Elvis Kabong
Sorry, you are wrong about who started the negative connotations and that
was Rush Limbpaugh, Newt Ginkrich and Runny Reagan. *They* started
much of the bigoted polarization in this country by calling liberal
Americans
"America-haters, traitors and commies" because most conservatives
are not only xenophobic, but anti-worker and prefer cronyism over
equality and justice for all.
BTW, ditto-heads are Limpbuagh sycophants and they started
using that term to describe themselves and seem proud of it.
>> Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
>> morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
>> conservative
>> and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
>> 60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
>> conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like
>> that
>> to go aping about with.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have personal
> issues to me. But if you don't like the general American public's
> rejection
> of "leftism", I propose that you move to Cuba or North Korea. Those places
> should be liberal enough for you. But none of that has anything to do with
> the type of bigotry we were discussing.
From your myopic perspective, of course. But it IS very pertinent to this
issue thanks to the uncomprimising, arrogant, obstinate and condescending
*attitude* of bigoted and xenophobic conservatives who hate liberals.
If you are against the government doing its 6 jobs to:
1 - form a more perfect union
2 - establish justice
3 - insure domestic tranquility
4 - provide for the common defense
5 - promote the general welfare
6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
then perhaps you can go find some theocratic monarchy or plutocracy
in some other country. The attempt of the radical conservatives'
aristocratic
fifedom ideology in this country is starting to fail and will continue to
fail.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Actually it was 1960's mainline liberals who applauided the
lawlessness of many of many of their fellow leftwingers who started
the country thinking that there was something severely wrong with the
left.
> *They* started
>much of the bigoted polarization in this country by calling liberal
>Americans
>"America-haters, traitors and commies" because most conservatives
>are not only xenophobic, but anti-worker and prefer cronyism over
>equality and justice for all.
And the fact that many leftwingers are American hating, traitorous,
commies has nothing whatsoever to do with it all does it, Rev Wright?
>
>BTW, ditto-heads are Limpbuagh
Who ever that is.
> sycophants and they started
>using that term to describe themselves and seem proud of it.
>
> >> Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
>>> morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
>>> conservative
>>> and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
>>> 60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
>>> conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like
>>> that
>>> to go aping about with.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have personal
>> issues to me. But if you don't like the general American public's
>> rejection
>> of "leftism", I propose that you move to Cuba or North Korea. Those places
>> should be liberal enough for you. But none of that has anything to do with
>> the type of bigotry we were discussing.
>
>From your myopic perspective, of course. But it IS very pertinent to this
>issue thanks to the uncomprimising, arrogant, obstinate and condescending
>*attitude* of bigoted and xenophobic conservatives who hate liberals.
Spreading real hate while complaining about imagined hate only serves
to make you look silly and more than a little removed from reality.
>If you are against the government doing its 6 jobs to:
>1 - form a more perfect union
>2 - establish justice
>3 - insure domestic tranquility
>4 - provide for the common defense
>5 - promote the general welfare
>6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
The Preamble is nothing more than an 18th century version of the
vision statement. The real meat is the actual document. The powers of
government are laid out in Section I, Article 8. Anything beyond that
is an unConstitutional act. About 3/4th of what the government does is
actually illegal in that it greatly exceeds their Constitutional
powers as spelled out in the aforementioned section and further
limited by the tenth Amendment.
>then perhaps you can go find some theocratic monarchy or plutocracy
>in some other country.
Just like you would have been happy as could be in Mao's China or
Stalin's Russia.
> The attempt of the radical conservatives aristocratic fifedom
Do you actually think that there's such a think as a section of land
ruled by a crude flute?
>ideology in this country is starting to fail and will continue to
>fail.
Much like the predictions that we've only got ten years worth of oil
left that have been popping up since the day we started using oil The
America hating left has been gleefully predicting that America will
fail for quite a while.
Snit
kip724lcfmmb64p5o...@4ax.com on 5/8/08 11:02 PM:
>>> Not at all. Its liberals who have given the word "liberal" a negative
>>> connotation, not conservatives (and I don't know what you mean by "ditto
>>> head").
>>>
>> Sorry, you are wrong about who started the negative connotations and that was
>> Rush Limbpaugh, Newt Ginkrich and Runny Reagan.
>>
> Actually it was 1960's mainline liberals who applauided the lawlessness of
> many of many of their fellow leftwingers who started the country thinking that
> there was something severely wrong with the left.
>
>> *They* started much of the bigoted polarization in this country by calling
>> liberal Americans "America-haters, traitors and commies" because most
>> conservatives are not only xenophobic, but anti-worker and prefer cronyism
>> over equality and justice for all.
>>
> And the fact that many leftwingers are American hating, traitorous, commies
> has nothing whatsoever to do with it all does it, Rev Wright?
>
When you say "many" I am curious how many you "leftwingers" you think there
are and what percent of them are "American hating, traitorous, commies".
Let's say there are about 1/3 of the country who are leftwingers, 1/3
rightwingers, and 1/3 moderates or "undecided". If, say, your "many" is
"just" 1/2 of the "leftwingers" though would mean 1/6th of the US
population, in your view, hates the country. Your views do not speak well
of the US nor of its population.
...
>> If you are against the government doing its 6 jobs to:
>> 1 - form a more perfect union
>> 2 - establish justice
>> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>> 4 - provide for the common defense
>> 5 - promote the general welfare
>> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> The Preamble is nothing more than an 18th century version of the
> vision statement.
So it was envisioned to do those six things. OK.
> The real meat is the actual document. The powers of government are laid out in
> Section I, Article 8. Anything beyond that is an unConstitutional act. About
> 3/4th of what the government does is actually illegal in that it greatly
> exceeds their Constitutional powers as spelled out in the aforementioned
> section and further limited by the tenth Amendment.
Nether the left nor the right actually follow what the Constitution says...
that I can agree to. Then again, there are so many views as to how the
Constitution should be interpreted... if only there were some sort of vision
statement or the like to help clear things up. :)
...
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
George Graves
(in article <txRUj.34599$3v1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>):
Bullshit. You don't have much of a perspective on history, I see. Americans
were anti-liberal and anti-Communist long before any of those you named above
ever came to national prominence. The left-wing has always been associated
with Communism and Socialism, going back to just after WWI. Anti-Worker eh?
boy, you just outed yourself. The labor movement in this country was infested
with Communists like Samuel Gompers etc. There is a long association with
Unions and Communism. Limbaugh, Gingrich and Reagan werten't even born when
that association was formed.
> BTW, ditto-heads are Limpbuagh sycophants and they started
> using that term to describe themselves and seem proud of it.
People still listen to that clown? Don't you people realize that he's just an
entertainer and what he says is merely designed to get a rise our of
soft-headed liberals? I never paid any attention to the guy. Jeeze you're
naive.
> >> Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
>>> morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
>>> conservative
>>> and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
>>> 60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
>>> conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like
>>> that
>>> to go aping about with.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have personal
>> issues to me. But if you don't like the general American public's
>> rejection
>> of "leftism", I propose that you move to Cuba or North Korea. Those places
>> should be liberal enough for you. But none of that has anything to do with
>> the type of bigotry we were discussing.
>
> From your myopic perspective, of course. But it IS very pertinent to this
> issue thanks to the uncomprimising, arrogant, obstinate and condescending
> *attitude* of bigoted and xenophobic conservatives who hate liberals.
>
> If you are against the government doing its 6 jobs to:
> 1 - form a more perfect union
> 2 - establish justice
> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
> 4 - provide for the common defense
> 5 - promote the general welfare
> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
I'm in favor of the government doing all of those things. They're the pillars
upon which this nation was founded. Why would you think I wouldn't be?
> then perhaps you can go find some theocratic monarchy or plutocracy
> in some other country.
Why would I want to do that? This country has problems and is in deep
trouble, sure, but it's still head and shoulders above most other countries
in this world.
> The attempt of the radical conservatives' aristocratic fifedom ideology in
this country is starting to fail and will continue to
> fail.
I see. Aristocratic fiefdoms are fine as long as they're left-wing
aritocratic fiefdoms.
You don't seem to know what real conservatism is about. I guess I'd better
enlighten you:
1- Small government that stays out of it's citizens' lives as much as
possible.
2- A perennially balanced budget at all levels, local, state and national.
I.E a government that lives within its means.
3 - Low taxes.
4 - Few laws.
5 - Strong military.
6 - Balanced trade.
7 - Staying out of foreign entanglements unless directly threatened or
attacked.
8 - Strict adherence to the United States Constitution.
The fact that the current administration eschews these beliefs should tell
you that they are not Conservatives. They ran on the Republican ticket
because we have only a two party system and they had to run as one or the
other to get elected. What they truly represent is a twisted vision of
left-wing totalitarianism running as Republicans and we'll soon be rid of
them. Of course, what we're going to get in exchange will prove to be far,
far worse, but people like you will have to find that out for yourself.
George Graves
(in article
<603f0dd9-db39-463b...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
Other tan telling you that you had just summed-up what I was talking about, I
did not point any of my criticisms about modern Political Correctness
directly at you.
> but that's beside the point- this
> is more bullshit george- if you weren't talking about me, why would
> you be arguing to me about a point i already said i agreed with?
I was talking about ANYBODY who has been brainwashed with the narrow precepts
of "Political Correctness." Its phony, and until people learn the underlying
idea that everyone deserves basic human respect, not because their color,
creed, religious, or personal belief system is on some trendy politically
correct list, but because they are fellow human beings, the notion of
received political and social awareness will be nothing more than a knee-jerk
reaction to a bunch of trigger words, where the jerkee has no real
understanding of why they are knee jerking. Of course, if the shoe fits,
you're going to have to wear it. :->
Snit
0001HW.C44945CC...@news.comcast.net on 5/9/08 12:05 AM:
...
> You don't seem to know what real conservatism is about. I guess I'd better
> enlighten you:
>
> 1- Small government that stays out of it's citizens' lives as much as
> possible.
What is there to balance the power of the big corporations and the
ultra-wealthy? Not that the government does a good job at this - after all
they are owned by the corporations and ultra-wealthy to a very large extent,
but at least it is an attempt.
> 2- A perennially balanced budget at all levels, local, state and national.
> I.E a government that lives within its means.
There are times when it makes sense to run a deficit... but not like the
Reagan and Bush II deficits.
> 3 - Low taxes.
Compared to... ?
> 4 - Few laws.
No doubt there are too many... you cannot help but break some law.
> 5 - Strong military.
Is anyone against that?
> 6 - Balanced trade.
>
> 7 - Staying out of foreign entanglements unless directly threatened or
> attacked.
Well, except the conservatives don't even come close to that!
> 8 - Strict adherence to the United States Constitution.
Again: who are you talking about?
> The fact that the current administration eschews these beliefs should tell
> you that they are not Conservatives. They ran on the Republican ticket
> because we have only a two party system and they had to run as one or the
> other to get elected. What they truly represent is a twisted vision of
> left-wing totalitarianism running as Republicans and we'll soon be rid of
> them. Of course, what we're going to get in exchange will prove to be far,
> far worse, but people like you will have to find that out for yourself.
Bush is a left winger to you. Um, what?
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
TPS
> "George Graves" <gmgrav...@comcast.net> stated in post
> 0001HW.C44945CC0031BB83F0184...@news.comcast.net on 5/9/08 12:05 AM:
I think what Ed was describing is more "neo-conservatism" than what
was historically considered conservatism, i.e. preserving traditional
state power etc.
Mayor of R'lyeh
wrote:
'neo-conservative' is what liberals say since its politically
incorrect to say 'kike'.
George Graves
(in article
<7249e059-1a23-4da9...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 9, 12:18Â am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "George Graves" <gmgrav...@comcast.net> stated in post
>> 0001HW.C44945CC0031BB83F0184...@news.comcast.net on 5/9/08 12:05 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You don't seem to know what real conservatism is about. I guess I'd better
>>> enlighten you:
>>
>>> 1- Small government that stays out of it's citizens' lives as much as
>>> possible.
>>
>> What is there to balance the power of the big corporations and the
>> ultra-wealthy? Â Not that the government does a good job at this - after all
>> they are owned by the corporations and ultra-wealthy to a very large extent,
>> but at least it is an attempt.
I said "as much as possible." That means without the 100s of bureaus of this
and that which have crept into the US government (mostly during Democratic
administrations) over the last 50 years or so.
>>
>>> 2- A perennially balanced budget at all levels, local, state and national.
>>> I.E a government that lives within its means.
>>
>> There are times when it makes sense to run a deficit... but not like the
>> Reagan and Bush II deficits.
It's never a good idea to be in debt - for anything.
>>
>>> 3 - Low taxes.
>>
>> Compared to... ?
The high taxes preferred by liberal Democrats. Bush is not a Conservative,
and he is the worst president the US has ever had, but he did lower the
taxes for almost everyone. The left-wing Commie press likes to paint these
Bush tax cuts as only for the rich, the reality is quite different from this
general leftist perception:
http:www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Â Â Â Â Â Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Â Â Â Â Â Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Â Â Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Â Â Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates have said that they will return to the higher tax
rates if elected .
>>
>>> 4 - Few laws.
>>
>> No doubt there are too many... you cannot help but break some law.
>>
>>> 5 - Strong military.
>>
>> Is anyone against that?
Liberals are.
>>
>>> 6 - Balanced trade.
>>
>>> 7 - Staying out of foreign entanglements unless directly threatened or
>>> attacked.
>>
>> Well, except the conservatives don't even come close to that!
Real Conservatives are in favor of that. Leftist despots like Bush & Company
obviously don't.
>>
>>> 8 - Strict adherence to the United States Constitution.
>>
>> Again: who are you talking about?
Conservatives. Unlike Left-wing Liberals who want to abandon the Constitution
and write a new one (with fewer freedoms such as no private ownership of
firearms, no freedom of speech, etc.), REAL Conservatives think that the one
we have is just fine, thank you. Now if we only paid it more than just
lip-service.
>>
>>> The fact that the current administration eschews these beliefs should tell
>>> you that they are not Conservatives. They ran on the Republican ticket
>>> because we have only a two party system and they had to run as one or the
>>> other to get elected. What they truly represent is a twisted vision of
>>> left-wing totalitarianism running as Republicans and we'll soon be rid of
>>> them. Of course, what we're going to get in exchange will prove to be far,
>>> far worse, but people like you will have to find that out for yourself.
>>
>> Bush is a left winger to you. Â Um, what?
Well, he's certainly not a Conservative nor a Libertarian and he certainly
doesn't represent me or any of the other 2/3 of the American electorate who
consider themselves Conservatives. What we need is a new party and I suspect
that will happen sooner or later.
>>
>> --
>> Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
>> conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
> I think what Ed was describing is more "neo-conservatism" than what
> was historically considered conservatism, i.e. preserving traditional
> state power etc.
So-called "neo-Conservatism" is not Conservatism. I don't what it is but it
certainly doesn't support any Conservative platform that I'm aware of. It
reminds me of the left-wing puppet totalitarian governments of Eastern Europe
in the 50's than it does anything else, but that's not really accurate
either. What bothers me is that between The neo-Cons in the White House and
the Left-Wing Liberals in the Congress, this country has nobody to preserve
the Union from the two forces determined to destroy it from within. I fear
for the future.
Snit
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:09:17 -0700, TPS wrote
> (in article
> <7249e059-1a23-4da9...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On May 9, 12:18Â am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> "George Graves" <gmgrav...@comcast.net> stated in post
>>> 0001HW.C44945CC0031BB83F0184...@news.comcast.net on 5/9/08 12:05 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> You don't seem to know what real conservatism is about. I guess I'd better
>>>> enlighten you:
>>>
>>>> 1- Small government that stays out of it's citizens' lives as much as
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>> What is there to balance the power of the big corporations and the
>>> ultra-wealthy? Â Not that the government does a good job at this - after all
>>> they are owned by the corporations and ultra-wealthy to a very large extent,
>>> but at least it is an attempt.
>
> I said "as much as possible." That means without the 100s of bureaus of this
> and that which have crept into the US government (mostly during Democratic
> administrations) over the last 50 years or so.
People's views of "as much as possible" will be very different. Can you
point to some specific examples of things you would do away with? I do know
that there is massive overlap and holes in the social welfare system - it is
insane: it prevents people truly in need from getting help and it allows rip
off artists to play the system. Sure, no system will be completely free of
some of that, but the current system is absurd. If they could be combined
and streamlined it would be a huge benefit. Also make sure that those who
are capable of working are actively seeking work... the current system
encourages free-loading. Still, with all of the problems it costs the US
much less than many other programs, even corporate welfare.
>>>> 2- A perennially balanced budget at all levels, local, state and national.
>>>> I.E a government that lives within its means.
>>>
>>> There are times when it makes sense to run a deficit... but not like the
>>> Reagan and Bush II deficits.
>
> It's never a good idea to be in debt - for anything.
I have a mortgage. I certainly do not consider that a bad thing... much
better than renting! There are times with it makes sense for the government
to also have some debt... but the current level, and the level under Reagan,
have been absurd! The idea that the Republicans are the party pushing
fiscal responsibility is silly and clearly not true (at least under Reagan
one can say that there were Democrats controlling Congress... Bush II simply
did not have that excuse). This is not to say that there is not a massive
amount of pork being pushed from *both* sides of the isle. Anyone who
claims all of the waste is from one party or the other is amazingly ignorant
or outright lying.
>>>> 3 - Low taxes.
>>>
>>> Compared to... ?
>
> The high taxes preferred by liberal Democrats. Bush is not a Conservative,
> and he is the worst president the US has ever had, but he did lower the
> taxes for almost everyone. The left-wing Commie press likes to paint these
> Bush tax cuts as only for the rich, the reality is quite different from this
> general leftist perception:
>
> http:www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
>
> Taxes under Clinton 1999 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Taxes under Bush 2008
> Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Single making 30K - tax $4,500
> Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Â Â Â Â Â Single making 50K - tax $12,500
> Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Â Â Â Â Â Single making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Â Â Married making 60K- tax $9,000
> Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Â Â Married making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
>
> Both democratic candidates have said that they will return to the higher tax
> rates if elected .
The idea that the tax rates indicate how much people actually pay is a myth.
With that said, under Bush the tax paid by the poor and the middle class
have gone down... but the taxes paid by the ultra-wealthy, the <5% that
control 95% of the resources in the country, have gone down tremendously.
There simply are too many loop holes and "outs" in the current tax code.
Have *everyone* pay X% of their income. No exceptions. For the poor who
cannot handle that percentage make sure the social welfare system helps
them... either that or have people pay X% of all income over some dollar
amount... though that means more paperwork for all and in the long run is
likely not as efficient.
>>>> 4 - Few laws.
>>>
>>> No doubt there are too many... you cannot help but break some law.
>>>
>>>> 5 - Strong military.
>>>
>>> Is anyone against that?
>
> Liberals are.
Such as? Who? Can you support this?
>>>> 6 - Balanced trade.
>>>
>>>> 7 - Staying out of foreign entanglements unless directly threatened or
>>>> attacked.
>>>
>>> Well, except the conservatives don't even come close to that!
>
> Real Conservatives are in favor of that. Leftist despots like Bush & Company
> obviously don't.
When you try to define Bush as a "leftist" you are showing you are, well,
insane. :)
>>>> 8 - Strict adherence to the United States Constitution.
>>>
>>> Again: who are you talking about?
>
> Conservatives.
Such as? Who?
> Unlike Left-wing Liberals who want to abandon the Constitution and write a new
> one (with fewer freedoms such as no private ownership of firearms, no freedom
> of speech, etc.),
No private ownership of guns? What? Sane people agree that there *should*
be limits as to what arms people own - my nuke in the basement is likely not
something that you want me to have :). The question really is where should
the line be drawn... and since this is somewhat arbitrary (much like
drinking age or what is considered a "person"), there *is* going to be
reasoned disagreement. I have admitted I do not know where to draw the
line... not sure anyone else really does, either.
As far as freedom of speech, again, there are limits sane people want
(libel, screaming fire, etc.) The "free speech" zones of the Bush
administration are, in my view, crossing the line of what is reasonable.
The idea that the wealthy should not be able to control the discussions of
politics makes sense, though exactly how to accomplish that is not clear
(technology certainly helps... it does not take much to make a web site
these days!). The idea of money being "free speech" is a bit bizarre...
especially in regards to legalizing open bribery of politicians. One could
certainly not use such "free speech" to influence a judge or jury! Both
parties, however, are guilty of trying to restrict speech they do not like.
Frankly I think the right-wing does this more.
> REAL Conservatives think that the one we have is just fine,
> thank you. Now if we only paid it more than just lip-service.
>>>
>>>> The fact that the current administration eschews these beliefs should tell
>>>> you that they are not Conservatives. They ran on the Republican ticket
>>>> because we have only a two party system and they had to run as one or the
>>>> other to get elected. What they truly represent is a twisted vision of
>>>> left-wing totalitarianism running as Republicans and we'll soon be rid of
>>>> them. Of course, what we're going to get in exchange will prove to be far,
>>>> far worse, but people like you will have to find that out for yourself.
>>>
>>> Bush is a left winger to you. Â Um, what?
>
> Well, he's certainly not a Conservative nor a Libertarian and he certainly
> doesn't represent me or any of the other 2/3 of the American electorate who
> consider themselves Conservatives. What we need is a new party and I suspect
> that will happen sooner or later.
2/3 who consider them selves Conservatives... can you support that?
>>> --
>>> Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
>>> conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
>>
>>
>> I think what Ed was describing is more "neo-conservatism" than what
>> was historically considered conservatism, i.e. preserving traditional
>> state power etc.
>
> So-called "neo-Conservatism" is not Conservatism. I don't what it is but it
> certainly doesn't support any Conservative platform that I'm aware of. It
> reminds me of the left-wing puppet totalitarian governments of Eastern Europe
> in the 50's than it does anything else, but that's not really accurate
> either. What bothers me is that between The neo-Cons in the White House and
> the Left-Wing Liberals in the Congress, this country has nobody to preserve
> the Union from the two forces determined to destroy it from within. I fear
> for the future.
You think everyone is a leftist and you think leftists are evil. Weird.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>> I think what Ed was describing is more "neo-conservatism" than what
>> was historically considered conservatism, i.e. preserving traditional
>> state power etc.
>
> 'neo-conservative' is what liberals say since its politically
> incorrect to say 'kike'.
Kike is total asshole slang for Jewish.
Neocon is merely the asshole who thinks Kike is the name of a religion.
Regards,
Centrist.
mvm
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>
> You think everyone is a leftist and you think leftists are evil. Weird.
>
>
>
thinking". They can't handle grey or colors too well, so binary, 0-1,
off/on works 'comfortably' for them. It's an ambiguity-discomfort thing
with many. Couldn't possibly mean *less* really* _Until_ they attempt to
impose this on the rest of us -OR V.V., -then the friction begins.
Unfortunately, as is the case w/ men and women we can't simply fuck this
friction out of each other, so it tends to escalate. My .01 :-) mvm
*heck, I have aspects of that in my own character when it comes to a few
issues; either you're pregnant or you're not / straight or you're not.
Snit
Jt-dnWYPn4sNMbnV...@giganews.com on 5/9/08 10:56 AM:
There does seem to be a lot of problem with people unable to see past black
and white thinking ... in how they label someone as being on the left or the
right, in how they think of someone's views on gun control (if you want any
control at all you are anti-Constitution!), on and on. I have often talked
about that in CSMA.
As far as your black-and-white issues, even there I see *some* shades of
gray: is someone pregnant the moment the egg is fertilized or is it when the
egg is implanted or... well... where there is room for disagreement. If
someone is straight but has an occasional gay fantasy are they gay? How
about if they had one gay experience as a teen? Are they "gay"? Really
does not matter... but there is gray area as to who is considered what.
But your point stands: there are some things that are pretty clearly one way
or the other. I have, for example, two feet. This is not gray unless you
get really silly about it. :)
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Gamma Ray Bursts U
> "Gamma Ray Bursts U" <shoran...@nospammomypacks.net> stated in post
> Jt-dnWYPn4sNMbnV...@giganews.com on 5/9/08 10:56 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote to "George Graves":
>>> You think everyone is a leftist and you think leftists are evil. Weird.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Classic- It's myopic stupidity, masquerading as it often does, as "clear
>> thinking". They can't handle grey or colors too well, so binary, 0-1,
>> off/on works 'comfortably' for them. It's an ambiguity-discomfort thing
>> with many. Couldn't possibly mean *less* really* _Until_ they attempt to
>> impose this on the rest of us -OR V.V., -then the friction begins.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as is the case w/ men and women we can't simply fuck this
>> friction out of each other, so it tends to escalate. My .01 :-) mvm
>>
>> *heck, I have aspects of that in my own character when it comes to a few
>> issues; either you're pregnant or you're not / straight or you're not.
>
> There does seem to be a lot of problem with people unable to see past black
> and white thinking ... in how they label someone as being on the left or the
> right, in how they think of someone's views on gun control (if you want any
> control at all you are anti-Constitution!), on and on. I have often talked
> about that in CSMA.
>
effectively targeting it is largely behind reinforcing this phenomenon.
[Esp. Fox News w/ CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, not getting off the hook either]
It's always existed however...Commie / Imperialist, Union / Confederate,
etc. The human search for simplicity seems to rest with a LCD
of...2...the bicameral mind and all that Jazz / Rock, no, Blues / Rock,
I mean--- ;-)
>
> As far as your black-and-white issues, even there I see *some* shades of
> gray: is someone pregnant the moment the egg is fertilized or is it when the
> egg is implanted or...
My opinion: Fertilized.
> well... where there is room for disagreement. If
> someone is straight but has an occasional gay fantasy are they gay?
My opinion: Gay
> How about if they had one gay experience as a teen?
My opinion: Teens matter mostly to teens. What happens after that, is
what matters most significantly.
> Are they "gay"?
My opinion: While the teen is doing something homosexual, yes. Their
state of teen hood is impermanent and thus, all that they do within that
state is too-- except for any permanent damages they may do to self,
and/or others.
> Really does not matter... but there is gray area as to who is considered what.
>
>
> But your point stands: there are some things that are pretty clearly one way
> or the other. I have, for example, two feet. This is not gray unless you
> get really silly about it. :)
>
Yeah, like bone heads who would type that since you occupy between five
and seven vertical feet as well, you certainly have more than two feet ;-).
Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity provides, as
the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!...what have I done?...2!
Mayor of R'lyeh
Neo-con is the slur liberals use for Jews now. Look it up.
Snit
Good music... the stuff people with no taste listen to. :)
>> As far as your black-and-white issues, even there I see *some* shades of
>> gray: is someone pregnant the moment the egg is fertilized or is it when the
>> egg is implanted or...
>
> My opinion: Fertilized.
I decided to do a few seconds of research and ended up on the oracle of all
knowledge itself, Wikipedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy>
-----
Thus, pregnancy lasts about nine months, although the exact
definition of the English word Å‚pregnancyË› is a subject of
controversy.
-----
Good to see my views supported. :)
>> well... where there is room for disagreement. If
>> someone is straight but has an occasional gay fantasy are they gay?
>
> My opinion: Gay
Well, at most bisexual I would say. And does it matter how often one has
such fantasies? Every day... OK, it is part of who you "are". Every month.
Still likely. Once a year or so? Once every five years?
Gray gray gray! :)
>> How about if they had one gay experience as a teen?
>
> My opinion: Teens matter mostly to teens. What happens after that, is
> what matters most significantly.
So one gay experience as a 30-something? Are you still "gay" in your 50's?
>> Are they "gay"?
>
> My opinion: While the teen is doing something homosexual, yes. Their
> state of teen hood is impermanent and thus, all that they do within that
> state is too-- except for any permanent damages they may do to self,
> and/or others.
So how long are they gay for? Until they are 20? 30? When do they stop
being gay?
Again: to me it does not matter... just noting it is a gray area.
>> Really does not matter... but there is gray area as to who is considered
>> what.
>>
>>
>> But your point stands: there are some things that are pretty clearly one way
>> or the other. I have, for example, two feet. This is not gray unless you
>> get really silly about it. :)
>>
>
> Yeah, like bone heads who would type that since you occupy between five
> and seven vertical feet as well, you certainly have more than two feet ;-).
Well, there are boneheads who claim that since I have a belief that someone
is guilty of breaking the law that means I have convicted them... because I
have a "conviction". Such BS games are common in CSMA. :)
> Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity provides, as
> the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!...what have I done?...2!
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
TPS
interesting. i'll have to ask my jewish buddies what it means when
they say it.
Mayor of R'lyeh
wrote:
Don't forget to ask Paul Wolfowitz, the main target of the word.
George Graves
(in article
<e208f29a-dea0-49c5...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
I was unaware that G.W. Bush Jr. was Jewish but he is a neo-Con. He certainly
isn't a real Conservative because he embodies NO traditional Conservative
values. Whatever he is, let's hope he's an aberration. We certainly don't
want any more like him in government.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Says the San Francisco 'conservative' who constantrly espouses a
hardline leftwing social aganda and whose 'conservative' economic
policy consists of having the government use its guns to force
companies to build products that are for the 'social good', whatever
that is.
George is a liberal who only thinks he's a conservative because he's
standing on the edge of falling off the scale on the left side while
his neighbors all ran to the edge and gleefully jumped.
Snit
>>> 'neo-conservative' is what liberals say since its politically
>>> incorrect to say 'kike'.
>>
>> interesting. i'll have to ask my jewish buddies what it means when
>> they say it.
>
> I was unaware that G.W. Bush Jr. was Jewish but he is a neo-Con. He certainly
> isn't a real Conservative because he embodies NO traditional Conservative
> values. Whatever he is, let's hope he's an aberration. We certainly don't
> want any more like him in government.
>
So you won't be voting for McCain. OK.
Well, McCain is at least not as stupid as Bush is.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
TPS
yeah, sure. whatever.
Gamma Ray Bursts U
provide a link -rhetorical minor interest- don't bother, really.
At issue is the fact that historically, Jews have been far more inclined
to take a "liberal" view vs. a "conservative" view, largely because they
were discriminated against, particularly by WASPS (ex/ being
"Restricted" from entrance into many private clubs on the basis of being
Jewish...I can say with certainty that the people doing the
"restricting" were not Democrats, but Republicans...). I'm a
philosophical Stoic. I'm not an atheist, but long ago, I let go of the
Christian religion I got saddled with at birth, Roman Catholicism.
The whole wierd-assed temporary bond between religious fundamentalists,
both "Christs" 'n "Jews", that neocons foisted on the U.S. populace to
put the outgoing neocon cabal in office in the first place, has disolved.
The election ought to be about the God damned IRS, the price of oil,
inflation, the environment health care, social security, territorial
anti-terrorist security, and trade / manufacturing not religion, color
or color ...you look _that_ up. ;-)
mvm
Results 1 - 5 of 5 for pantheism mulay spark. (0.23 seconds)
stoicism and religion >> by marc v. mulay >> *spark-online.com
...Pantheism reconciles science and religion through ecology leading to
strong .... Marc V. Mulay is a father, husband, jazz/rock/fusion/funk 'n
blues ...
www.spark-online.com/april00/esociety/mulay.html - 30k - Cached -
Similar pages - Note this
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>
>> 'neo-conservative' is what liberals say since its politically
>> incorrect to say 'kike'.
>
> interesting. i'll have to ask my jewish buddies what it means when
> they say it.
TPS...I know you're intelligent...this guy's another 'innernet' pc. of
work. :-) mvm
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>>
>> Don't forget to ask Paul Wolfowitz, the main target of the word.
>
>
>
> yeah, sure. whatever.
>
>
Laughing- this guy reminds me of certain kids when I was a boy in
Lexington, Ky. They'd sidle up to you and say things like, "know why
niggers 'r so fast? They got an extra muscle in their ass --It's TRUE,
'ask anyone'!", Or-- "you KNOW they got harder heads-- that's why you
gotta use a bat". His "look it up" bit re; "neocons and Jews", said it
*all*. I've heard this demon before, in different bodies.
This sort of hay8r garbage has and may unfortunately, always be with,
mankind.
Gamma Ray Bursts U
bye-bye filter w/ the rest of the nutters.
Gamma Ray Bursts U
>
>> Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity provides, as
>> the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!...what have I done?...2!
If you decide to take the opportunity, take a second look at precisely
who founded and is behind --as you put--- "the oracle of all knowledge
itself, Wikipedia".
Hint- porn industry...
Gamma Ray Bursts U
Ah, here you go-- :-)
Wikipedia Co-Founder Found Editing For Money?Mar 12, 2008 ... Wikipedia
Co-Founder Found Editing For Money? ... edited his own entry to remove
references to Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia. ...
webtrends.about.com/b/2008/03/12/wikipedia-co-founder-found-editing-for-money.htm
- 21k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Snit
One: I did not write what you attributed to me.
Two: how do you figure porn is behind Wikipedia?
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Gamma Ray Bursts U
> "Gamma Ray Bursts U" <shoran...@nospammomypacks.net> stated in post
> hcOdnVbuN4B0uLjV...@giganews.com on 5/9/08 7:34 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity provides, as
>>>> the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!...what have I done?...2!
>> If you decide to take the opportunity, take a second look at precisely
>> who founded and is behind --as you put--- "the oracle of all knowledge
>> itself, Wikipedia".
>>
>> Hint- porn industry...
>
> One: I did not write what you attributed to me.
>
> Two: how do you figure porn is behind Wikipedia?
>
>
"...I decided to do a few seconds of research and ended up on the oracle
of all knowledge itself, Wikipedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy>
-----
Thus, pregnancy lasts about nine months, although the exact
definition of the English word Å‚pregnancyË› is a subject of
controversy..."
-----
2.] *If* you read:
webtrends.about.com/b/2008/03/12/wikipedia-co-founder-found-editing-for-money.htm
and got 1/2 the point, it's less about porn and more about the integrity
of wikipedia as the definitive fact-arbiter re; *anything* .
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Gamma Ray Bursts U" <shoran...@nospammomypacks.net> stated in post
>> hcOdnVbuN4B0uLjV...@giganews.com on 5/9/08 7:34 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity provides, as
>>>>> the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!...what have I done?...2!
>>> If you decide to take the opportunity, take a second look at precisely
>>> who founded and is behind --as you put--- "the oracle of all knowledge
>>> itself, Wikipedia".
>>>
>>> Hint- porn industry...
>>
>> One: I did not write what you attributed to me.
>>
>> Two: how do you figure porn is behind Wikipedia?
>>
>>
> 1.] Who wrote this?
>
> "...I decided to do a few seconds of research and ended up on the oracle
> of all knowledge itself, Wikipedia.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy>
> -----
> Thus, pregnancy lasts about nine months, although the exact
> definition of the English word Å‚pregnancyË› is a subject of
> controversy..."
> -----
Me. But I did not write:
Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity
provides, as the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!
...what have I done?...2!
You falsely (and presumably accidentally?) attributed it to me. No harm
done...
> 2.] *If* you read:
>
> webtrends.about.com/b/2008/03/12/wikipedia-co-founder-found-editing-for-money.
> htm
>
> and got 1/2 the point, it's less about porn and more about the integrity
> of wikipedia as the definitive fact-arbiter re; *anything* .
My comment about Wikipedia was sarcasm. Did not think I had to have a
smiley to make *that* clear.
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Gamma Ray Bursts U
know each other on an elevator if one humped the others leg -yet had
been posting back and forth for _____'s) get started. Ha ha.
Here in just a few brief exchanges,we went from you claiming that I
"falsely (and presumably accidentally?) attributed" something to you,
-which...you typed...to you now claiming it was "sarcasm".
Therefore,
1. You did state it, so the attribution was not "false".
2. It may well have been sarcasm, but my attribution to you was correct
and not "accidental".
And to think...the fundamental issue we began with was how people have
binary black/white, off/on perceptions of events, or -the alternative.
btw- My opinion, "bisexual" is every bit as flaming Gay as a full time
bone smuggler...again, just in my opinion, of course ;-).
Sometimes, black or white has its purpose, and does some good,
othertimes, no. --I think perhaps you may have just (inadvertently)
proved it. I'm out- point made, you can have the last word, adios!
Snit
Your falsely attributed quote (presumably on accident):
Life. It's as much about the entertainment which stupidity
provides, as the tragedy it can cause. Tragicomic...oh GOD!
...what have I done?...2!
My sarcastic comment:
I decided to do a few seconds of research and ended up
on the oracle of all knowledge itself, Wikipedia.
You imply, incorrectly, that I said I did not state the second quote.
As far as your views on bisexuals being gay, that is not the general
definition of the word but to each their own. "Gay" usually refers to
homosexuality and not bisexuality.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
TPS
I expect the "Lib Lib LOL"s to start dropping from him any second.
Elvis Kabong
"George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C44945CC...@news.comcast.net...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:45:38 -0700, Elvis Kabong wrote
> (in article <txRUj.34599$3v1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>):
>
>>
>> "George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C449150E...@news.comcast.net...
>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:45:08 -0700, Elvis Kabong wrote
>>> (in article <ffMUj.832$hv2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:0001HW.C448D91C...@news.comcast.net...
>>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:16:22 -0700, ed wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <23efc697-850b-4d34...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 29, 12:56 pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:34:38 -0700, ed wrote
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> not the same in the case of obesity, as it is absolutely the result
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> behavior, whereas homophobia and race are not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit. Usually it's a genetic predisposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a 'predisposition' doesn't MAKE you fat. it makes you MORE LIKELY to
>>>>>> be fat if you do certain things- like OVEREAT. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They just haven't been told that it's unacceptable behavior
>>>>>>>>> to say those things. That's right, they have to be TOLD. They're
>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> dumb
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> make the connection themselves
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no george, you have it ass backwards. people don't need to be told
>>>>>>>> it's unacceptable behavior to behave in a racist manner- they are
>>>>>>>> taught to BE racist. kids, while they can be mean little buggers,
>>>>>>>> don't generally do it based on race, unless taught to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do people knee-jerk at racist remarks, but not homophobic
>>>>>>> remarks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> huh? i'm not sure what you mean? homophobia is a taught behavior as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's irrelevant. Its bigotry. Making fun of people who are different,
>>>>> whether
>>>>> that difference is natural or not, is BIGOTRY. And you've just summed
>>>>> up
>>>>> how
>>>>> phony modern "political correctness" actually is. most people
>>>>> knee-jerk
>>>>> at
>>>>> racist remarks, because, like Pavlov's dogs, they have been
>>>>> conditioned
>>>>> by
>>>>> media and school social situations and were probably carefully taught
>>>>> to
>>>>> knee
>>>>> jerk at racist remarks. But in typical liberal fashion, people's
>>>>> programmers
>>>>> forgot to hammer into them the underlying principles of bigotry.
>>>>> Therefore
>>>>> most people do not recognize when they are acting in a bigoted
>>>>> fashion.
>>>>> All
>>>>> they can do react to trigger words and phrases in a totally
>>>>> non-thinking
>>>>> and
>>>>> automatic way.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like self-acclaimed "dittohead" conservatives who hate
>>>> Americans
>>>> exercising and enjoying their rights and freedoms, who hate all
>>>> liberals
>>>> and
>>>> calls them "American-haters, traitors, commies" as well as giving the
>>>> word
>>>> "liberal" a negative connotation?
>>>
>>> Not at all. Its liberals who have given the word "liberal" a negative
>>> connotation, not conservatives (and I don't know what you mean by "ditto
>>> head").
>>
>> Sorry, you are wrong about who started the negative connotations and that
>> was Rush Limbpaugh, Newt Ginkrich and Runny Reagan. *They* started
>> much of the bigoted polarization in this country by calling liberal
>> Americans "America-haters, traitors and commies" because most
>> conservatives
>> are not only xenophobic, but anti-worker and prefer cronyism over
>> equality and justice for all.
>
> Bullshit. You don't have much of a perspective on history, I see.
> Americans
> were anti-liberal and anti-Communist long before any of those you named
> above
> ever came to national prominence. The left-wing has always been associated
> with Communism and Socialism, going back to just after WWI.
By your logic, you must be gay. The right-wing has been recently associated
with the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay republicans. Looks like guilt
by association works both ways pal, eh?
>Anti-Worker eh?
> boy, you just outed yourself. The labor movement in this country was
> infested
> with Communists like Samuel Gompers etc. There is a long association with
> Unions and Communism.
You mean to tell us that it's perfectly OK for corporations to engage in
collective bargaining but not for workers to do so? You must have the
same perverse mentality of the employer who is king and workers are simply
disposable commodities to exploit even though they do the actual work
in building the company, researching and developing the products,
manufacturing the products, maintaining the products, selling the products
among perfrorming all of the labor required to make money for the company.
Of course, the owner who has taken a considerable investment risk in
instituting a company certainly deserves most of the profits, but what about
those who do the actual work? Shouldn't they get their fair piece of the pie
too?
What's wrong with the Henry Ford model of paying his employees
enough so they could afford to buy his products?
Ever heard of profit sharing? Or would that be too "communistic"
for you? It's much more effective for productivity than "hourly"
or "commissioned" or "salaried".
Of course a mom & pop company should NOT have any kind
of worker's union, but a worker's union should be mandatory in
a corporation's charter.
>Limbaugh, Gingrich and Reagan werten't even born when
> that association was formed.
But those bastards are to blame for the *present* divisiness
and hateful polarity that exists in this country whether you
admit to it or not.
>> BTW, ditto-heads are Limpbuagh sycophants and they started
>> using that term to describe themselves and seem proud of it.
>
> People still listen to that clown? Don't you people realize that he's just
> an
> entertainer and what he says is merely designed to get a rise our of
> soft-headed liberals?
Entertainer? What the fuck is entertaining about a hate spewing
propagandizing pundit with a perverse agenda? Would
you like a cracker for that parroting? Oops, the cheese
already slid into an auto-evacuation.
>I never paid any attention to the guy.
Then good for you, but that makes you the naive one,
not me.
>Jeeze you're
> naive.
I stopped listening to that mental pervert a couple of decades
ago, but before that I heard enough to know his agenda and
his M.O. On one occasion, he said to his dittoheads, "Don't
read the newspapers or watch the national news. I'll intepret
the news for you." Result: a bunch of intellectually lazy drones
who automatically reject any info contrary to their pre-disposed
beliefs and an auto-acceptance of any info that supports those
beliefs. That's right, no need to evaluate the contrary info
and reexamine one's beliefs and attempt to reconcile the
conflict even if the new info is indisputable. Dittohead =
lemming drone.
>> >> Or the same dittoheads who call the CSPAN
>>>> morning call-in shows while the hosts try to balance the calls 50%
>>>> conservative
>>>> and 50% liberal, but whine and complain after Duhbya was "elected" with
>>>> 60% of the votes and insist that CSPAN change the caller ratio to 60%
>>>> conservatives and 40% liberals. You know, super important things like
>>>> that
>>>> to go aping about with.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have personal
>>> issues to me. But if you don't like the general American public's
>>> rejection
>>> of "leftism", I propose that you move to Cuba or North Korea. Those
>>> places
>>> should be liberal enough for you. But none of that has anything to do
>>> with
>>> the type of bigotry we were discussing.
>>
>> From your myopic perspective, of course. But it IS very pertinent to this
>> issue thanks to the uncomprimising, arrogant, obstinate and condescending
>> *attitude* of bigoted and xenophobic conservatives who hate liberals.
>>
>> If you are against the government doing its 6 jobs to:
>> 1 - form a more perfect union
>> 2 - establish justice
>> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>> 4 - provide for the common defense
>> 5 - promote the general welfare
>> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> I'm in favor of the government doing all of those things. They're the
> pillars
> upon which this nation was founded. Why would you think I wouldn't be?
As am I and am glad to know you are too.
>> then perhaps you can go find some theocratic monarchy or plutocracy
>> in some other country.
>
> Why would I want to do that? This country has problems and is in deep
> trouble, sure, but it's still head and shoulders above most other
> countries
> in this world.
Agreed.
>> The attempt of the radical conservatives' aristocratic fifedom ideology
>> in
> this country is starting to fail and will continue to
>> fail.
>
> I see. Aristocratic fiefdoms are fine as long as they're left-wing
> aritocratic fiefdoms.
No, not at all.
> You don't seem to know what real conservatism is about. I guess I'd better
> enlighten you:
Actually, these are the same things I expect from conservatives and
tend to agree with them overall other than a few details per issue.
> 1- Small government that stays out of it's citizens' lives as much as
> possible.
I hope that also includes obeying the FISA rules.
> 2- A perennially balanced budget at all levels, local, state and national.
> I.E a government that lives within its means.
>
> 3 - Low taxes.
Well sure. No one wants to pay huge taxes, but look at some the
"socialistic" thingies we have: a federal interstate highway system
and a military we all benefit from no matter how much we pay
in taxes. Better stated would be *FAIR* taxes.
> 4 - Few laws.
Better stated would be *APPROPRIATE* laws.
> 5 - Strong military.
Yes, but without fraud, waste, abuse and the lobbying power
of the military industrial complex.
> 6 - Balanced trade.
>
> 7 - Staying out of foreign entanglements unless directly threatened or
> attacked.
>
> 8 - Strict adherence to the United States Constitution.
No argument at all about those last three.
> The fact that the current administration eschews these beliefs should
tell
> you that they are not Conservatives. They ran on the Republican ticket
> because we have only a two party system and they had to run as one or the
> other to get elected. What they truly represent is a twisted vision of
> left-wing totalitarianism running as Republicans and we'll soon be rid of
> them. Of course, what we're going to get in exchange will prove to be far,
> far worse, but people like you will have to find that out for yourself.
Personally, I think the Bush administration embodies radical extremist
right wing ideology, i.e. a plutocratic fascism that caters to Bush's
favorite base, "the Haves and the Have Mores" (the aristocracy,
i.e. ultra rich elitists) and to completely pander to nonpatriotic
multi-national corporations - both who own the mineral rights of
most of the country's land mass, who own the banks and who own
the most shares in the major corporations.
And not only that, but
these entities fund both the right AND the left to keep we the people
fighting amongst ourselves - divided and therefore conquered. This is
to prevent we the people from uniting then storming the castle and
throwing the bums out.
BTW, did I mention I'm a registered Independent?
George Graves
(in article <8mwVj.2639$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
That's ridiculous. Forst of all I'm not a Republican, and secondly just
because the ultra-left has given liberalism a bad name doesn't mean that I
have painted everyone with the same brush.
>> Anti-Worker eh?
>> boy, you just outed yourself. The labor movement in this country was
>> infested
>> with Communists like Samuel Gompers etc. There is a long association with
>> Unions and Communism.
>
> You mean to tell us that it's perfectly OK for corporations to engage in
> collective bargaining but not for workers to do so?
Where did I say or even intimate that?
> You must have the
> same perverse mentality of the employer who is king and workers are simply
> disposable commodities to exploit even though they do the actual work
> in building the company, researching and developing the products,
> manufacturing the products, maintaining the products, selling the products
> among perfrorming all of the labor required to make money for the company.
> Of course, the owner who has taken a considerable investment risk in
> instituting a company certainly deserves most of the profits, but what about
> those who do the actual work? Shouldn't they get their fair piece of the pie
> too?
Sure, but the don't - in spite of the unions. And even if they were effective
- which they aren't, that doesn't stop them from being leftist.
>
> What's wrong with the Henry Ford model of paying his employees
> enough so they could afford to buy his products?
Nothing. It just doesn't work any more.
>
> Ever heard of profit sharing? Or would that be too "communistic"
> for you? It's much more effective for productivity than "hourly"
> or "commissioned" or "salaried".
>
> Of course a mom & pop company should NOT have any kind
> of worker's union, but a worker's union should be mandatory in
> a corporation's charter.
Why? So they can leech off of the employee set-up idiotic labor
classifications, cause trouble for everybody, and in the end profit no one?
>
>> Limbaugh, Gingrich and Reagan werten't even born when
>> that association was formed.
>
> But those bastards are to blame for the *present* divisiness
> and hateful polarity that exists in this country whether you
> admit to it or not.
Sounds to me like you are part of that hateful polarity. BTW, in my humble
opinion, Reagan is the best President of the second half of the 20th century.
I wish we had someone like him running now.
>
>>> BTW, ditto-heads are Limpbuagh sycophants and they started
>>> using that term to describe themselves and seem proud of it.
>>
>> People still listen to that clown? Don't you people realize that he's just
>> an
>> entertainer and what he says is merely designed to get a rise out of
>> soft-headed liberals?
>
> Entertainer? What the fuck is entertaining about a hate spewing
> propagandizing pundit with a perverse agenda?
Watching you liberals squirm and foam at the mouth at what he says is plenty
entertaining to some. That's why he remains so popular.
Would
> you like a cracker for that parroting? Oops, the cheese
> already slid into an auto-evacuation.
>
>> I never paid any attention to the guy.
>
> Then good for you, but that makes you the naive one,
> not me.
Let's see. I know who Limbaugh is, I recognized him for WHAT he is, yet I'm
the naive one? Is that about how you see it? If so, that requires some
explanation.
>
>> Jeeze you're
>> naive.
>
> I stopped listening to that mental pervert a couple of decades
> ago, but before that I heard enough to know his agenda and
> his M.O. On one occasion, he said to his dittoheads, "Don't
> read the newspapers or watch the national news. I'll intepret
> the news for you." Result: a bunch of intellectually lazy drones
> who automatically reject any info contrary to their pre-disposed
> beliefs and an auto-acceptance of any info that supports those
> beliefs. That's right, no need to evaluate the contrary info
> and reexamine one's beliefs and attempt to reconcile the
> conflict even if the new info is indisputable. Dittohead =
> lemming drone.
Well, the news media in the USA is very left-biased. Former CBS newsman
Bernard Goldberg actually wrote a book about the left-wing bias in the media.
and he's a lefty himself. He thought such a bias was wrong and not in the
best interest of the country - and he's right. It should be required reading.
Frankly, when I see how much better the private highway system in Europe is
than our aging and poorly designed Interstate system, I wonder at the wisdom
of such public works. Even though it was Eisenhower's idea, the Interstate
system was not very well designed, fairly poorly built and is very poorly
maintained. In Europe, The Autoroutes of France and Spain, the Autostrada in
Italy and the Autobahn in Germany are built on 30" thick concrete bases while
our interstate system is built on only an 11 inch base. The result is that
our highways wear faster, buckle and heave more easily, and are not as well
maintained. Most of the European super highways are toll roads and they are
as smooth as billiard tables.
I am so right wing that I make most Republicans look like Communists by
comparison, and even I don't see where Bush & Company obtained their
ideology. It certainly doesn't seem right-wing to me. Right wingers do the
above 8 points, and Bush seems to adhere to none of them, especially the last
one.
> And not only that, but
> these entities fund both the right AND the left to keep we the people
> fighting amongst ourselves - divided and therefore conquered. This is
> to prevent we the people from uniting then storming the castle and
> throwing the bums out.
>BTW, did I mention I'm a registered Independent?
Did I mention that I'm registered as a Libertarian?
Elvis Kabong
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:29:15 -0700, Elvis Kabong wrote
> (in article <8mwVj.2639$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
[edited for brevity, not for context removal]
>> By your logic, you must be gay. The right-wing has been recently
>> associated
>> with the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay republicans. Looks like
>> guilt
>> by association works both ways pal, eh?
>
> That's ridiculous. Forst of all I'm not a Republican, and secondly just
> because the ultra-left has given liberalism a bad name doesn't mean that I
> have painted everyone with the same brush.
But liberals are guilty of being commie and socialists because they
were associated with some commies? Or are you going to drop
that false pretext of guilt by association
>
>>> Anti-Worker eh?
>>> boy, you just outed yourself. The labor movement in this country was
>>> infested
>>> with Communists like Samuel Gompers etc. There is a long association
>>> with
>>> Unions and Communism.
>>
>> You mean to tell us that it's perfectly OK for corporations to engage in
>> collective bargaining but not for workers to do so?
>
> Where did I say or even intimate that?
Well, you seem to express a major disapproval of workers unions
which leads me to believe that since you are anti-union, you are also
anti-human and therefore think that workers are simply disposable
commodities in the workplace and have no problem with employers
stealing from workers their life force by overworking them and
underpaying them.
>> You must have the
>> same perverse mentality of the employer who is king and workers are
>> simply
>> disposable commodities to exploit even though they do the actual work
>> in building the company, researching and developing the products,
>> manufacturing the products, maintaining the products, selling the
>> products
>> among perfrorming all of the labor required to make money for the
>> company.
>> Of course, the owner who has taken a considerable investment risk in
>> instituting a company certainly deserves most of the profits, but what
>> about
>> those who do the actual work? Shouldn't they get their fair piece of the
>> pie
>> too?
>
> Sure, but the don't - in spite of the unions. And even if they were
> effective
> - which they aren't, that doesn't stop them from being leftist.
You seem to have a real fetish with this "leftist" thingy. Why is it so
evil to you? The real problem is no matter what system human beings
are under, if the leaders and followers were honorable, even communism
would work. Thanks to corrupt leaders and their cronies, even capitalism
is a failure. But just because I wrote that, does not mean I am
anti-capitalist.
IMO, some institutions *need* to be profit driven and some institutions
need to be a public service funded by taxation. I seriously doubt you'd
like to end up in a privatized prison. There is no incentive to let you
free -
ever! But there is plenty incentive to keep you locked up forever.
>>
>> What's wrong with the Henry Ford model of paying his employees
>> enough so they could afford to buy his products?
>
> Nothing. It just doesn't work any more.
Well sheeks, if American companies continue to downsize and
outsource their labor, engage in offshore tax shelters, make the
American dream unaffordable, provide only minimum wage
McJobs, have an economt model that favors high unemployment,
busts unions, minimizes benefits as well as workplace safety
concerns and so on, how can these companies expect Americans
to be able to afford their products? By getting deeper and deeper
in debt?
>> Ever heard of profit sharing? Or would that be too "communistic"
>> for you? It's much more effective for productivity than "hourly"
>> or "commissioned" or "salaried".
>>
>> Of course a mom & pop company should NOT have any kind
>> of worker's union, but a worker's union should be mandatory in
>> a corporation's charter.
>
> Why? So they can leech off of the employee set-up idiotic labor
> classifications, cause trouble for everybody, and in the end profit no
> one?
When unions are corrupt as employers, that is the result. But not all
unions are corrupt. Curious that you had no comment about
profit sharing.
>>> Limbaugh, Gingrich and Reagan werten't even born when
>>> that association was formed.
>>
>> But those bastards are to blame for the *present* divisiness
>> and hateful polarity that exists in this country whether you
>> admit to it or not.
>
> Sounds to me like you are part of that hateful polarity. BTW, in my humble
> opinion, Reagan is the best President of the second half of the 20th
> century.
> I wish we had someone like him running now.
LOL! Reagan?!?!? Are you delusional? The guy was an actor pretending
to be a president in the role of his career. His decisions weren't *his*!
They were from the same appointed ideologues, war criminals, war
profiteers and cronies along with many Israelis who just happen to have
dual citizenships appointed by Nixon. Many of them who are still
around were also appointed by Duhbya.
Yet another book of disinformation.
The following was written in 2006:
We have a Republican president, a Republican Congress and a Supreme Court
dominated by seven Republican nominees. The mainstream media in this country
are dominated by liberals. I was informed of this fact by Rush Limbaugh. And
Thomas Sowell. And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly.
And William Safire. And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley Jr. And George
Will. And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow.
And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow. And
Sean Hannity.
And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt. And Oliver North.
And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin. And Cal Thomas.
And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson. And Deroy Murdock.
And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer. And Stephen Moore.
And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke. And Andrew Sullivan. And
Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And
John Caldera. And Matt Drudge.
On the X-Files they used to say "The truth is out there." I'm not so sure.
And with everything going on in the world today I think we're finding out
why leaning too far to the right is wrong.
Daniel Soshnik, La Crosse, Wisc., in a letter to the editor of local
newspaper
You may want to also check this out:
http://www.rageagainsttheright.com/media.htm
Hmm, curious that you didn't say anything about the military example.
Or do you think we should have an entirely privatized military
like Blackwater?
That explains a lot.
George Graves
(in article <eHoWj.2882$Kk3....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>):
While I do disapprove of unions, it's quite a leap of logic to say that I
disapprove of unions because I disapprove of workers and are anti-human.
There are other reasons to dislike unions, like for instance, it might be
that they are a good idea but a miserable reality. When I first graduated
from college, I was a member of the the electrical workers union and I got to
see first hand how idiotic and ultimately powerless unions can beWhile the
union big-wigs got rich, the members got the shaft. It really opened my eyes
about the true function of unions. Luckily, after about 10 months I was given
a promotion to a salaried position and I've never been a member of a union
since and would never work at a place where union membership was a
qualification for employment. Luckily again, unions never got a foothold in
the high-tech industry.
That shows how out of touch you are.
Elvis Kabong
It seems that you were one of the fortunate ones. Usually
most folks don't care about unions until their job is on the
line.
I will not dispute that some unions are as corrupt as some
employers and some government agencies or operatives.
But I also realize that if humans in high and low places were
all honorable that just about any system of government would
work effectively with justice for all. Too bad it's the
You-Bribe-It States of America.
Oh really? Go here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
then click on "Statements of Principles" on the menu
and read *in their own words* their objective for
their globalist world domination ideology through pre-emptive
invasions. Then scroll down and see who signed the
document and you will see many of the same operatives
and ideologue appointees of Nixon and now of the Bush
adminstration (even though some have resigned in the meantime)
and you'll see where the radical right wing kook ideology comes
in that Duhbya has adopted along with pretending to be conservative.
Why do you think the RNC picked Duhbya as a candidate for
president? Because he was a salesman, i.e. someone who can
look you straight in the eyes and get suckers to believe his lies are
expressions of truth. Why Reagan? An actor is trained to play
an imaginary role convincingly. This is the same reason the RNC
sought to change the law about the birthplace citizenship of
Arnold Schwarzenegger so they could have yet *another* actor
as the talking head, the face man, the front man while decisions
are made behind the scenes by the *real* decision makers -
the same creepy ideologues and operative appointee fascist
right wing ding kooks that were around since Nixon.
[snip of what appears to be of noncontention]
Snit
Z_vWj.3226$Kk3...@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 5/13/08 11:54 PM:
>> While I do disapprove of unions, it's quite a leap of logic to say that I
>> disapprove of unions because I disapprove of workers and are anti-human.
>> There are other reasons to dislike unions, like for instance, it might be
>> that they are a good idea but a miserable reality. When I first graduated
>> from college, I was a member of the the electrical workers union and I got to
>> see first hand how idiotic and ultimately powerless unions can beWhile the
>> union big-wigs got rich, the members got the shaft. It really opened my eyes
>> about the true function of unions. Luckily, after about 10 months I was given
>> a promotion to a salaried position and I've never been a member of a union
>> since and would never work at a place where union membership was a
>> qualification for employment. Luckily again, unions never got a foothold in
>> the high-tech industry.
>>
> It seems that you were one of the fortunate ones. Usually most folks don't
> care about unions until their job is on the line.
>
> I will not dispute that some unions are as corrupt as some employers and some
> government agencies or operatives. But I also realize that if humans in high
> and low places were all honorable that just about any system of government
> would work effectively with justice for all. Too bad it's the You-Bribe-It
> States of America.
Not bribes! Free speech! Hey, that is what the wealthy people call it when
they buy off the politicians.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
George Graves
(in article <Z_vWj.3226$Kk3...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>):
More like boredom than noncontention. This is a useless discussion because we
have little common ground to start from. You're a left-wing Commie stooge and
I'm a right-wing Fascist stooge. Couldn't get any further apart than that.
ZnU
George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:35:13 -0700, Elvis Kabong wrote
> (in article <eHoWj.2882$Kk3....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>):
> > Well, you seem to express a major disapproval of workers unions
> > which leads me to believe that since you are anti-union, you are also
> > anti-human and therefore think that workers are simply disposable
> > commodities in the workplace and have no problem with employers
> > stealing from workers their life force by overworking them and
> > underpaying them.
>
> While I do disapprove of unions, it's quite a leap of logic to say that I
> disapprove of unions because I disapprove of workers and are anti-human.
> There are other reasons to dislike unions, like for instance, it might be
> that they are a good idea but a miserable reality.
For all of the union corruption and suchlike, it's hard to avoid the
conclusion that unions were a big part of the reason why people used to
be able to build middle class lives on manufacturing jobs, while they
mostly can't with the non-unionized service jobs which are replacing
them.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Glorb
Moe, Larry, the cheese! Woob woob woob woob!!!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
George Graves
(in article <znu-A03228.1...@news.individual.net>):
> In article <0001HW.C44FA4B0...@news.comcast.net>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:35:13 -0700, Elvis Kabong wrote
>> (in article <eHoWj.2882$Kk3....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>):
>
>>> Well, you seem to express a major disapproval of workers unions
>>> which leads me to believe that since you are anti-union, you are also
>>> anti-human and therefore think that workers are simply disposable
>>> commodities in the workplace and have no problem with employers
>>> stealing from workers their life force by overworking them and
>>> underpaying them.
>>
>> While I do disapprove of unions, it's quite a leap of logic to say that I
>> disapprove of unions because I disapprove of workers and are anti-human.
>> There are other reasons to dislike unions, like for instance, it might be
>> that they are a good idea but a miserable reality.
>
> For all of the union corruption and suchlike, it's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that unions were a big part of the reason why people used to
> be able to build middle class lives on manufacturing jobs, while they
> mostly can't with the non-unionized service jobs which are replacing
> them.
>
> [snip]
>
>
Its actually impossible to avoid that conclusion, because its true. In the
final analysis, unions were ultimately powerless when American companies,
tired of paying union scale for unskilled or semi-skilled labor, moved their
manufacturing facilities off-shore. In fact, they sewed the seeds of their
own demise as well as of the demise of large-scale manufacturing in the
United States. They did their part when needed, and I'd like to think that
we're beyond that now, but that would be wishful thinking. Unions, as
ultimately weak and powerless as they have become (or at least the threat of
them), are nonetheless a regrettable necessity. I just don't have to be a
party to them if I don't want to be.