Re: Despite Clinton and his Administration Lying About WMD's
CB
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ZhI1g.51129$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Kent Allard" <Ke...@Shambala.com> wrote in message
> news:sjs1g.606$E84...@chiapp18.algx.net...
>> Alohacyberian wrote:
>>> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oV71g.31673$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>"Kent Allard" <Ke...@Shambala.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Uk71g.575$E84...@chiapp18.algx.net...
>>>>>Alohacyberian wrote:
>>>>>>"dk" <disi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1145214479....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>There are a great many people, whether they be Democrat, Republican
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>other that thought removing Saddam would be a good thing. What they
>>>>>>>did NOT support was invading a country without just cause and after
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>was done being SO BLOODY INCOMPETENT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, neither you or any other elitist Leftwing Liberal on the
>>>>>>planet has offered a viable alternative or a rational suggestion as to
>>>>>>how it could have been differently to achieve whatever you'd want to
>>>>>>call success. I didn't mean to threaten your right to be another
>>>>>>crybaby bedwetter. KM
>>>>>
>>>>>The viable and sane alternative was not to invade.
>>>>
>>>>Just so Evil may advance
>>>
>>> Which is neither viable or sane. Let's face it, the America-hating
>>> elitist Leftwing Liberals were hoping that the attack on the World Trade
>>> Center would be just the beginning of a long string of savage attacks
>>> against the United States and they're madder than hell that George W.
>>> Bush stopped terrorism against America in its tracks. They'll never
>>> forgive Bush for destroying their sadistic fantasies. KM
>>
>> George W. Bush has done nothing to stop terrorism. Nothing. Instead,
>> he's off tilting at windmills in Iraq.
>>
> Uh-huh. That's why there haven't been any terrorist attacks in America
> since 9-11, which I realize makes you and your ilk purple with rage. And
> a couple other things that put your mob into foaming-mouth frenzies were
> the removing of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and actually
> allowing citizens (even women) to pick their own governmental leaders and
> the ousting of the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime and again allowing
> Iraqis (even women) to elect their own public officials. There are no
> words to accurately describe the hysteric mania such events produced among
> elitist Leftwing Liberals like yourself. So solly, Polly... have another
> cracker and squawk to your heart's content, but all the kinks horses and
> all the kinks men cannot put the torturing Taliban and sadistic Saddam
> together again. KM
Notice Libs never look to the future, just whine no fair at the past? No
hope creates hatred for the people who make it happen. If Evil makes it
happen as in a Terrorist attack they'd be the first to whine Bush didn't
protect us. If good things that happen the media (CBS) is silent.
--
CB
CBS and their Allegiance to the Fairness Doctrine
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/7817/site16660fv.jpg
> --
> (-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
> visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
> CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
> Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
>
Joseph Welch
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> Notice Libs never look to the future
<laughter>
Damn, you right-wing radicals are funny sometimes.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Alohacyberian
news:tbgf429v014bclu7v...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:04:08 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>> Uh-huh. That's why there haven't been any terrorist attacks in America
>>> the ousting of the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime and again allowing
>>> Iraqis (even women) to elect their own public officials.
>
> needed to be "taken out" why in fuck didn't your lying
> scumbag sell a war for THAT reason?
>
Your data is about a year and a half out of date, Iraq was complicit in the
9-11 attack and had strong ties to Al Qaeda in spite of the protestations
from the Leftwing. George W. Bush, both in his State of the Union Address
and his remarks to Congress made it very clear that the invasion was to
institute a regime change and bring democracy to Iraq. Don't know if you've
heard, but, both tasks have been accomplished unless you're under the
impression Saddam Hussein will be acquitted and returned to power. No doubt
that would thrill your ilk. It was the elite mainstream media that kept
blathering on about weapons of mass destruction which had been a favorite of
Bill Clinton's and being the lemming you are, you ate it up with a dirty
spoon and continue to do so. That it upsets you and your malcontented
confederates is rather amusing. KM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
~ President Clinton, February 4, 1998 during the Clinton administration
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
~ President Clinton, February 17, 1998 during the Clinton administration
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
~ Madeline Albright, Democrat, February 18, 1998 during the Clinton
administration
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
~ Sandy Berger, Democrat, Clinton's National Security Adviser, February 18,
1998.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
~ Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democrat Senators Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others October 9, 1998, during the Clinton
administration
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
~ Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California), December 16, 1998,
during the Clinton administration
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
~ Madeline Albright, Democrat, Clinton's Secretary of State, November 10,
1999 during the Clinton administration
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
~ Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida,)
and others, December 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them."
~ Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan), September 19, 2002.
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological
and chemical weapons throughout his country."
~ former vice president, Al Gore, Democrat, September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
~ former vice president, Democrat, Al Gore, September 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts), September 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
~ Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia), October 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
~ Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts), October 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Jay Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia), October 10, 2002,
"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do."
~ Representative Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
~ Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York), October 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida), December 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..."
~ Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts), January 23. 2003.
Mitchell Holman
news:PC02g.56945$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> <laffs@'em-all.com> wrote in message
> news:tbgf429v014bclu7v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:04:08 -0400, "CB"
>> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>> Uh-huh. That's why there haven't been any terrorist attacks in
>>>> America since 9-11,......... and
>>>> the ousting of the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime and again allowing
>>>> Iraqis (even women) to elect their own public officials.
>>
>> Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 -----and if saddam
>> needed to be "taken out" why in fuck didn't your lying
>> scumbag sell a war for THAT reason?
>>
>
> Your data is about a year and a half out of date, Iraq was complicit in
> the 9-11 attack and had strong ties to Al Qaeda in spite of the
> protestations from the Leftwing. George W. Bush, both in his State of
> the Union Address and his remarks to Congress made it very clear that
> the invasion was to institute a regime change and bring democracy to
> Iraq. Don't know if you've heard, but, both tasks have been
> accomplished unless you're under the impression Saddam Hussein will be
> acquitted and returned to power. No doubt that would thrill your ilk.
> It was the elite mainstream media that kept blathering on about weapons
> of mass destruction which had been a favorite of Bill Clinton's and
> being the lemming you are, you ate it up with a dirty spoon and continue
> to do so.
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier --
we have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."
White House Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
Dave
> <laffs@'em-all.com> wrote in message
> news:tbgf429v014bclu7v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:04:08 -0400, "CB"
>> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>> Uh-huh. That's why there haven't been any terrorist attacks in America
>>>> since 9-11,......... and
>>>> the ousting of the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime and again allowing
>>>> Iraqis (even women) to elect their own public officials.
>> Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 -----and if saddam
>> needed to be "taken out" why in fuck didn't your lying
>> scumbag sell a war for THAT reason?
>>
>
> Your data is about a year and a half out of date, Iraq was complicit in the
> 9-11 attack and had strong ties to Al Qaeda in spite of the protestations
> from the Leftwing.
They were? All those quotes were regarding Saddam's issues but I didn't
see anything regarding Al Qaeda and Iraq. How many of the hijacker's
were from Iraq? How many from Saudi Arabia? How many from Iraq? How
many from Yemen? How many from Iraq? How many from the United Arab
Emerates? (and let's not forget that the UAE allowed Al Qaeda money to
flow through their banks before and after 9-11).
I'm sure the Wahabist, Osama bin Laden, was surely in bed with the
Secularist, Saddam Hussein.
It's funny that ObL demanded that the US get out of Saudi Arabia and
after 9-11, we left.
(Okay, there was one quote with both Saddam and Al Qaeda, but that was
from Hillary and the Dem's really aren't supporting her as much as the
Republicans would like us to think.)
CB
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:22:07 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>><laffs@'em-all.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>> needed to be "taken out" why in fuck didn't your lying
>>> scumbag sell a war for THAT reason?
>>>
>>
>>Your data is about a year and a half out of date, Iraq was complicit in
>>the
>>9-11 attack and had strong ties to Al Qaeda in spite of the protestations
>>from the Leftwing.
>
>
> Saddam was a secular, the religious extremists were his
> enemies.
>
>>George W. Bush, both in his State of the Union Address
>>and his remarks to Congress made it very clear that the invasion was to
>>institute a regime change and bring democracy to Iraq.
>
> "ability to launch an attack withing 24 minutes" you
> stupid sot.
>
> Bush LIED about the reason for "regime change". Regime
> change would be the result of committing to war for his
> other reasons.
>
>>It was the elite mainstream media that kept
>>blathering on about weapons of mass destruction which had been a favorite
>>of
>>Bill Clinton's and being the lemming you are, you ate it up with a dirty
>>spoon and continue to do so.
>
>
> ONLY the LAST year prior to the attack on Iraq are
> relevant as to "what"" Iraq had, or was doing
>
> The OP-ED piece of Wilson the year prior to the attack
> was only ONE (1) of the things that shot down your
> lying sack of shit's justificatons for going to war.
>
> The others were: CIA debunking the "Aluminum tubes";
> Hans Blix and UNSCOM telling Bush that NOTHING could
> back the claims being made about WMD; The state
> department unable to verify ANY of the relationships
> between Saddam and Al Queda.
>
>>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
>>That
>>is our bottom line."
>> ~ President Clinton, February 4, 1998 during the Clinton administration
>
> that began with Wilsons correction to the Bush regimes
> claims.
>
We hear you Baghdad Bob, now go whip your self
Rich Travsky
Like the Opus Dei folks?
RT
Alohacyberian
news:MJ6dnVzhzst...@giganews.com...
> Alohacyberian wrote:
>> <laffs@'em-all.com> wrote in message
>> news:tbgf429v014bclu7v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:04:08 -0400, "CB"
>>> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>>> Uh-huh. That's why there haven't been any terrorist attacks in
>>>>> America
>>>>> since 9-11,......... and
>>>>> the ousting of the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime and again allowing
>>>>> Iraqis (even women) to elect their own public officials.
>>> Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 -----and if saddam
>>> needed to be "taken out" why in fuck didn't your lying
>>> scumbag sell a war for THAT reason?
>>
>> Your data is about a year and a half out of date, Iraq was complicit in
>> the
>> 9-11 attack and had strong ties to Al Qaeda in spite of the protestations
>> from the Leftwing.
>
> They were? All those quotes were regarding Saddam's issues but I didn't
> see anything regarding Al Qaeda and Iraq.
>
of weapons of mass destruction, therefore, there was no connection between
Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and the 9-11 attack? With that kind of illogic
you should run for office as an elitist Leftwing Liberal. But, you'll
probably lose. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:6Sm2g.63198$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein
was involved with the September 11 attacks"
George Bush, Sept 18, 2003
Dave
that there has never been any lies from anyone in the current
administration.
Dave
you. But you have turned out to be a typical Republican hack that makes
all kinds of claims and never backs them up with anything relevant to
the discussion. Fred at least is consistent with his beliefs.
Mitchell Holman
r...@giganews.com:
In Aloha's world the only one who gets to lie is himself....;)
Mitchell Holman
"As is evidenced by their slogan taken from
P.T. Barnum, "There's a fool born every minute."
Keith "Alohacyberian" Martin, 09/30/05.
In fact Barnum never said that.
Alohacyberian
Holman. That statement was made (see above) on September 18, 2003. Look at
your calendar and discover, it's about April 22, 2006. A lot of things have
changed in the world since September 18, 2003 and as more information is
uncovered, more will continue to change. Why are incredibly simple things
like that, impossible for elitist Leftwing Liberals to grasp? KM
Alohacyberian
lives and I'll show you a narrow, ignorant, stubborn dunce. Your problem is
that you concentrate on messengers and ignore messages. KM
CB
Just as they cannot accept changing circumstances in a protracted war, they
cannot accept anything that links Saddamn to Terrorism
Mitchell Holman
news:F_D2g.68141$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Aloha insinuates that Bush has retracted his claim
about Saddam and 9/11, but like every other claim he
posts it is an utter fabrication.
Mitchell Holman
"Oil was never mentioned in the Congressional debates
or the presidential speeches leading up to the allied
invasion of Iraq."
Keith "Alohacyberian" Martin, 10/13/05
vs........
"All Iraqi military and civilian personnel should
listen carefully to this warning: Do not destroy oil
wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi
people."
George Bush, March 17, 2003
Mitchell Holman
news:j4E2g.7668$t61....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
Either Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
or Bush is lying.
Which is it?
Dave
without any oversight and that the current administration cannot make
any mistakes makes your claims valid how? Case in point, we had the
largest national security failure in our history and the only people
that were held responsible was the ones that warned of the attacks?
Questioning you and others about your blind faith in a president that is
doing a horrible job (Fox News: 33% approval) and that the reasons
behind his "success" may be a pack of lies (WMDs, Iraq=9-11), I'll
attack the messenger.
CB
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97AE80BD...@216.196.97.131...
Bush never said he did, you are the liar.
Bush did say he'd kick any mullah head in the balls to protect America
>
> Which is it?
>
>
>
Rich Travsky
Gollee! So, tell us about this new "uncovered" information, eh?
You know, something that supports your claim that "Iraq was complicit in the
9-11 attack" ?
Well?
Put it right here ->
(this oughta be good - poor hapless keith setting himself up for another
bitch slapping!)
Rich Travsky
can't back it up!
RT
Rich Travsky
Perhaps if the republicons hadn't supported Saddam, eh? And left him in
power? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Oh, and what about the other countries that support terrorism? Are you cowards
going to enlist?
RT
Alohacyberian
> Alohacyberian wrote:
>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ruSdnefJ0-F...@giganews.com...
>>> Alohacyberian wrote:
>>>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MJ6dnVzhzst...@giganews.com...
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> see anything regarding Al Qaeda and Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, if the quotes I supplied regarding the Clinton Administration's
>>>> warnings of weapons of mass destruction, therefore, there was no
>>>> connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and the 9-11 attack? With
>>>> that kind of illogic you should run for office as an elitist Leftwing
>>>> Liberal. But, you'll probably lose. KM
>>> When I first started posting to these groups, I had some respect for
>>> you. But you have turned out to be a typical Republican hack that makes
>>> all kinds of claims and never backs them up with anything relevant to
>>> the discussion. Fred at least is consistent with his beliefs.
>>>
>> Show me someone whose entire beliefs are consistent throughout their
>> whole lives and I'll show you a narrow, ignorant, stubborn dunce. Your
>> problem is that you concentrate on messengers and ignore messages. KM
> Your message that the current administrations actions are justified
I never said the current administration's actions are justified, you did.
Buh-bye now, Dave. Your palaver has become a bore. KM
Alohacyberian
Yup, the cheerleaders for terrorism and the Society for Saddam are still
hoping he'll be acquitted and returned to power so he can resume raping,
torturing, maiming and slaughtering his own people to fill yet more mass
graves to the delight of Sado-masochistic elitist Leftwing Liberals
everywhere. The thought of free elections where even women can vote in
Afghanistan and Iraq has the Lefties tearing their hair, beating their
breasts, gnashing their teeth and foaming at the mouth over such
developments. KM
CB
No Evil that Uncle Saddamn did would ever come to threshold which Liberals
would act. Libs would continue to appease Evil, even giving their soul for
another moment of Shangri-La
Dave
You claim that "Iraq was complicit in the 9-11 attack" (4/21, 2:22 AM).
I want to see this information so I can believe it. Is that asking too
much from you? Is it coming from Rush? Is it coming from LGF? Is it
coming from the FreeRepublic? Maybe you know someone that knows someone
that knows someone...? Perhaps you could provide a link to a newspaper
of some repute that will tell me this information (NYT, WSJ, WP, LAT,
SFC, Time, Newsweek).
If I'm wrong about something, I like to know that I'm wrong.
Cheeks
Another fucking right wing LIE - in the tradition of being a goddam
Repbulican liar.
Repubs would continue to butt fuck each other, even giving their soul
for another moment of Shangri-La..
--
Al Franken lays a serious ass kicking on Ann Coulter
An Evening with Ann Coulter: Al's Opening Statement
COULTER DEBATE OPENING STATEMENT – UNIVERSITY OF
JUDAISM
Thank you. First of all, I know I join Ann in
thanking the University of Judaism for hosting
this event. We’ve had an opportunity to spend some
time with President Wexler and have dinner with
many folks from the University community.
And I’d like to answer the question that I
actually get asked the most when I do an event for
a Jewish organization. Yes, I had enough to eat.
You know, in these kinds of debate forums, someone
has to go first. It’s always preferable to go
second, because you can react to what’s been said,
giving you something of a tactical advantage. More
importantly, it pretty much spares you the chore
of writing out pre-prepared remarks.
Both Ann and I said we preferred going second, but
I didn’t insist on it, because I understood
somebody had to go first. And being a liberal, I
just wasn’t tough-minded enough to insist on a
coin toss.
So, I’ll try to use my time to define the terms of
the debate – if you will. “Whence Judaism?”
No. I think we should talk about the Bush
Administration and the Republican Congress and
what it has accomplished over the past five years.
I’m talking, of course, about well over two
trillion dollars added to the national debt, the
increase in poverty in our country and the added
millions of Americans, including children, without
health insurance. I’m talking about the sale of
our democracy to corporate interests that pollute
our water and our air. I’m talking about the
widening gap between the haves and the have nots
in this country. And I’m talking about the war in
Iraq.
I’m talking about an increasingly corrupt,
secretive, and incompetent federal government that
rewards cronies, a Republican majority in Congress
that’s acted as a rubber stamp, that has performed
virtually no oversight and which excludes the
minority party from the legislative process in a
way unprecedented in our recent history.
I also want to discuss with Ann the coarsening of
dialogue in this country. I want to discuss values
with Ann. Values like love, of family, of your
fellow man, of country. Ann has said repeatedly
that liberals hate America. I disagree.
Last year I had the honor of speaking at West
Point. It was an audience not so very different
from this one. Except that instead of you, the
audience was made up of about twelve hundred
cadets. Many of whom will be going to Iraq in the
next year or so.
The occasion was the Sol Feinstone Lecture on the
Meaning of Freedom endowed by philanthropist Sol
Feinstone. It’s an annual event and Sol
Feinstein’s granddaughter, who is about my age,
attended.
After telling a number jokes and getting the
cadets on my side. I told them that we had been
lied into the war in Iraq. I had just published a
book entitled The Truth (with jokes), and I told
the cadets that you can’t have freedom without the
truth. You can have freedom without jokes, as has
been proven by the Dutch and the Swiss.
I proceeded to prove that we had been lied into
war, citing example after example of President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, who had been National
Security Advisor in the lead-up to the war,
telling the public information that they knew not
to be true.
At the end of the speech I received a standing
ovation from the cadets. Sol Feinstone’s
granddaughter told me she had gone to every
lecture for the last thirty or so years, and that
I received only the second standing ovation. The
other was for Max Cleland, who lost both legs and
an arm in Vietnam.
By the way, Ann has written that Max Cleland was
lucky to have lost his legs and his arm in
Vietnam. I disagree. More importantly, I know Max,
and he disagrees.
I believe I received the standing ovation because
the cadets knew that I was speaking from the
heart, and that the information I had given them
was all true. And as I said, you can’t have
freedom without the truth.
You can’t have good government without the truth.
During the crafting and passage of the Medicare
prescription drug bill, the chief actuary of
Medicare was told to withhold from Congress the
true cost of the bill. He’d be fired if he told
the truth.
The bill costs so much, in large part, because the
bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the
pharmaceutical companies on the price of drugs. As
a result, seniors now pay on average 44% more than
veterans getting the same drugs through the VA
which is allowed to use its size to negotiate with
the drug companies. To get the bill passed, the
vote was held open for three hours. Tom DeLay was
later admonished by Republicans on the ethics
committee for attempting to bribe, and then
extort, Republican Nick Smith of Michigan to get
him to change his vote. The chairman of the
Commerce Committee Billy Tauzin who ushered the
legislation through, soon left Congress for a two
million dollar a year job as the chief lobbyist
for the pharmaceutical industry. Obviously, a
complete coincidence.
During the 2000 campaign George Bush ran for
president by saying repeatedly, and I quote, “by
far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to those
at the bottom.” Of course, nothing could be
further from the truth.
In fact, the president continues to ask for and
sign tax cuts that go primarily to those at the
top. By the way, until George W. Bush, our country
had never cut taxes during a time of war.
As a result, our deficits grow and the cuts – in
Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, low-income
housing subsidies, community block grants – are
targeted at the poorest in our society.
George W. Bush famously said that Jesus was his
favorite political philosopher. Frankly, I don’t
get it.
I’m Jewish. Thank you. I’m not an expert on the
New Testament. But I know that if you cut out all
the passages where Jesus talks about helping the
poor, helping the least among us, if you literally
took a pair of scissors and cut out all those
passages, you’d have the perfect box to smuggle
Rush Limbaugh’s drugs in.
I don’t understand when the Christian right says
that equal rights in marriage threatens marriage.
I’ve been married 30 years, many of them happy. I
don’t think that if my wife and I were walking
around in Boston, where we met, if we saw two men
holding hands with wedding bands… I don’t think
I’d say “Hey, that looks good. Y’know, honey, you
don’t like watching football on Sundays. Maybe I
could marry a guy, watch football with him, and
then if I wanted to have sex, I could come over
and have sex with you.”
I was just talking to Newt Gingrich the other day.
And I said to him, “Don’t you want for a gay
couple what you had with your first wife? Don’t
you want that bond that comes with the pledge of
fidelity that you had with your second wife? Don’t
you want what comes with that lifelong bond that
you may or may not have with your third wife – I
have no idea what’s going on there.”
You know, Bill O’Reilly always talks about his
“traditional values” – as opposed to “the far
left’s secular humanist values.” I didn’t realize
phone sex was a traditional value. I didn’t think
the phone had been around long enough. Maybe
telegraph sex.
In her book Slander, Ann referred to Democrats and
our “Marquis de Sade lifestyle.” I’ve been married
for thirty years. Ann, you’re an attractive woman.
And I know you support the president’s abstinence-
only sex education. I want to congratulate you for
saving yourself for your one true love.
When my daughter was six years old, her teacher
asked all her students to write about how their
parents had met. We told Thomasin that we met at a
mixer freshman year of college. I saw Franni
across the room, gathering up some friends to
leave. I liked the way she was taking control and
I thought she was beautiful. So I asked her to
dance, and then got her a ginger ale, then
escorted her to her dorm and asked for a date.
My daughter wrote, “My dad asked my mom to dance,
bought her a drink, and then took her home.” Now
all the facts were accurate, but what my daughter
wrote was extremely misleading. Now my daughter
wasn’t lying. She didn’t realize that what she
wrote made her mom seem like a slut.
Ann, however, is not six years old. And she has
developed her own techniques for misleading, by
leaving out important facts. Let me give you an
example of Ann lying by omission.
Also in her book Slander, Ann tells her readers
that Al Gore had a leg up on George W. Bush when
applying to their respective colleges. Harvard and
Yale. Ann writes:
“Oddly, it was Bush who was routinely accused of
having sailed through life on his father’s name.
But the truth was the reverse. The media was
manipulating the fact that – many years later –
Bush’s father became president. When Bush was
admitted to Yale, his father was a little-known
congressman on the verge of losing his first
Senate race. His father was a Yale alumnus, but so
were a lot of other boys’ parents. It was Gore,
not Bush, who had a famous father likely to
impress college admissions committees.”
What does Ann omit? Well, that Bush’s grandfather
Prescott Bush was also a Yale alum and had been
Senator from Connecticut, the home state of Yale
University. That Prescott Bush had been a trustee
of Yale. That Prescott Bush had been the first
chair of Yale’s Development Board – the folks who
raise the money. That Prescott Bush sat on the
Yale Corporation for twelve years. That Prescott
Bush, like George W. Bush’s father, George H. W,
Bush, had been a member of Skull and Bones. That
the first Bush to go to Yale was Bush’s great
great grandfather James Bush, who graduated in
1844. That in addition to his father, grandfather,
and greatgreatgrandfather, Bush was the legacy of
no less than twenty-seven other relatives who
preceded him at Yale, including five great great
uncles. Seven great uncles. Five uncles, and a
number of first cousins.
Now why did Ann leave out these somewhat relevant
facts? Ann grew up in Connecticut. Ann, did you
really not know that Prescott Bush had been your
senator when you were born?
Ann, is it possible that when Prescott’s son
George H. W. Bush became president, it totally
escaped your notice that his father had
represented your state in the United States
Senate? Did neither of your parents mention it in
passing at the dinner table? Did no one at home in
Darien make any comments about the new president’s
lineage?
Understand. This isn’t sloppiness. This is
deliberate. For Ann’s purposes – to claim that the
media that was manipulating facts here – Ann
herself had to manipulate facts – in such a
shameless way. This is what she does.
And she does it over and over and over again.
Let me give you another example.
On page 265 of her book Treason, Ann writes of Tom
Friedman, the New York Times columnist. “He blamed
twenty years of relentless attacks by Muslim
extremists on- I quote – ‘religious
fundamentalists of any stripe.’”
This didn’t sound like Tom Friedman to me, so I
found the one Friedman column that contained that
phrase – “religious fundamentalists of any
stripe.” It was from a December 26, 2001 column
called “Naked Air,” about an airline where
everyone would fly naked. “Think about it,”
Friedman writes, tongue firmly planted in cheek,
“If everybody flew naked, not only would you never
have to worry about the passenger next to you
carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no
religious fundamentalists of any stripe would ever
be caught dead flying nude.”
Let me repeat. Ann wrote of Tom Friedman, Jewish
by the way, that “he blamed twenty years of
relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on – I
quote – ‘religious fundamentalists of any
stripe.’” She bothered to put “I quote” in there
for emphasis.
Friedman actually wrote “no religious
fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught
dead flying nude” in service of a conceit that
illustrated our dilemma of either becoming less
open as a society or learning to live with much
higher risks than we’ve ever been used to before.
Friedman was not blaming 9/11 on the Lubavichers,
as Ann suggests.
Now this sort of deliberate misrepresentation
contributes to a coarsening of our nation’s
dialogue. Ann recently told an audience:
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice
Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just
a joke, for you in the media.”
Here’s my question. What’s the joke? Maybe it’s a
prejudice from my days as a comedy writer, but I
always thought the joke had to have an operative
funny idea. I’ll give you an example of a joke.
Like they do every Saturday night, two elderly
Jewish couples are going out to dinner. The guys
are in front, the girls riding in back. Irv says
to Sid, “Where should we go tonight?”
Sid says, “How about that place we went about a
month ago. The Italian place with the great
lasagna.”
Irv says, “I don’t remember it.”
Sid says, “The place with the great lasagna.”
Irv says, “I don’t remember. What’s the name of
the place?”
Sid thinks. But can’t remember. “A flower. Gimme a
flower.”
“Tulip?” Irv says.
“No, no. A different flower.”
“Magnolia?”
“No, no. A basic flower.”
“Orchid?”
“No! Basic.”
“Rose?”
That’s it! Sid turns to the back seat. “Rose. What
was the name of that restaurant…?”
That’s a joke. What exactly is the joke in “We
need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice
Stevens’ creme brulee?” Is it the crème brulee? Is
that it? Because Stevens is some kind of
Francophile or elitist? Is it the rat poison? See,
I would have gone with Drano. I’m really trying
here, Ann. Please, when you come up, explain the
joke about murdering an associate justice of the
Supreme Court. One who by the way, was appointed
to the Supreme Court by Gerald Ford, and who,
also, by the way, won a Bronze Star serving in the
Navy in World War II. What is the joke? ‘Cause I
don’t get it.
Now in Ann’s defense, she doesn’t always make
horribly offensive remarks or knowingly craft
lies. Very often Ann is just wrong out of
ignorance or pure laziness. Take this from the
MSNBC Show – Saturday Final – on August 30, 2003 –
MSNBC. She is talking about how well the war in
Iraq is going.
COULTER: I think the rebuilding is going extremely
well. Douglas MacArthur was in Japan five years
after V.J. Day. There were enormous casualties in
Germany after World War II. The rebuilding is
actually going quite well compared to past
efforts. And really, all we’re getting from
Democrats is constant carping.
Ann, do you know how many combat fatalities the
American military had in Germany after V-E day?
Zero. You know how many in Japan after V-J day?
Zero.
Ann and I have debated once before. In May of
2004, and Ann still felt the war was going
amazingly well. Let me quote her from that debate:
“…. This war is going amazingly well… the casualty
rate is incredibly small for the rebuilding. It is
going better than can be expected. You cannot read
about how well things are going against Al Sadr,
where you have Iraqis protesting against Al Sadr;
all these stories about how Al Sadr had (this)
vast support among the Iraqis… oh no no no. They
recently held a protest march saying, ‘Al Sadr,
get out.’”
As you know, Ann, Moktadr al Sadr, recently picked
the Shiite choice for prime minister for the new
government, Mohamed al Jafaari. Sadr has thirty-
two seats in the Iraqi assembly compared to Ahmed
Chalabi’s zero. And remember, it was Chalabi to
whom we were going to turn over the Iraqi
government.
Things are not going amazingly well in Iraq. And
they haven’t been going amazingly well since we
allowed the looting of Baghdad. A week ago, former
prime minister Ayad Allawi said that Iraq was
already in a civil war. And as George Bush said in
September of 2004, we should listen to Allawi
because – and I quote – “he understands what’s
going on there – after all, he lives there.”
The first thing this Administration needs to do in
Iraq is to start acknowledging the truth and level
with the American people.
I think the one lesson we can all agree on from
Vietnam is that we cannot blame the troops. By and
large, the vast, vast majority of our troops have
performed heroically. And they deserve our
gratitude and support. And that means supporting
them after they’ve come home.
Two thirds of the wounded in Iraq now have brain
injuries. That’s because so many of the casualties
are from IED’s, and the injuries are concussive
and not ballistic. Each one of those brain
injuries is going to cost a million dollars over
the course of that veteran’s life. And we need to
fund programs for those who come back with post
traumatic stress disorder – a higher percentage
than in any previous war.
Now another value I believe in is love of country.
For some reason it rankles Ann that I’ve done six
USO tours and have had the nerve to talk about it.
I do so because I want people to be aware of the
work that the USO does. I want anyone here today
who is a Hollywood celebrity to think about giving
up a couple weeks of your life to entertain our
men and women in uniform. I think it rankles Ann
that I’ve talked about going on the USO tours
because she can’t conceive that anyone would
actually do something for anyone else. I didn’t go
to Iraq to prove that Democrats are patriotic,
Ann. I did my first USO tour in 1999, when Clinton
was president. We went to Kosovo, a war that was
vehemently and vocally opposed by many
Republicans. Even so, we didn’t call them
traitors. I was invited by the USO to go to Iraq
because they know I do a good job and that it
means a lot to the troops when anyone comes over
to show them we care.
My daughter is 25. She teaches inner city kids in
the Bronx. And that makes me proud. She hates when
I say it, and that makes me even more proud.
My son is an engineering student. He wants to
build fuel efficient cars. He’s a junior in
college and got a job at Ford this summer working
on a new manufacturing process for power trans. I
don’t know what that means either. But he got
there because he works his butt off.
But my son doesn’t feel that he got where he is
because he is some kind of rugged individual. That
he did it all himself. He knows that he stands on
the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders
of those who stood on the shoulders of those who
stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the
necks of Indians.
My wife and I tried to instill certain values in
our kids. But we don’t love them because they’re
perfect. We love them because they’re decent,
loving kids. Kids who care about others and care,
by the way, about the truth.
One last thing. Speaking of the truth. A few
months after my last debate with Ann, the
following appeared in a New York Observer story
about Ann. From the September 13, 2004 issue..
The writer asks Ann in the article:
“She debated Al Franken recently?
“’Yes,’ she said. ‘It’s not an interesting debate,
because liberals can’t argue. So it’s never like
point-counterpoint; all we do is hear about his
fucking U.S.O. tours for three hours. Excuse my
French.’”
Ann, let’s see if we can have a point-
counterpoint, and an interesting debate. And by
the way, Ann, I have here a DVD of that entire
three hour debate – And I’ll bet you my speaking
fee tonight that I spoke about my USO tours for
less than a grand total of three minutes. How
about it Ann? My speaking fee against your
speaking fee?
I mean we care about the truth, don’t we?
Alohacyberian
And the hypocrisy of the elitist Leftwing Liberals is apocalyptic!
Leftwingers claim they are in favor of human rights, yet, Saddam Hussein
and Islamofascist terrorists regularly slaughtered and maimed innocent
civilians. America declared war on such tactics, so do the Lefties support
America? Not a chance! Leftists claim to support and promote women's
rights. Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists with great regularity
denied women's rights, raped them, tortured them, maimed them and
slaughtered them. America declared war on such tactics, so do the Lefties
support America and Americans? Not a chance! Leftists claim they support
homosexual rights. Islamofascists and Saddam Hussein's regime subjected
homosexuals to the most humiliating indignities and heinous tortures
imaginable. America declared war on such tactics, so do the Lefties support
America and Americans? Not a chance! Leftwingers claim they believe women
should have equal rights in every way, from driving cars to education, from
freedom of expression to voting in elections. Are these rights guaranteed
or even existent in most Muslim countries, particularly Afghanistan and
Iraq? Hardly. But, when America and American gave those rights to women, a
first in the Islamic world, did elitist Leftwing Liberals support and
applaud those American actions? Not a chance! Leftists don't even stand up
for their own purported agendas and they expect any humane or rational
person to listen to their doubletalk? KM
Mitchell Holman
news:Rol3g.81007$1q4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
(flashback to Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam
while delivering military aid to him. All the fault
of "leftwing liberals, you know)
> America declared war on such tactics, so do the
> Lefties support America? Not a chance! Leftists claim to support and
> promote women's rights. Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists
> with great regularity denied women's rights, raped them, tortured them,
> maimed them and slaughtered them.
Actually women had more freedom under Saddam's
secular government than they do now. The hardline
Shites control the government, Back to the Burqua!
> America declared war on such tactics,
> so do the Lefties support America and Americans? Not a chance!
> Leftists claim they support homosexual rights. Islamofascists and
> Saddam Hussein's regime subjected homosexuals to the most humiliating
> indignities and heinous tortures imaginable. America declared war on
> such tactics, so do the Lefties support America and Americans? Not a
> chance! Leftwingers claim they believe women should have equal rights
> in every way, from driving cars to education, from freedom of expression
> to voting in elections. Are these rights guaranteed or even existent in
> most Muslim countries, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq? Hardly. But,
> when America and American gave those rights to women, a first in the
> Islamic world, did elitist Leftwing Liberals support and applaud those
> American actions? Not a chance! Leftists don't even stand up for their
> own purported agendas and they expect any humane or rational person to
> listen to their doubletalk? KM
The US-brokered constitutions in both Iraq and
Afghanistan state that Islam is the "supreme law of
the land" and that "no law can be allowed that is
contrary to Islam". As with Iran, as with the Taliban.
Tell us, Aloha, how that is progress.
Mitchell Holman
"Iraqis killed under Clinton: 500,000 to 1,000,000."
Keith "Alohacyberian" Martin, 10/14/05, unproven claim.
CB
"Mitchell Holman" <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B05937C...@216.196.97.131...
Flashbacks are all you got? It just goes to prove you have no vision for the
future.
Each administration 'is' different although the long tem goals might be the
same. The end of Islamo-fascism. Arming Saddamn was a bad idea and we've
come to understand that and we've since corrected it, accept moveon.
>
>
>> America declared war on such tactics, so do the
>> Lefties support America? Not a chance! Leftists claim to support and
>> promote women's rights. Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists
>> with great regularity denied women's rights, raped them, tortured them,
>> maimed them and slaughtered them.
>
>
> Actually women had more freedom under Saddam's
> secular government than they do now. The hardline
> Shites control the government, Back to the Burqua!
In your dreams mullah head
>
>
>
>> America declared war on such tactics,
>> so do the Lefties support America and Americans? Not a chance!
>> Leftists claim they support homosexual rights. Islamofascists and
>> Saddam Hussein's regime subjected homosexuals to the most humiliating
>> indignities and heinous tortures imaginable. America declared war on
>> such tactics, so do the Lefties support America and Americans? Not a
>> chance! Leftwingers claim they believe women should have equal rights
>> in every way, from driving cars to education, from freedom of expression
>> to voting in elections. Are these rights guaranteed or even existent in
>> most Muslim countries, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq? Hardly. But,
>> when America and American gave those rights to women, a first in the
>> Islamic world, did elitist Leftwing Liberals support and applaud those
>> American actions? Not a chance! Leftists don't even stand up for their
>> own purported agendas and they expect any humane or rational person to
>> listen to their doubletalk? KM
>
>
> The US-brokered constitutions in both Iraq and
> Afghanistan state that Islam is the "supreme law of
> the land" and that "no law can be allowed that is
> contrary to Islam". As with Iran, as with the Taliban.
The Christian who was to be executed for his faith was released, what's up
with dat?
You'll have to post proof of "supreme law of the land", other wise it's just
wishful thinking on your part.
CB
--
"More to the heart of most Americans' concerns, how can a nation fighting a
war on terror NOT seal its borders?" -Kathleen Parker ++ "Because we do not
communicate to our immigrants, legal and illegal, that they have joined
something special, some of them, understandably, get the impression they've
joined not a great enterprise but a big box store. A big box store on the
highway where you can get anything cheap. It's a good place. But it has no
legends, no meaning, and it imparts no spirit." -Peggy Noonan
Mitchell Holman
news:Q1s3g.15733$4O2....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
So tell us how Reagan arming Saddam is the fault
of "leftwing liberals", as Aloha claimed.
Article 7.
A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is
to be considered a source of legislation. No law that
contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam,
the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in
Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the
transitional period.
Rich Travsky
And here's one of the head cheerleaders! Say, maybe Chickenhawk Cheney
shouldn't have left Saddam in power back after the GW, eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18
Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use
Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver
a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States'
public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail
Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly
declassified documents.
...
Rich Travsky
Appease? Like this?
Rich Travsky
Yes, it's asking too much of Keith. He runs like a coward when asked to back
up his mouth.
Rich Travsky
Where was your outrage when republicons were supporting Saddam?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18
Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use
Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver
a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States'
public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail
Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly
declassified documents.
...
CB
I suppose it's as credible as our motto: 'In God we trust.'"
CB
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:444EED93...@hotmMOVEail.com...
Times change loser, especially post 9/11 You'd like for Rummy to give
Saddamn his toys back huh?
Mitchell Holman
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
<crickets>
Is "In God We Trust" in OUR Constitution?
LOL!
Amazing.
CB
Hey asshole, I've said arming of Saddamn was a mistake, we've remedied that,
moveon.
If just rubbing in the fact that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' was a
failed policy for characters like Saddamn, you're whining to the choir.
The problem with Liberals is they don't act to correct errors, they do act
to prevent Justice from finding the criminally inappropriate.
Does everthing have to be written down for you?
I bet you're the kinda guy that looks for loop holes to get around moral
issues. Some people can on their own use self discipline to hold them selves
to a standard which honors Humanity, others would use word smiths (like
Clintonian use of the word 'is') to avoid reality.
Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that? Would
you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
I would hop the new and improved Iraq would not follow Islam as Osama did,
nor as Mohammod.
>
>
>
>
Dave
<snip>
> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that? Would
> you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
CB
> CB wrote:
> <snip>
>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that? Would
>> you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>
> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution the
world over.
Do they have to fear the likes of you?
Dave
> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:q6qdnVHUrJpWBszZ...@giganews.com...
>> CB wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that? Would
>>> you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>
> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution the
> world over.
Huh?
> Do they have to fear the likes of you?
No, they have to fear fundamentalist Christians, like yourself.
CB
> CB wrote:
>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:q6qdnVHUrJpWBszZ...@giganews.com...
>>> CB wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that?
>>>> Would you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>>
>> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution
>> the world over.
>
> Huh?
Duh?
You don't know American history. Dare I say because I'm arguing with a
non-American or non-acclimated sqatter?
America was founded in part by people fleeing the church of England, a
repressive sect of Christianity which enslaved people rather than
strengthening them in their faith in God. Every major US institution of hire
learning was founded by Christians so people would not be ignorant, you
ignoramous.
"Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?"
What an ignorant statement, Yes, statement, that was no question..
>
>> Do they have to fear the likes of you?
>
> No, they have to fear fundamentalist Christians, like yourself.
That's Right, not for fear of going BOOM but for fear of not conforming to
your Secular, Commie Animal Farm.
--
CB
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Senator Hillary Clinton 2004
Karl Marx Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848
Mitchell Holman
news:2jl4g.13087$oW1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eeqdnaj0Y6G6LczZ...@giganews.com...
>> CB wrote:
>>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q6qdnVHUrJpWBszZ...@giganews.com...
>>>> CB wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that?
>>>>> Would you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>>>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>>>
>>> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution
>>> the world over.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Duh?
>
> You don't know American history. Dare I say because I'm arguing with a
> non-American or non-acclimated sqatter?
>
> America was founded in part by people fleeing the church of England, a
> repressive sect of Christianity which enslaved people rather than
> strengthening them in their faith in God. Every major US institution of
> hire learning was founded by Christians so people would not be ignorant,
> you ignoramous.
Ahem. You said America IS a magnet for people
escaping religious persecution.
Present tense.
So show us what who is coming here NOW to escape
religious fundies.
PS: We will take up your claim about "US institutions
of hire learning" later on...........
Dave
> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eeqdnaj0Y6G6LczZ...@giganews.com...
>> CB wrote:
>>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q6qdnVHUrJpWBszZ...@giganews.com...
>>>> CB wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that?
>>>>> Would you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>>>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>>> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution
>>> the world over.
>> Huh?
>
> Duh?
Like the Catholic Mexicans?
>
> You don't know American history. Dare I say because I'm arguing with a
> non-American or non-acclimated sqatter?
>
> America was founded in part by people fleeing the church of England, a
> repressive sect of Christianity which enslaved people rather than
> strengthening them in their faith in God. Every major US institution of hire
> learning was founded by Christians so people would not be ignorant, you
> ignoramous.
You missed the point, which shouldn't have been too hard, even for you.
Christianity is also a religion of the Middle East. Or do you think
it's Palestine, IL?
CB
> CB wrote:
>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eeqdnaj0Y6G6LczZ...@giganews.com...
>>> CB wrote:
>>>> "Dave" <supr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:q6qdnVHUrJpWBszZ...@giganews.com...
>>>>> CB wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that?
>>>>>> Would you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>>>>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>>>> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution
>>>> the world over.
>>> Huh?
>>
>> Duh?
>
> Like the Catholic Mexicans?
As Marxism moved into Mexico?
>
>>
>> You don't know American history. Dare I say because I'm arguing with a
>> non-American or non-acclimated sqatter?
>>
>> America was founded in part by people fleeing the church of England, a
>> repressive sect of Christianity which enslaved people rather than
>> strengthening them in their faith in God. Every major US institution of
>> hire
>> learning was founded by Christians so people would not be ignorant, you
>> ignoramous.
>
> You missed the point, which shouldn't have been too hard, even for you.
> Christianity is also a religion of the Middle East. Or do you think
> it's Palestine, IL?
Using Post Hoc moral equivalence? Birds of a feather?
Dave
>>>>>>> Islam is the religion of the middle east. Would you deny them that?
>>>>>>> Would you impose your secular dogma on a nation?
>>>>>> Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?
>>>>> The US 'is' a magnet for people trying to escape religious persecution
>>>>> the world over.
>>>> Huh?
>>> Duh?
>> Like the Catholic Mexicans?
>
> As Marxism moved into Mexico?
There's Marxist Government in Mexico?
>>> You don't know American history. Dare I say because I'm arguing with a
>>> non-American or non-acclimated sqatter?
>>>
>>> America was founded in part by people fleeing the church of England, a
>>> repressive sect of Christianity which enslaved people rather than
>>> strengthening them in their faith in God. Every major US institution of
>>> hire
>>> learning was founded by Christians so people would not be ignorant, you
>>> ignoramous.
Can you give a cite that says that MIT was founded by Christians? What
about any state's Universities?
>> You missed the point, which shouldn't have been too hard, even for you.
>> Christianity is also a religion of the Middle East. Or do you think
>> it's Palestine, IL?
>
> Using Post Hoc moral equivalence? Birds of a feather?
I'm just denying that Islam is "the" religion of the Middle East. Is
there a large population of Muslims in the Middle East? Yes, but there
are more in Indonesia, which is not the Middle East. Where I think you
are trying to get to is that Christianity is "the" religion of the U.S.
Which it may be because the majority of people are Christian, but it is
also a religion of the Middle East, just as Judaism is.
As per the moral equivalence, yes, I think they're both about the same.
Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians. Been going on for
centuries and still going strong today.
>>> "Christianity was invented in the U.S. then?"
>>>
>>> What an ignorant statement, Yes, statement, that was no question..
Just wanted to make sure you weren't of the mind that Jesus spoke English.
Rich Travsky
> > >> September 11 attacks" George Bush, Sept 18, 2003
> > >>
> > > That would make W. a liar according to Alohacyberian, and we all know that
> > > there has never been any lies from anyone in the current administration.
> > >
> > LOL! God, your denseness is stupefying, even if it's expected from Mitchell
> > Holman. That statement was made (see above) on September 18, 2003. Look at
> > your calendar and discover, it's about April 22, 2006. A lot of things have
> > changed in the world since September 18, 2003 and as more information is
> > uncovered, more will continue to change. Why are incredibly simple things
> > like that, impossible for elitist Leftwing Liberals to grasp? KM
>
>
> You know, something that supports your claim that "Iraq was complicit in the
> 9-11 attack" ?
>
> Well?
>
> Put it right here ->
>
> (this oughta be good - poor hapless keith setting himself up for another
> bitch slapping!)
Rich Travsky
None of this would have been necessary had not you rightards helped Saddam!
And then left him in power!
HAHAHHAHA
CB
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Accept it loser, Saddamn is gone, forever, he's beyond resurrection
Mitchell Holman
Don't forget his latest lie that he is
running away from........
Mitchell Holman
"Iraq did declare war on the United States."
Keith "Alohacyberian" Martin, 04/28/06
In fact Iraq never declared war on the US.
Rich Travsky
Tell it to Rummy and the other rightards!
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2610/663/1600/Rumsfeld-Hussein.jpg
CB
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Clinging onto the past is what Gore is doing when he says he used to be the
next president of the US of A.
Rummy thumped Saddamn, remember that too?
--
CB
"The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by
an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the
privilege of being neutral."
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 11
CB
<CL...@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:gl2c521c4nl8rg21b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:05:33 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Clinging onto the past is what Gore is doing when he says he used to be
>>the
>>next president of the US of A.
>
> DESPERATELY trying to do to reverse 40 years of
> spanking by progressive government, you dumb cocksucker
>
> Conservatives have never gotten over the fact that the
> federal government FORCED them to treat blacks equally,
> treat women equally, outlawed segregation, outlawed
> every chickenshit, greedy behavior that conservatism is
> famous for.
>
We've been over this before, Gary. It was Conservitives like Joseph Story
and Abe Lincoln who started and ended the movement to free slaves and make
every man equal under the law.
Howard W. Smith, (Democrat), the powerful Virginian who chaired the House
Rules Committee, opposed civil rights laws for blacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_Party
Both Deamocrats AlGore Sr. and Robert Byrd oted against the Civil Rights
Bill in 1964!
As a freshman Senator, was Ted Kennedy in the Senate early enough to have
voted on the Civil Rights bill in 1964? I looked and couldn't find an
answer.
"We have lost the South for a generation." - Lyndon Johnson (democrat), to
an aide, immediately after signing the Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_Party Why did he
say that? Because the south 'then' was rascist Democrats until the good
people gled to join the morally Right side.
It was a Republican, Senator Everett Dirksen who introduced the Equal Rights
Bill which Johnson signed into law.
Finally you bogot, look at the botttom line, the vote according to party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The Original House Version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Rich Travsky
Rummy LIED, remember that too?
RT
CB
<CL...@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:gl2c521c4nl8rg21b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:05:33 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>the
>>next president of the US of A.
>
ouroboros rex
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>
> <CL...@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
> news:gl2c521c4nl8rg21b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:05:33 -0400, "CB"
>> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Clinging onto the past is what Gore is doing when he says he used to be
>>>the
>>>next president of the US of A.
>>
>> "clinging to the past" is what conservatives are
>> DESPERATELY trying to do to reverse 40 years of
>> spanking by progressive government, you dumb cocksucker
>>
>> Conservatives have never gotten over the fact that the
>> federal government FORCED them to treat blacks equally,
>> treat women equally, outlawed segregation, outlawed
>> every chickenshit, greedy behavior that conservatism is
>> famous for.
>>
>
> We've been over this before, Gary. It was Conservitives like Joseph Story
> and Abe Lincoln who started and ended the movement to free slaves and make
> every man equal under the law.
Same lies different day.
CB
<CL...@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:uu1p7212oih81j6ru...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:03:50 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>> "clinging to the past" is what conservatives are
>>> DESPERATELY trying to do to reverse 40 years of
>>> spanking by progressive government, you dumb cocksucker
>>>
>>> Conservatives have never gotten over the fact that the
>>> federal government FORCED them to treat blacks equally,
>>> treat women equally, outlawed segregation, outlawed
>>> every chickenshit, greedy behavior that conservatism is
>>> famous for.
>>>
>>
>>We've been over this before, Gary. It was Conservitives like Joseph Story
>>and Abe Lincoln who started and ended the movement to free slaves and make
>>every man equal under the law.
>
> difference between political IDEOLOGY and political
> LABEL, you dumb cocksucker
>
> Lincoln was a PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL republican
>
> The Republicans who supported the Civil rights
> legislation (remember it was a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC
> agenda) were MODERATE/LIBERAL republicans
>
> Only a dumb asshole like you would try to claim that
> simply because of PARTY LABEL a set of principles exist
>
> Parties change, particularily those political goals and
> agendas.
>
That's right you Liberal fudge packer, the good Christian Conservitive
people of the South bolted from the Dim Party to the Republican Party. Today
any politician running for president has to win the south, which 'is'
Republican and Conservative!
tiredo...@--------.com
>On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:36:55 -0400, "CB"
><C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Conservatives have never gotten over the fact that the
>>>>> federal government FORCED them to treat blacks equally,
>>>>> treat women equally, outlawed segregation, outlawed
>>>>> every chickenshit, greedy behavior that conservatism is
>>>>> famous for.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We've been over this before, Gary. It was Conservitives like Joseph Story
>>>>and Abe Lincoln who started and ended the movement to free slaves and make
>>>>every man equal under the law.
>>>
>>> YOU'VE been hammered time and again about the
>>> difference between political IDEOLOGY and political
>>> LABEL, you dumb cocksucker
>>>
>>> Lincoln was a PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL republican
>>>
>>> The Republicans who supported the Civil rights
>>> legislation (remember it was a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC
>>> agenda) were MODERATE/LIBERAL republicans
>>>
>>> Only a dumb asshole like you would try to claim that
>>> simply because of PARTY LABEL a set of principles exist
>
>>That's right you Liberal fudge packer, the good Christian Conservitive
>>people of the South bolted from the Dim Party to the Republican Party. Today
>>any politician running for president has to win the south, which 'is'
>>Republican and Conservative!
>
>Also racist and homophobic
>
>If that's "good" to you, then it proves (in your own
>words) that it's a party of racist beliefs.
>
A good southern bible burning would solve alot of the conservative
brainwashing. Either they burn their bible or they get shot to death.
CB
<tiredofemail@--------.com> wrote in message
news:ktrv72dt4sstp1hi4...@4ax.com...
Now there's a Progressive/Liberal idea. Gary might call it the 'Southern
Solution'
Rich Travsky
> >>>> federal government FORCED them to treat blacks equally,
> >>>> treat women equally, outlawed segregation, outlawed
> >>>> every chickenshit, greedy behavior that conservatism is
> >>>> famous for.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>We've been over this before, Gary. It was Conservitives like Joseph Story
> >>>and Abe Lincoln who started and ended the movement to free slaves and make
> >>>every man equal under the law.
> >>
> >> YOU'VE been hammered time and again about the
> >> difference between political IDEOLOGY and political
> >> LABEL, you dumb cocksucker
> >>
> >> Lincoln was a PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL republican
> >>
> >> The Republicans who supported the Civil rights
> >> legislation (remember it was a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC
> >> agenda) were MODERATE/LIBERAL republicans
> >>
> >> Only a dumb asshole like you would try to claim that
> >> simply because of PARTY LABEL a set of principles exist
>
> >people of the South bolted from the Dim Party to the Republican Party. Today
> >any politician running for president has to win the south, which 'is'
> >Republican and Conservative!
>
>
> If that's "good" to you, then it proves (in your own
> words) that it's a party of racist beliefs.
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/284558-1.html
...
In early March 1989, after his legislative victory, Duke
addressed a Populist party convention in Chicago, telling
the audience of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and skinheads
that he had run for office under the GOP label "because that's
where so many of our people are," adding, "I am a Republican,
but I am and always will be a Populist Republican!" Unbeknownst
to Duke, an opponent tape-recorded his remarks and later offered
the story to the Picayune.
...
> >==================================================== =========================
>
> <Charley Barta)...@prayforme.com> wrote like a rightwing scumbag;
>
> >Act like a "low down and ugly person" (nigger) and be called one. Nothing
> >to do with skin color, everything to do with character.