OT~Using a tragedy to advance an agenda

[Bob Hatch]

A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
group made some very negative comments about that, and me.

Early this AM, 0bama made some very pointed comments about the need for
more, and more gun regulations and restrictions in response to the
shootings at the PP clinic in Colorado Springs.

Crickets.

It appears that only pro Second Amendment comments bother her.


--

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.."
- Winston Churchill
http://www.bobhatch.com

[Bruce]

On 11/28/2015 7:44 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>
> Early this AM, 0bama made some very pointed comments about the need for
> more, and more gun regulations and restrictions in response to the
> shootings at the PP clinic in Colorado Springs.
>
> Crickets.
>
> It appears that only pro Second Amendment comments bother her.

Well she is a liberal, intellectual consistency would be impossible for
her. If liberals didn't have double standards, they would have no
standards at all.

--
Bruce

"Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and
the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences
of this actions... Liberty and responsibility are inseparable." - F.A.
Hayek

[George Anthony]

Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2015 7:44 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
>> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
>> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
>> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>>
>> Early this AM, 0bama made some very pointed comments about the need for
>> more, and more gun regulations and restrictions in response to the
>> shootings at the PP clinic in Colorado Springs.
>>
>> Crickets.
>>
>> It appears that only pro Second Amendment comments bother her.
>
> Well she is a liberal, intellectual consistency would be impossible for
> her. If liberals didn't have double standards, they would have no
> standards at all.
>

Kinda' like their brains -- none at all.

[Will Sill]

On 11/28/15 10:44 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>
> Early this AM, 0bama made some very pointed comments about the need for
> more, and more gun regulations and restrictions in response to the
> shootings at the PP clinic in Colorado Springs.
>
> Crickets.
>
> It appears that only pro Second Amendment comments bother her.

We have always had among us those who cannot grasp the distinction
between a device (ANY device) and the criminal/harmful use of same.

No knife (spear, gun, rocket, club/bat, auto) is actually a "weapon"
until it is EMPLOYED as one to cause injury/death. Strange that the few
vocal nitwits who hyperventilate over "guns" fail to notice that around
FIFTY THOUSAND Americans die every year in highway wrecks. . . and that
the estimated 85 million law-abiding USA gun owners have killed or
injured virtually NOBODY.

Yes, it's a pity so many thugs commit crimes - with or without guns. But
criminals have infested the human race since Cain, and the more
anti-social they are, the less regard they have for regulations.

Will

Good for you, spelling 0bama correctly!

[Stagger Lee]

> On 11/28/15 10:44 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>

Didja cry..little feller?

[Vito]

>Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2015 7:44 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
>>> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
>>> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
>>> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>>>

My answer to people like that is that they should study the history of
gun regulation. In 1960 there were few federal laws or state laws.
Only a few cities like NY, Chicago and DC made it difficult to own or
carry firearms. In most places one could mail order guns cheaply.
Then in the wake of the Kennedy killings lawmakers went on a binge of
regulation until concealed carry became unlawful for most Americans
and open carry was curtailed. Predictably, crime skyrocketed. Now
the pendulum has swung the other way and crime, including gun crime,
is down. In short, we have tried gun prohibition and it failed just
like booze prohibition and brought a host of new crime to boot. Now
what kind of idiot wants to give it another go? Been there, done
that, burned the shirt.

[Hank]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:44:27 AM UTC-5, Bob Hatch wrote:
> A few days ago I made a comment about gun free zones and regulations
> after the shootings in France by the ISIS thugs, and one female on the
> group made some very negative comments about that, and me.
>
> Early this AM, 0bama made some very pointed comments about the need for
> more, and more gun regulations and restrictions in response to the
> shootings at the PP clinic in Colorado Springs.
>
> Crickets.
>
> It appears that only pro Second Amendment comments bother her.
>

What's your point?

Hank

[Hank]

LMAO

Hank

[Bob Hatch]

Apparently it's too complicated for you.

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

If he did wood you tattle?
LOL

[Lone Haranguer]

A good post although it is obviously a cut and paste job. If you
had written it there would be at least 10 spelling errors.

LZ

[Major Oz]

...check the yard...there might be kids on the grass....

[Lone Haranguer]

It appears that liberals get agitated about some shootings and
ignore others.

Has King Obama said anything about the shooting of a 9 year old
in Chicago? Doesn't he wonder about all the guns used in weekly
shootings in his home town? Hasn't he noticed that cities run by
Democrats have more crime than those run by Republicans?

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani had a proven method of reducing
gun crime and even though the lives saved were mostly in the
Black community, Black agitators and politicians railed against
Giuliani's "racist" policy.

To liberals, Political Correctness is more important than saving
lives.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

I can see your travels have not taken you through this area.
Only golf courses have grass.

Oh! Right! You are also a lousy speller...so you downplay the
disability.

I guess it isn't PC to point out such personal shortcomings.

LZ

[Jan Orme]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YEP! More proof of the Subject Here! And they are thus endlessly using any tragedy that comes along to advance their lying agenda! You can hear the lies fly out of their mouths over and over as they are interviewed every night on TV. Days and months later.

Excellent Post, Bob!

Jan

[George Anthony]

I'm beginning to think Obama is paying these nut cases or their families to
commit these mass killings, ala Saddam Hussein, so he can continue to
promote his anti-gun agenda. It seems like that effort would be better
served if he used the killings in Chicago and other democrat cities as
examples.

[Vito]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:50:35 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony
<gant...@gmail.org> wrote:
>I'm beginning to think Obama is paying these nut cases or their families to
>commit these mass killings, ala Saddam Hussein, so he can continue to
>promote his anti-gun agenda. It seems like that effort would be better
>served if he used the killings in Chicago and other democrat cities as
>examples.

Me too. I don't go that far (paying) but behavioral science is a two
way street. If an FBI profiler can look at a crime and tell you what
kind of individual committed it and his motive, the same profiler can
tell you what kind of individual one can get to commit a given kind of
crime and how to motivate him. The bombing of the ROTC building at
Kent State decades ago is a good example of FBI creating a crime.

Obama's education is in Community Organization - wonder what they
teach there. How to rouse the rabble? How to create "theater" that
does that?

The media ignore killings in Chicago because they are not news but are
rather commonplace ... so the public isn't interested.

[bill horne]

And here's one of his latest statements on the PP shootings:
------------------------------------------------------------
Expressing what has become regularly repeated frustration on the
issue, President Barack Obama said on Saturday the United States needs
to "do something" to make it harder for criminals to get guns after a
shooting in Colorado killed three people and injured nine.

"We have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of
war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.
Period," Obama said in a statement. "Enough is enough."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"weapons of war"? Was a fullauto rifle used?
"harder for criminals to get guns"? Was the shooter a criminal?
What "something" does he think we should do that would actually
address the problem? Does he even know what the problem is?

Nearly every time liberals open their mouths about guns, they confirm
themselves as dumbasses. And in my experience, it happens so
consistently, I almost didn't use "Nearly".

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:50:35 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony
<gant...@gmail.org> wrote:

From what I have heard so far it sounds like he spent too much time
holed up listening to Conservative talk radio and cruising the
Internet for sites like Town Hall. This is the kind of thing true
believers do. Conservatives in Colorado. Liberals in Paris.

[Lone Haranguer]

Obama and the rest of the anti-gun crazies want gun laws "fixed"
but how will they succeed? A number of these mass shooters are
borderline insanity cases...and unless the anti-gun gang want to
breach or invalidate the HIPPA laws, the nut cases won't be
identified until AFTER the massacres take place.

Oh yeah, if Planned Parenthood is a target of crazies, why
doesn't the staff bring guns to work?

LZ

[Vito]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:36:37 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>From what I have heard so far it sounds like he spent too much time
>holed up listening to Conservative talk radio and cruising the
>Internet for sites like Town Hall. This is the kind of thing true
>believers do. Conservatives in Colorado. Liberals in Paris.

I see several issues.

On 'gun control', we tried it both here in America and elsewhere.
Didn't work. Never has, never will. And like booze prohibition or
any other prohibition, it causes a host of other problems.

On the subject of nutters, whether they are anti-gun nutters,
anti-abortion nutters, climate change nutters or any other kind of
nutters, they will always be with us. It is the price we pay for
freedom of thought. The best thing to do is point at them and laugh.

Beyond that, we have the purveyors of disinformation - of falsehoods
that incite the lunatic fringe to violence. Like those who would have
us believe that guns are inherently dangerous, never mind that
millions of guns shot nobody today. Or those who claim that climate
change is wholly a product of industrialization and that developed
countries should pay undeveloped countries for being backward - all
despite the correlation between population growth and a hundred other
probable culprits. Or those who hype the plight of the unborn with
little sympathy for the already born. These are the folks to thank
for the Colorado PP shootings and for the Paris riots and, for that
matter, for Islamic terrorism. But what to do about them??

My worst fear is a government that seizes the right to restrict its
citizens for what they might do, without overwhelming proof that they
are a real danger - like the Japanese interred during WW2. Should we
disarm all the RTLrs for inciting the Colorado springs nut? Sounds
like a cure far worse than the disease it is intended to cure. But
that is exactly what some people are proposing - that you should be
denied gun ownership because you loosely fit some profile. Like maybe
you object to abortion clinics??? Not on my boat. I'll accept the
risks rather than give government that kind of power.

Could be we should just carry on as usual - with a bit more finger
pointing and laughing. That seems to hurt some (eg Islamists) more
than shooting at them.

[nothermark]

Personally I would rather curtail the hate mongers but I also believe
in free speech. That puts me out of synch with either end of the
spectrum because both ends peddle hate. It's too bad they cannot be
tagged with some form of aiding and abetting...

As far as climate change goes the only thing that puzzles me is how
they expect us to live differently. If they shut off the benefits of
civilization the third world lifestyle that would evolve is even
dirtier. The only thing that could be done that makes sense is break
the cycle of moving production to countries that do not care thus not
doing anything but paying lip service. Few folks express any interest
in that for a myriad of reasons.

[Bruce]

On 11/29/2015 7:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>
> As far as climate change goes the only thing that puzzles me is how
> they expect us to live differently. If they shut off the benefits of
> civilization the third world lifestyle that would evolve is even
> dirtier. The only thing that could be done that makes sense is break
> the cycle of moving production to countries that do not care thus not
> doing anything but paying lip service. Few folks express any interest
> in that for a myriad of reasons.

Once again your failure to understand how economics works causes you to
reach the wrong conclusion. Third world countries don't care about the
atmosphere because they are so poor that surviving is more important
than the luxury of clean air. This is the same reason they willingly
work in sweat shops, or engage in child labor - they need every cent of
income they can get simply to survive. As more businesses locate there,
and jobs become more plentiful, wages will go up, and they will demand
better working conditions -including cleaner air and water. Instead of
restricting business from moving, just be happy that the polluters have
moved, and look forward to the time when those countries have strong
enough economies to demand a better life. Even though you refuse to
understand the economic reasons for this type of social change, you can
find it fully explained by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:55:36 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/29/2015 7:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> As far as climate change goes the only thing that puzzles me is how
>> they expect us to live differently. If they shut off the benefits of
>> civilization the third world lifestyle that would evolve is even
>> dirtier. The only thing that could be done that makes sense is break
>> the cycle of moving production to countries that do not care thus not
>> doing anything but paying lip service. Few folks express any interest
>> in that for a myriad of reasons.
>
>Once again your failure to understand how economics works causes you to
>reach the wrong conclusion. Third world countries don't care about the
>atmosphere because they are so poor that surviving is more important
>than the luxury of clean air. This is the same reason they willingly
>work in sweat shops, or engage in child labor - they need every cent of
>income they can get simply to survive. As more businesses locate there,
>and jobs become more plentiful, wages will go up, and they will demand
>better working conditions -including cleaner air and water. Instead of
>restricting business from moving, just be happy that the polluters have
>moved, and look forward to the time when those countries have strong
>enough economies to demand a better life. Even though you refuse to
>understand the economic reasons for this type of social change, you can
>find it fully explained by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

I understand Maslow. He is not really applicable to the issue. It is
not whether the other countries have needs. Our propensity for feel
good fixes and disdain for workers gives us the permission to
outsource out of the country. The economic driver is greed. As soon
as a country starts wanting better conditions the job movers are ready
to go to the next poor country and start over in the ever running
quest to save a fraction of a cent. Our government aides and abets.

And once again you miss the point. The point is that we have a choice
of making stuff here in a clean manner for maybe a bit higher cost and
more work or we make it there in as dirty a way as we know how thus
pouring the tons of crud into the air and water so it gets here
anyway. But we can talk about the reduced emissions here. False feel
good.

I do not care if the third world dies from lack of modernization.
Actually I prefer they repeat our cycle and build themselves up like
we did using whatever technology they can invent or steal. Or there
are some parts of the world we could just spray with peoplecide for
all I care.

[Major Oz]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:55:37 AM UTC-6, bruce wrote:
> On 11/29/2015 7:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
> >
> > As far as climate change goes the only thing that puzzles me is how
> > they expect us to live differently. If they shut off the benefits of
> > civilization the third world lifestyle that would evolve is even
> > dirtier. The only thing that could be done that makes sense is break
> > the cycle of moving production to countries that do not care thus not
> > doing anything but paying lip service. Few folks express any interest
> > in that for a myriad of reasons.
>
> Once again your failure to understand how economics works causes you to
> reach the wrong conclusion. Third world countries don't care about the
> atmosphere because they are so poor that surviving is more important
> than the luxury of clean air. This is the same reason they willingly
> work in sweat shops, or engage in child labor - they need every cent of
> income they can get simply to survive. As more businesses locate there,
> and jobs become more plentiful, wages will go up, and they will demand
> better working conditions -including cleaner air and water. Instead of
> restricting business from moving, just be happy that the polluters have
> moved, and look forward to the time when those countries have strong
> enough economies to demand a better life. Even though you refuse to
> understand the economic reasons for this type of social change, you can
> find it fully explained by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Good analysis.....until the last sentence.

The "hierarchy" -- a core belief among those ascribing to an authority-based mode of "thought" -- applies ONLY to individuals.

It has no meaning for groups......except.....perhaps:

Actuating one or more needs on the part of individuals MIGHT combine with some others to produce a result....but not the way it does for the individual.

...heh,heh...but you knew that, you silver tongued trickster....

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:07:57 -0800 (PST), Major Oz <ozm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Neither one of you understood the fairly simple statement about what
puzzled me.

[RMcBane]

On 11/29/2015 5:08 PM, Vito wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:50:35 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony
> <gant...@gmail.org> wrote:
>> I'm beginning to think Obama is paying these nut cases or their families to
>> commit these mass killings, ala Saddam Hussein, so he can continue to
>> promote his anti-gun agenda. It seems like that effort would be better
>> served if he used the killings in Chicago and other democrat cities as
>> examples.
>
> Me too. I don't go that far (paying) but behavioral science is a two
> way street. If an FBI profiler can look at a crime and tell you what
> kind of individual committed it and his motive, the same profiler can
> tell you what kind of individual one can get to commit a given kind of
> crime and how to motivate him. The bombing of the ROTC building at
> Kent State decades ago is a good example of FBI creating a crime.

They didn't bomb it, they just set fire to the
building, and then a lot of students harassed the
fire fighters and cut hoses so that it would
continue to burn.

> Obama's education is in Community Organization - wonder what they
> teach there. How to rouse the rabble? How to create "theater" that
> does that?
>
> The media ignore killings in Chicago because they are not news but are
> rather commonplace ... so the public isn't interested.
>

--
Richard McBane

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" wrote in message
news:jg5p5bhacsof4jni5...@4ax.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit is NOT greed. Once again you are drowning in the liberal Kool-Aid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And once again you miss the point. The point is that we have a choice
of making stuff here in a clean manner for maybe a bit higher cost and
more work or we make it there in as dirty a way as we know how thus
pouring the tons of crud into the air and water so it gets here
anyway. But we can talk about the reduced emissions here. False feel
good.

I do not care if the third world dies from lack of modernization.
Actually I prefer they repeat our cycle and build themselves up like
we did using whatever technology they can invent or steal. Or there
are some parts of the world we could just spray with peoplecide for
all I care.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's rich, " ...build themselves up like we did...". With your socialist
ideals you are far from being one of "we". In fact, if "we" ascribed to you
views, there would be no "we" as we know it. By the way, I'm proud of you.
Several of your recent posts had no form of the word "screw" in any context.
Congratulations, maybe you can learn the evil of your ways after all.

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" wrote in message
news:sa9p5bt7bhe7nbunv...@4ax.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything?

[nothermark]

You are the one peddling the socialist crap, not me. I just recognize
the issue of all the rugged individuals getting run over by a good
team working together.

FWIW Profit is being smart enough not to work for a loss. Greed is
being to centered on profit to not recognize all the costs.

[Vito]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:59:27 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:

>On 11/29/2015 5:08 PM, Vito wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:50:35 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony
>> <gant...@gmail.org> wrote:
>>> I'm beginning to think Obama is paying these nut cases or their families to
>>> commit these mass killings, ala Saddam Hussein, so he can continue to
>>> promote his anti-gun agenda. It seems like that effort would be better
>>> served if he used the killings in Chicago and other democrat cities as
>>> examples.
>>
>> Me too. I don't go that far (paying) but behavioral science is a two
>> way street. If an FBI profiler can look at a crime and tell you what
>> kind of individual committed it and his motive, the same profiler can
>> tell you what kind of individual one can get to commit a given kind of
>> crime and how to motivate him. The bombing of the ROTC building at
>> Kent State decades ago is a good example of FBI creating a crime.
>
>They didn't bomb it, they just set fire to the
>building, and then a lot of students harassed the
>fire fighters and cut hoses so that it would
>continue to burn.
>
>

That's not what I was told by people who were adult students but I
guess it depends on your definition of 'bomb'. If a fire bomb is a
bomb then ...

But that dodges the point that FBI agents suckered the perp's into
committing the crime, provided the "bomb" and taught them how to use
it. It's SOP with what is essentially a political organization.

[nothermark]

It's also one of many reasons why I trust my government to screw me at
their convenience.

[George Anthony]

Just when I thought you could do it... you go and disappoint.

[Bruce]

And once more you demonstrate that we are a part of a global economy -
and that we (every single person in the US) benefits from that. You not
only don't care about the people of the third world, you are more than
willing to harm the people of the US in an effort to withdraw from the
world. You are (as always) incapable of understanding economics.

[Bruce]

Of course I did - it was irrelevant to my point, which was that clean
air and water are issues that only matter to people whose lesser needs
have been met. And those lesser needs will never be met (thus
guaranteeing more dirty air and water) until those companies advance
economically.

[Bruce]

I don't know anything about that specific incident, but if your
information is correct, I would not be at all surprised. In the
Treasury department, every counterfeiting case worth mentioning in
decades has been instigated and supplied by treasury agents.

[Bruce]

That first sentence was supposed to read: "And once more you
demonstrate that you don't understand that we are a part of a global
economy"

[nothermark]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 01:21:06 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony

Sorry, it was the correct word for the job. ;-)

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:31:12 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

And once more you ignore my original observation and go off on your
own tangent.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:41:42 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Baloney. They matter but the folks involved do not get a say in the
matter. Ever notice the pictures of the Chinese workers wearing
filter masks because of the smog?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:53:47 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

So you are having trouble reading what was written, now cannot write
what you want to say and what you want to say is a tangent only
slightly connected to the topic. IS that what happens when you move
too close to LZ or just an Arizona thing? ;-))

PS FWIW I ordered my Christmas Present from Chandler today. ;-)

[RMcBane]

I grew up about 40 miles from Kent State, I move
back here about 10 years ago. I had high school
classmates, a couple of relative as well as
current friends who were on campus during the
events. None of my contacts have ever related
your version of the events, but then none were
involved other than having observed what was going
on those days.

I've never seen an account on how they started the
fire. Molotov cocktails are easy to make and
would be effective on an old wooden structure.
Do you have any reference on how the fire was
started and FBI involvement, other than hearsay?
I would be interested in reading them.



--
Richard McBane

[Bruce]

Did I forget to mention that I no longer live in Arizona?

[Vito]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:44:04 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:

>I've never seen an account on how they started the
>fire. Molotov cocktails are easy to make and
>would be effective on an old wooden structure.
>Do you have any reference on how the fire was
>started and FBI involvement, other than hearsay?
> I would be interested in reading them.
-

Do your own research if it's worth it to you.

The story I got was that there was a group of hang-arounds who liked
to try to outbrag ecah other. "If I had a pie I'd throw it in the
dean's face" would get trumped, etc., until one fool would play the
"If I had a bomb I'd blow up the ROTC building." This was a popular
passtime until an FBI informant offered to provide the bomb then he
and the other fools goaded the one into doing the crime. I wasn't
there but got it from people who were who had no reason to lie. And it
is SOP for FBI, BATF and others.

Ever hear of Roosevelt's files that LBJ inherited?

[RMcBane]

On 12/1/2015 1:00 AM, Vito wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:44:04 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen an account on how they started the
>> fire. Molotov cocktails are easy to make and
>> would be effective on an old wooden structure.
>> Do you have any reference on how the fire was
>> started and FBI involvement, other than hearsay?
>> I would be interested in reading them.
> -
> Do your own research if it's worth it to you.

I did some searches and came up blank. But you
made the claim and it is up to you to support it,
not me. I doubt that you would give LZ much slack
if he made such an unsupported claim but then his
claims are usually much better supported than this
one of yours.

> The story I got was that there was a group of hang-arounds who liked
> to try to outbrag ecah other. "If I had a pie I'd throw it in the
> dean's face" would get trumped, etc., until one fool would play the
> "If I had a bomb I'd blow up the ROTC building." This was a popular
> passtime until an FBI informant offered to provide the bomb then he
> and the other fools goaded the one into doing the crime. I wasn't
> there but got it from people who were who had no reason to lie. And it
> is SOP for FBI, BATF and others.

The FBI was on a lot of campuses photographing
protest, and probably infiltrated SDS, the
Weathermen and other anti-war groups, it was the
Nixon years after all. But the Kent State
situation worsened over several days after Nixon's
announcement to escalate the Vietnam war into
Cambodia.

I was on a more conservative Engineering and Ag
campus about 350 miles to the West. Our
university administration handled the situation
differently than Kent. Most of us were working on
completing projects, papers and getting ready for
final exams at the end of the month.







--
Richard McBane

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:17:07 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

I thought you moved back. Where are you now?

[Vito]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 01:41:19 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>I did some searches and came up blank. But you
>made the claim and it is up to you to support it,
>not me. I doubt that you would give LZ much slack
>if he made such an unsupported claim but then his
>claims are usually much better supported than this
>one of yours.
>

Sorry, that trip won't fly. Obviously you won't find such info on
google and more than you'll find an admission that the Colo. Spr.
shooter was influenced by RTL on Fox News. Moreover, I offered a
point of data that I believe is true but I owe you no debt of proof. I
ask linus for cites when he tries to convince me of something. That
isn't the case here - I do not care if you believe it or not. It's
water over the dam anyway.

[Lone Haranguer]

The FBI had their orders...as usual. Student anti-war groups
were heavily infiltrated by FBI informants.

I was stationed at St. Paul MN at the time when they had days of
demonstrations at the University.

The armory where ROTC members trained was a target.

http://www.mndaily.com/1997/05/12/may-1972-antiwar-protests-become-part-u-history

LZ

[Jerry...@invalid.net]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 01:41:19 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:

>I did some searches and came up blank.

Richard, Konspiracy theories are never supported by facts - however, I'm sure
you knew that and was just having a little fun.

Jerry O

--
The true delight is in the finding out
rather than in the knowing.

Isaac Asimov

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 01:41:19 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I did some searches and came up blank. But you
>> made the claim and it is up to you to support it,
>> not me. I doubt that you would give LZ much slack
>> if he made such an unsupported claim but then his
>> claims are usually much better supported than this
>> one of yours.
>>
>
> Sorry, that trip won't fly. Obviously you won't find such info on
> google and more than you'll find an admission that the Colo. Spr.
> shooter was influenced by RTL on Fox News.

The topic was on Fox just a few minutes ago. A supporter of
Planned Parenthood gave his views, which included a warning by
the FBI recently that there may be such attacks.

The shooter's lifestyle was very similar to that of the
Unibomber...another kook who didn't take much to set him off.

The shooting didn't show much evidence of extensive planning.

Meanwhile your friend Obama is saying that the Colorado Spring
shooter's actions are the same as those of the suicide bombers in
Paris...and, as usual, using it a an excuse for more gun control.

Moreover, I offered a
> point of data that I believe is true but I owe you no debt of proof. I
> ask linus for cites when he tries to convince me of something.

I usually post the cite with the claim, you avoid that as you're
doing in this case.

That
> isn't the case here - I do not care if you believe it or not. It's
> water over the dam anyway.
>

Ask the FBI for their files on Kent State.

LZ

[George Anthony]

In other words, you were there to get an education in your chosen field.

[Lone Haranguer]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/new-light-shed-on-kent-state-killings/?page=all


A lot of comments too.

LZ

[Bruce]

Back in Oregon. The biggest reason I moved to Arizona was that my
mother's health was getting worse, and I wanted to be there for her
until she passed. Well, near the end of April, she died. I started
looking for houses in Oregon, sold my place in AZ, and moved to where
the grand-kids are.

[Major Oz]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:24:40 AM UTC-6, bruce wrote:
>
> Back in Oregon. The biggest reason I moved to Arizona was that my
> mother's health was getting worse, and I wanted to be there for her
> until she passed. Well, near the end of April, she died. I started
> looking for houses in Oregon, sold my place in AZ, and moved to where
> the grand-kids are.

You, I, and many folks I know have done the same thing.

I wonder if the grandkids get as much out of it as we do.

[George Anthony]

"Major Oz" wrote in message
news:076c62d5-5268-4023...@googlegroups.com...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as the cash keeps flowing, they do :-)

[Max]

Advancing an agenda...

http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook

[Bruce]

I'm willing to call it basic selfishness - as long as I get to enjoy the
kids, they can just put up with me for now. Perhaps as they get older,
they will remember this time with some fondness.

Besides, my granddaughter seemed to enjoy me making Thanksgiving dinner
for her last week when the rest of the family was in DC for vacation.
We talked, watched tv, listened to new music, and generally had a nice
time. But she got used to spending time with me when I taught her to drive.

[bill horne]

Max wrote:
> Advancing an agenda...
>
> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>

"our nation’s absurdly lenient gun laws"?
What's absurdly lenient about them?

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Major Oz]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:51:40 PM UTC-6, bill horne wrote:
> Max wrote:
> > Advancing an agenda...
> >
> > http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
> >
> "our nation's absurdly lenient gun laws"?
> What's absurdly lenient about them?

That surprised me, also.

The rest of his piece was pretty reasoned.

[kmiller]

On 12/1/2015 2:51 PM, bill horne wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> Advancing an agenda...
>>
>> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>>
> "our nation’s absurdly lenient gun laws"?
> What's absurdly lenient about them?
>

They let me have them - ipso facto restmycaseum.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:24:40 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

It's good to be with the grand kids despite the climate. ;-)

[nothermark]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:42:15 -0800 (PST), Max <gmd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Advancing an agenda...
>
>http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook

It's not just the pro life folks. The whole right wing talk machine
has gone heavily negative. I was listening around today and it got
really nasty everywhere I looked. That is why I never got into
listening to the far left stations. Now it appears the far right has
lost any sense of balance.

I have to wonder how much is because they are losing audience. The
problem is that going negative drives away the middle. Most of us
have other options these days.

[Lone Haranguer]

Max wrote:
> Advancing an agenda...
>
> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_
> medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>

They forgot to include that the perpetrator is most likely a nut
case...with a lifestyle similar to the unibomber.

Unstable people can be easily motivated...no matter if the
rhetoric comes from Left or Right.

LZ

[bill horne]

Not so. They let you have them because you're a chickenfarmer, and you
obviously need them to scare off chicken thieves, coyotes, and
free-range cats - and for self-defense (from chickens run amok). And
once the word gets out about your GBC cult, self-defense from
Christian bigots. Not to mention the means for a credible response to
the microaggression exhibited by eggs that hide.

So(hello oz) it's not absurd at all - It's imminently commonsensical.

[George Anthony]

Well yeah. Just look how motivated liberals are to vote for the likes of
Obama and Mrs William Jefferson Clinton. That's about as unstable as one
can get.

[Bruce]

This part of Oregon (near Portland) isn't too cold - almost never snows.
I'm not a rain person, but I can adjust to that.

[Dusty]

Interesting that you say that like that...as if the idiot left has even
a modicum of a sense of balance. Like the deep, dark left, most of the
inculcated 'pro-life' nitwits are but simple reflex mavens. It's the
old, "Garbage in, garbage out...". Not that I don't largely agree with
them, mind you. It's just that they simply reflect what they've been
told. Like on the hard-left, thinking is an adventure they have little
stomach for.

Dusty
--
"If you can't, don't, or won't stand for something, you'll fall for
anything!"

[Vito]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:38:27 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Max wrote:
>> Advancing an agenda...
>>
>> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_
>> medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>>
>They forgot to include that the perpetrator is most likely a nut
>case...with a lifestyle similar to the unibomber.

Yes, and a record of abusing women.

>
>Unstable people can be easily motivated...no matter if the
>rhetoric comes from Left or Right.
>

Absolutely! That's why it is wise to avoid the kind of retoric that
motivates them, especially when their actions reflect on you at the
polls.

[Vito]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:02:45 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
wrote:

I tend to watch al Jazeera ... I know it's biases and can discount
them. Even CNN gets paid for what news it shows/doesn't show.

Anybody else remember exploding Chevy gas tanks?

[nothermark]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:02:45 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
wrote:

Pacifica started hard left and stayed there. I used to listen a bit
when I was down near Ithaca on business. A local station tried to get
into that market here in Rochester and bombed. The basic reason was
their shrill left wing hate mongering.

NPR based stations do not get that level of shrillness. Quiet facts
somewhat tilted is their stock in trade. I can live with that.

Right wing daytime around here used to be NPR like with the opposite
tilt. Now they have shifted to Pacifica like. I would not care if it
was not for the fact that they own the biggest station around here and
one of the biggest on the east coast that used to be the go to station
for news. Now it is too annoying to listen to. Too bad.

[Bob Hatch]

Is that your position on all speech that might upset someone, or some
organization? Like ISIS? Be careful what you say, cuz it might motivate
them to violence. Same with BLM, or whiny college kids, or cop haters?

Maybe we should all just shut up and voluntarily restrict our own
speech. Hold our hands over our mouths so that no one will ever be offended.

You don't do that, why should anyone else?


--

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.."
- Winston Churchill
http://www.bobhatch.com

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:38:27 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Max wrote:
>>> Advancing an agenda...
>>>
>>> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_
>>> medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>>>
>> They forgot to include that the perpetrator is most likely a nut
>> case...with a lifestyle similar to the unibomber.
>
> Yes, and a record of abusing women.

I haven't heard that...but I do know that many liberals from
Hollywood and sports venues have that habit.

Could you cite the abuse claim? Who is making them? Also who is
the individual who "reportedly" heard the perpetrator make the
statement about "no more baby parts"?

>>
>> Unstable people can be easily motivated...no matter if the
>> rhetoric comes from Left or Right.
>>
> Absolutely! That's why it is wise to avoid the kind of retoric that
> motivates them, especially when their actions reflect on you at the
> polls.
>

The RTL videos did make a lot of people queasy...even many
pro-choicers didn't want to know unpleasant aspects of the
abortion industry.

LZ

[Major Oz]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:19:04 AM UTC-6, Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 10:04 PM, Vito wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:38:27 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> > <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Max wrote:
> >>> Advancing an agenda...
> >>>
> >>> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_
> >>> medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
> >>>
> >> They forgot to include that the perpetrator is most likely a nut
> >> case...with a lifestyle similar to the unibomber.
> >
> > Yes, and a record of abusing women.
> >>
> >> Unstable people can be easily motivated...no matter if the
> >> rhetoric comes from Left or Right.
> >>
> > Absolutely! That's why it is wise to avoid the kind of retoric that
> > motivates them, especially when their actions reflect on you at the
> > polls.
> >
>
> Is that your position on all speech that might upset someone, or some
> organization? Like ISIS? Be careful what you say, cuz it might motivate
> them to violence. Same with BLM, or whiny college kids, or cop haters?
>
> Maybe we should all just shut up and voluntarily restrict our own
> speech. Hold our hands over our mouths so that no one will ever be offended.
>
> You don't do that, why should anyone else?

Person one: "I really dislike barking dogs"

Person two: "So...you want to kill all dogs and imprison their owners"


P2 has what is known as the LZ Syndrome.

Appears to be catching....

[Vito]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:19:03 -0700, Bob Hatch <bobh...@ymail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/1/2015 10:04 PM, Vito wrote:
>> Absolutely! That's why it is wise to avoid the kind of retoric that
>> motivates them, especially when their actions reflect on you at the
>> polls.
>>
>

>Is that your t position on all speech that might upset someone, or some

>organization? Like ISIS? Be careful what you say, cuz it might motivate
>them to violence. Same with BLM, or whiny college kids, or cop haters?
>
>Maybe we should all just shut up and voluntarily restrict our own
>speech. Hold our hands over our mouths so that no one will ever be offended.
>
>You don't do that, why should anyone else?

As you yourself have said, freedom comes with responsibility. AFAIK I
have never said anything intended to inflame the simple minded. I
don't call lawful executions nor suggest that legal executioners
should be killed. Nor do I call tadpoles frogs.

The people who perp'ed the Planned Parenthood fraud did so with malice
aforthought. They did it to inflame people and politicians into
attacking a legitimate business. It was predictable that some RTL
extremists might be motivated to violence.

The same goes for the groups you mention. It is one thing to lobby or
even demonsrtate against police misconduct and quite another to lable
honest cops murderers. Ditto "baby killers".

Responsible people do avoid inflamitory speach.

[Vito]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:21:04 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Could you cite the abuse claim? Who is making them? Also who is
>the individual who "reportedly" heard the perpetrator make the
>statement about "no more baby parts"?

Faux News, CNN and a couple others. Check with them.

>>>
>>
>The RTL videos did make a lot of people queasy...even many
>pro-choicers didn't want to know unpleasant aspects of the
>abortion industry.
>

<grin> Can you cite a responsible source for that claim?

[bill horne]

Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 10:04 PM, Vito wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:38:27 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Max wrote:
>>>> Advancing an agenda...
>>>>
>>>> http://theweek.com/articles/591382/deeply-irresponsible-rhetoric-prolife-movement?utm_source=links&utm_
>>>>
>>>> medium=website&utm_campaign=facebook
>>>>
>>> They forgot to include that the perpetrator is most likely a nut
>>> case...with a lifestyle similar to the unibomber.
>>
>> Yes, and a record of abusing women.
>>>
>>> Unstable people can be easily motivated...no matter if the
>>> rhetoric comes from Left or Right.
>>>
>> Absolutely! That's why it is wise to avoid the kind of retoric that
>> motivates them, especially when their actions reflect on you at the
>> polls.
>>
>
> Is that your position on all speech that might upset someone, or some
> organization? Like ISIS? Be careful what you say, cuz it might
> motivate them to violence. Same with BLM, or whiny college kids, or
> cop haters?

damright.

> Maybe we should all just shut up and voluntarily restrict our own
> speech. Hold our hands over our mouths so that no one will ever be
> offended.

damright.

> You don't do that, why should anyone else?

Because you should do your part in the War Against Microaggression
regardless of what Vito and his ilk do. And you should be particularly
careful about what you say on gunfree campuses, lest you trigger
someone and get your inconsiderate ass shot off.

--
bill

[Lone Haranguer]

When LZ hears barking dogs, he interprets their bark. Is it an
alarm bark or is the dog just making noise?

If it's just making noise it has a stupid owner...

Like OZ.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:

> The people who perp'ed the Planned Parenthood fraud did so with malice
> aforthought. They did it to inflame people and politicians into
> attacking a legitimate business.

I'd call it an:

ex·po·sé
(ĕk′spō-zā′)
n.
1. An exposure or a revelation of something discreditable.
2. A formal exposition of facts.

Actual voice and video...draw your own conclusions.

It was predictable that some RTL
> extremists might be motivated to violence.

Any verifiable proof yet that the shooter was a RTL extremist?
Or just a nut case looking for an excuse to make a name for himself?

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:21:04 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could you cite the abuse claim? Who is making them? Also who is
>> the individual who "reportedly" heard the perpetrator make the
>> statement about "no more baby parts"?
>
> Faux News, CNN and a couple others. Check with them.

I said "individual"...not news readers who don't verify a source.

>>>>
>>>
>> The RTL videos did make a lot of people queasy...even many
>> pro-choicers didn't want to know unpleasant aspects of the
>> abortion industry.
>>
> <grin> Can you cite a responsible source for that claim?

Sure. Be happy to educate you in that regard.
*************
>
"Pro-choice feminist author Camille Paglia, a former member of
Planned Parenthood, berated the liberal media’s “censorship” of
the “huge and disturbing” story about “serious breaches of
medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials,”
calling it “shockingly unprofessional.”

The self-described atheist said she was “horrified and disgusted”
by the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials
discussing the disposition of aborted baby parts that were
recently released by the Center for Medical Progress, which
Paglia said were met by “total silence in the liberal media.”

“That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The
liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring
it,” Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the
University of the Arts in Philadelphia, told Salon.

“Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong
supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was
horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt
there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of
Planned Parenthood officials.

“But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your
political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news
sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to
understand what is going on in the world,” she said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/margaret-knapp/pro-choice-feminist-berates-liberal-medias-censorship-planned-parenthood
***********

LZ

[Vito]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:58:10 -0700, Lone Haranguer

<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vito wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:21:04 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could you cite the abuse claim? Who is making them? Also who is
>>> the individual who "reportedly" heard the perpetrator make the
>>> statement about "no more baby parts"?
>>
>> Faux News, CNN and a couple others. Check with them.
>
>I said "individual"...not news readers who don't verify a source.

I'm not your secretary, dog. If you want to ID the individual(s) then
call the news sources and ask.

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:58:10 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Vito wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:21:04 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Could you cite the abuse claim? Who is making them? Also who is
>>>> the individual who "reportedly" heard the perpetrator make the
>>>> statement about "no more baby parts"?
>>>
>>> Faux News, CNN and a couple others. Check with them.
>>
>> I said "individual"...not news readers who don't verify a source.
>
> I'm not your secretary, dog. If you want to ID the individual(s) then
> call the news sources and ask.
>

"Reportedly" is not a source...but it's all I've found so far.

YOU claim the shooter was a "RTL extremist" so maybe you could
provide some proof to back your claim?

BTW, your use of the term "Faux News" confirms your liberal
political leanings.

LZ

[George Anthony]

If Vito is not liberal, there ain't a cow in Texas :-) The smiley is for
the doofus who can't recognize satire.

[Vito]

There are far worse things than liberals.
Theocrats and socialists for examples.
A combo of these two is the worst.

[George Anthony]

Synonymous.

[Vito]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:05:39 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony

Then we agree there is little to choose between, say, Hillary and
Cruz?

[nothermark]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:05:39 -0000 (UTC), George Anthony

Strangely we agree. When all the Bible thumping RTLers got run out of
the Democrats they became the Conservative branch of the GOP and
really trashed my old party. They are really closet socialists.

[Major Oz]

....hee,hee.....


If that don't piss of the JW's, nothing will.

[Vito]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:22:45 -0800 (PST), Major Oz <ozm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Especially when it's true aand the truth hurts.

When Nixon got caught with his pants down he effectively "willed" the
GOP to Jerry Ford. RR knew he didn't have time to wait 8 years
(Alzheimer's) to follow Ford so he refused to campaign for Ford and
rumor has it asked the JWs to support one of their own - Carter, a
Baptist minister. Then when Carter had thoroughly screwed the pooch,
RR jumped in bringing the JWs to replace the old line GOP
conservatives. They promptly made themselves popular by throwing a
big socialist party on your kids' credit card and redefined the word
"conservative". I guess I can no longer call myself a conservative
any more than I'd call myself "gay".

[nothermark]

Correct.

[Lone Haranguer]

Who are the "Theocrats" that were elected president?

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

You gotta be shittin' us. Hillary is an unconvicted serial perjurer.

LZ

[Vito]

On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:54:52 -0700, Lone Haranguer

<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vito wrote:
>> There are far worse things than liberals.
>> Theocrats and socialists for examples.
>> A combo of these two is the worst.
>>
>Who are the "Theocrats" that were elected president?
>
>LZ

All of them in my lifetime, and socialists to boot, except maybe
slippery Dick. All have supported socialism and prayed for guidance
in making decisions - or at least claimed to.

[Vito]

On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:59:15 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Then we agree there is little to choose between, say, Hillary and
>> Cruz?
>>
>You gotta be shittin' us. Hillary is an unconvicted serial perjurer.
>
>LZ

And Cruz uses the equivalent of a ouija board for decisions. Which is
the more dangerous? Think about Bush's Blunder before answering.

[Bruce]

Clearly you don't know what a theocrat is. You are also unaware of who
Richard Nixon was.

--
Bruce

"Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and
the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences
of this actions... Liberty and responsibility are inseparable." - F.A.
Hayek

[Vito]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:34:04 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/4/2015 10:16 AM, Vito wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:54:52 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Vito wrote:
>>>> There are far worse things than liberals.
>>>> Theocrats and socialists for examples.
>>>> A combo of these two is the worst.
>>>>
>>> Who are the "Theocrats" that were elected president?
>>>
>>> LZ
>> All of them in my lifetime, and socialists to boot, except maybe
>> slippery Dick. All have supported socialism and prayed for guidance
>> in making decisions - or at least claimed to.
>
>Clearly you don't know what a theocrat is. You are also unaware of who
>Richard Nixon was.

Clearly you know nothing.

www.answers.com ›
Theocratic socialism is a an economic system where the fundemental
authoritative figures are the Gods. - or in our case a God. Sound
like anybody we know??

While I cannot say I knew Nixon as well as the plumbers did I worked
his campaign, got personal letters, etc., lived just outside dC and
thus knew him better than you likely did. What do tou think I'm not
aware of?

[Bruce]

On 12/4/2015 2:24 PM, Vito wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:34:04 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2015 10:16 AM, Vito wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:54:52 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>> There are far worse things than liberals.
>>>>> Theocrats and socialists for examples.
>>>>> A combo of these two is the worst.
>>>>>
>>>> Who are the "Theocrats" that were elected president?
>>>>
>>>> LZ
>>> All of them in my lifetime, and socialists to boot, except maybe
>>> slippery Dick. All have supported socialism and prayed for guidance
>>> in making decisions - or at least claimed to.
>>
>> Clearly you don't know what a theocrat is. You are also unaware of who
>> Richard Nixon was.
> Clearly you know nothing.
>
> www.answers.com ›
> Theocratic socialism is a an economic system where the fundemental
> authoritative figures are the Gods. - or in our case a God. Sound
> like anybody we know??

Absolutely no president in the history of this country has been a
theocrat. Note that you originally said "Theocrats and socialists" --
thus two separate categories. You then claimed that every president in
the last 70(?ish) years was a theocrat. Just for the record, a theocrat is:

"a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or
is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a
high priest." (From Dictionary.com)

> While I cannot say I knew Nixon as well as the plumbers did I worked
> his campaign, got personal letters, etc., lived just outside dC and
> thus knew him better than you likely did. What do tou think I'm not
> aware of?

Nixon was a big government LIBERAL Republican - that is as close to
being a socialist as any other president between Roosevelt and 0bama.
Nixon implemented wage and price controls (socialist program), and
created the EPA and OSHA, he advocated mandatory employer paid health
insurance and federalized Medicaid, and he created the War on Drugs.
Everything he did increased the size of government. Calling him a
conservative is either dishonest, or a symptom of ignorance.

[Vito]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:41:58 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Absolutely no president in the history of this country has been a
>theocrat. Note that you originally said "Theocrats and socialists" --
>thus two separate categories. You then claimed that every president in
>the last 70(?ish) years was a theocrat. Just for the record, a theocrat is:
>
>"a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or
>is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a
>high priest." (From Dictionary.com)

I just picked mine from the same google because it covered both
socialist and theocrat. Absolutely no president ...?? Has there been
a president in living memory who does NOT claim to consult God and
pray before making decisions? Or thank God for getting him elected?

>
>
>> While I cannot say I knew Nixon as well as the plumbers did I worked
>> his campaign, got personal letters, etc., lived just outside dC and
>> thus knew him better than you likely did. What do tou think I'm not
>> aware of?
>
>Nixon was a big government LIBERAL Republican - that is as close to
>being a socialist as any other president between Roosevelt and 0bama.
>Nixon implemented wage and price controls (socialist program), and
>created the EPA and OSHA, he advocated mandatory employer paid health
>insurance and federalized Medicaid, and he created the War on Drugs.
>Everything he did increased the size of government. Calling him a
>conservative is either dishonest, or a symptom of ignorance.

You forgot creating the rain that washed away the 'Poor Peoples Camp'.

But I don't recall calling him a conservative. IIRC I said he might
be the only one who wasn't a socialist. Certainly he is not a
"conservative" in the modern use of the term. He wasn't particularly
religious nor did he hype RTL.

[Bruce]

On 12/4/2015 7:14 PM, Vito wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:41:58 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Absolutely no president in the history of this country has been a
>> theocrat. Note that you originally said "Theocrats and socialists" --
>> thus two separate categories. You then claimed that every president in
>> the last 70(?ish) years was a theocrat. Just for the record, a theocrat is:
>>
>> "a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or
>> is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a
>> high priest." (From Dictionary.com)
>
> I just picked mine from the same google because it covered both
> socialist and theocrat. Absolutely no president ...?? Has there been
> a president in living memory who does NOT claim to consult God and
> pray before making decisions? Or thank God for getting him elected?

In case you can't figure it out for yourself, there is a LOT of room
between prayer and thanking God and ruling in God's name. Your history
of religious bigotry suggests that you are unable to understand that
difference.

>>> While I cannot say I knew Nixon as well as the plumbers did I worked
>>> his campaign, got personal letters, etc., lived just outside dC and
>>> thus knew him better than you likely did. What do tou think I'm not
>>> aware of?
>>
>> Nixon was a big government LIBERAL Republican - that is as close to
>> being a socialist as any other president between Roosevelt and 0bama.
>> Nixon implemented wage and price controls (socialist program), and
>> created the EPA and OSHA, he advocated mandatory employer paid health
>> insurance and federalized Medicaid, and he created the War on Drugs.
>> Everything he did increased the size of government. Calling him a
>> conservative is either dishonest, or a symptom of ignorance.
>
> You forgot creating the rain that washed away the 'Poor Peoples Camp'.
>
> But I don't recall calling him a conservative. IIRC I said he might
> be the only one who wasn't a socialist. Certainly he is not a
> "conservative" in the modern use of the term. He wasn't particularly
> religious nor did he hype RTL.

You said that every president in your lifetime except Nixon has been a
socialist - Nixon was at least as far left as anyone in your lifetime
other than 0bama.

[Lone Haranguer]

And their prayers affected you? Obama asked the country to pray
for the victims of the San Bernardino massacre.

Did that cause you to have conniption fits?

Cause ED? Gave you liquid bowel movements? What?

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:59:15 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then we agree there is little to choose between, say, Hillary and
>>> Cruz?
>>>
>> You gotta be shittin' us. Hillary is an unconvicted serial perjurer.
>>
>> LZ
>
> And Cruz uses the equivalent of a ouija board for decisions.

But he might seek (and follow) the guidance of his advisers.

Which is
> the more dangerous? Think about Bush's Blunder before answering.
>

What blunder? The decision that Democrats said was the right one
before they decided it was the wrong one?

LZ