A voice from the desert...
Willwork4food
"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater
recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson –
"the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater
continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go
clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today,
I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and
others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the
Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that
ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 1994; Page C01
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
tracey12
RNC is the Religious Right.
We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
party.
We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
the main
focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
government down to a much smaller size.
BTW, I just got back from Austin. I didn't get to play tonight as one of my
children became ill, and I had to return home.
All is well here, but darn, I sure wanted to see 6th street.
Willwork4food wrote in message <36962AA8...@thetable.org>...
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
Was he your hero in '64?
>"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater
>recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson –
>"the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater
>continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go
>clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today,
>I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and
>others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the
>Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that
>ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
>Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
>By Lloyd Grove
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Thursday, July 28, 1994; Page C01
>Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Willwork4food
> Something you guys need to understand is that the primary component of the
> RNC is the Religious Right.
> We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
> party.
> We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
> the main
> focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
> government down to a much smaller size.
that's why I posted this quote from a "real" conservative... the father of the
conservative movement in this era. Not only did you kill the Republican party,
and conservatism, but you have almost killed politics in America with your
crap. I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble the
roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican strung up
on every other tree.....
When you say 'radical right' today,
I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and
others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the
Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that
ever happens, kiss politics good-bye."
Will....
>
>
> BTW, I just got back from Austin. I didn't get to play tonight as one of my
> children became ill, and I had to return home.
> All is well here, but darn, I sure wanted to see 6th street.
>
> Willwork4food wrote in message <36962AA8...@thetable.org>...
> my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
>
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Fri, 08 Jan 1999 07:56:25 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
>
> Was he your hero in '64?
I voted for him for President! Two years later, I voted for Ronald Regan for
Governor of California.
and you????
>
>
> >"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater
> >recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson –
> >"the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater
> >continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go
> >clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today,
> >I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and
> >others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the
> >Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that
> >ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
> >Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
> >By Lloyd Grove
> >Washington Post Staff Writer
> >Thursday, July 28, 1994; Page C01
> >Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
>
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
>the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
>strung up on every other tree.....
Considering the sort of respect you show for the rule of law, the
future that you envision is similar to Rome, all right... the Rome
of post-500 AD.
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Willwork4food wrote:
>> >my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
>> Was he your hero in '64?
>I voted for him for President! Two years later, I voted for Ronald Regan
>for Governor of California.
>
>and you????
Wasn't old enough.
And from the juvenile way that you so often post, I doubt that you
were either.
The Pervert
>
> Something you guys need to understand is that the primary component of the
> RNC is the Religious Right.
> We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
> party.
> We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
> the main
> focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
> government down to a much smaller size.
If The Religious Right owns the Republican Party, I'm OUT! And you will
be responsible for the destruction of the party. If that's what you
want, have at it. Personally, I believe in freedom. I do NOT believe
in the despotism and hypocricy of the Religious Wrong.
Phil Ronzone
>Jafo, you've got to admit that the prospect of driving down
>PA ave and seeing Pat Robertson crucified is not compleately
>unappealing.
Well, not nearly as much fun as seeing Clinton made into a court
eunuch. I can't decide between a leper colony or legion-issue whore
for Hillary ...
Barny "Fag" Frank"? Definitely legion whore, 'cept he'd enjor
that way too much ... oooh, do me again Publius ...
(Gotta shale THAT image out of my head)
--
---
Let justice prevail though the Heavens fall. Judge, and prepare to be judged.
Fantomas
Extremism in the pursuit of vice has been known to be a virtue...
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:00:12 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> Willwork4food wrote:
> >> >my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
>
> >> Was he your hero in '64?
>
> >I voted for him for President! Two years later, I voted for Ronald Regan
> >for Governor of California.
> >
> >and you????
>
> Wasn't old enough.
>
> And from the juvenile way that you so often post, I doubt that you
> were either.
>
na na na na na na na........... wrong again!
Willwork4food
> --
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
ok mr. words-mean-things, so now you are obligated to post instances where I
have demonstrated my "respect...for the rule of law". Let's just see how
obtuse you can be.
Willwork4food
> Jafo wrote:
> >
> > As viewed from alt.california on Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:00:12 -0800,
> > Willwork4food wrote:
> >
> > >Jafo wrote:
> > >> Willwork4food wrote:
> > >> >my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
> >
> > >> Was he your hero in '64?
> >
> > >I voted for him for President! Two years later, I voted for Ronald Regan
> > >for Governor of California.
> > >
> > >and you????
> >
> > Wasn't old enough.
> >
> > And from the juvenile way that you so often post, I doubt that you
> > were either.
> >
> > --
> > ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
>
> Extremism in the pursuit of vice has been known to be a virtue...
...an old Chinese saying....
(and it's rice, not vice :)
CharlieKilo
> Something you guys need to understand is that the primary component of the
> RNC is the Religious Right.
> We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
> party.
> We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
> the main
> focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
> government down to a much smaller size.
. . . And, this is EXACTLY why I'm hanging on to being a republican by a
thread. The theofascist have virtually destroyed the GOP in a mere 8-10 years.
It is my opinion that you guys (the religious right) don't want a smaller, less
powerful government - just smaller in certain areas and larger, more powerful
in areas which you deem as being needed . . .namely by legislating morals.
That's BS. I wish a slow painful death to all the self-righteous busybodies of
the RR.
Still barely hangin' on the GOP,
CharlieKilo
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Willwork4food wrote:
>> >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
>> >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
>> >strung up on every other tree.....
>> Considering the sort of respect you show for the rule of law, the
>> future that you envision is similar to Rome, all right... the Rome
>> of post-500 AD.
>ok mr. words-mean-things, so now you are obligated to post instances where I
>have demonstrated
<insert> lack of </insert>
>my "respect...for the rule of law". Let's just see how obtuse you can be.
Quite simple, 'food; they include all of the many posts in which you
ranted about Clinton's being persecuted because he "lied about sex",
as if the subject matter was somehow relevant. There's no need for
anyone to bother looking any of them up. Unless, of course, you now
deny having made them.
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Willwork4food wrote:
>> >I voted for him for President! Two years later, I voted for Ronald Regan
>> >for Governor of California.
>> >
>> >and you????
>> Wasn't old enough.
>> And from the juvenile way that you so often post, I doubt that you
>> were either.
>na na na na na na na........... wrong again!
You post like a twelve-year-old. Hard to believe you're old enough to
know better.
Jafo
>Jafo, you've got to admit that the prospect of driving down PA ave and
>seeing Pat Robertson crucified is not compleately unappealing.
He is a sanctimonious SOB, isn't he? Personally, I never had much use
for the asshole.
Regmar Hanemann
hc23hc
>
> Personally, I never had much use
> for the asshole.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo
Saving it for a rainy day, Jafo?
Try and keep it clean anyway.
The Pervert
> I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble the
> roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican strung up
> on every other tree.....
>
And liberals have the balls to call anything close to a conservative
"mean spirited?" What hypocritical bullshit!
Jafo
The Pervert wrote:
Such is modern liberalism.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us
together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we
would stone Henry Hyde to death --- stone him to death -- stone
him to death! Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the
family. Kill the children." - actor Alec Baldwin
Jafo
hc23hc wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Personally, I never had much use for the asshole.
>Saving it for a rainy day, Jafo?
>
>Try and keep it clean anyway.
You've scored a gotcha; I didn't realize I was handing you
a straight line. :-D
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on 9 Jan 1999 06:48:38 GMT, Bill wrote:
>
> >Jafo, you've got to admit that the prospect of driving down PA ave and
> >seeing Pat Robertson crucified is not compleately unappealing.
>
> He is a sanctimonious SOB, isn't he? Personally, I never had much use
> for the asshole.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
oh god! couldn't you call him something else????
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 14:02:21 -0800,
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> Personally, I never had much use for the asshole.
>
> >Saving it for a rainy day, Jafo?
> >
> >Try and keep it clean anyway.
>
> You've scored a gotcha; I didn't realize I was handing you
> a straight line. :-D
>
...it's been a long time since you wondered over that line.........
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 05:34:21 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> Willwork4food wrote:
> >> >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
> >> >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
> >> >strung up on every other tree.....
>
> >> Considering the sort of respect you show for the rule of law, the
> >> future that you envision is similar to Rome, all right... the Rome
> >> of post-500 AD.
>
> >ok mr. words-mean-things, so now you are obligated to post instances where I
> >have demonstrated
>
> <insert> lack of </insert>
>
> >my "respect...for the rule of law". Let's just see how obtuse you can be.
>
> Quite simple, 'food; they include all of the many posts in which you
> ranted about Clinton's being persecuted because he "lied about sex",
> as if the subject matter was somehow relevant. There's no need for
> anyone to bother looking any of them up. Unless, of course, you now
> deny having made them.
...sometimes I forget that you carry the same cross that Pat Robertson and his
buddies do. So that's my lack of respect for the rule of law, huh....
See, now a real conservative would be as outraged as I am that 'big brother' in
the form of the 'police state' that invaded the privacy of individuals, and used
the private lives of these people to try to destroy not only those people, but
the system of government that we all love so much.
You guys just see a perjury trap and a lie about sex.........
Willwork4food
> Willwork4food (work...@thetable.org) wrote:
> : Jafo wrote:
>
> : > As viewed from alt.california on Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:58:51 -0800,
> : > Willwork4food wrote:
> : >
> : > >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
> : > >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
> : > >strung up on every other tree.....
> : >
> : > Considering the sort of respect you show for the rule of law, the
> : > future that you envision is similar to Rome, all right... the Rome
> : > of post-500 AD.
> : >
> : > --
> : > ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
>
> : ok mr. words-mean-things, so now you are obligated to post instances where I
> : have demonstrated my "respect...for the rule of law". Let's just see how
> : obtuse you can be.
>
> 'food, that means that you don't think Clinton should be impeached/
> convicted. Per Jafo, anybody who has respect for the rule of law is
> pro-impeachment. In my view, of course, the impeachment shows no respect
> for the rule of law because even the alleged offenses are not impeachable
> according to the constitution.
...as I understand it, they aren't even indictable, let alone being
impeachable....
hc23hc
>
> As viewed from alt.california on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 14:02:21 -0800,
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> Personally, I never had much use for the asshole.
>
> >Saving it for a rainy day, Jafo?
> >
> >Try and keep it clean anyway.
>
> You've scored a gotcha; I didn't realize I was handing you
> a straight line. :-D
>
> ~ Jafo
Of course, on Thursday there was this puppy :
> For me, "fuck you" is a toss-off expression ...
You can handle that one on your own, Jafo.
Willwork4food
"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls,
Brian Kelly
--
~ Jafo
http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
>"If we were in other countries, we would al
Uganda,Serbia,Rwanda? I still prefer the
way we do things here.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/Brian kelly_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Merlin Dorfman
The Pervert
>
> Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>
> > : > >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
> > : > >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
> > : > >strung up on every other tree.....
> >
> > 'food, that means that you don't think Clinton should be impeached/
> > convicted. Per Jafo, anybody who has respect for the rule of law is
> > pro-impeachment. In my view, of course, the impeachment shows no respect
> > for the rule of law because even the alleged offenses are not impeachable
> > according to the constitution.
>
> ...as I understand it, they aren't even indictable, let alone being
> impeachable....
It's very sad that you don't consider felonies indictable. One can only
infer, from your own words, that you just don't understand things
like... oh, why deliberately and flagrantly breaking the law is
sometimes considered a bad thing. In clear point of fact, Mr. Clinton
HAS been impeached, which is tantamount to an indictment.
Somebody (not you, of course, but somebody who can formulate a cohesive
idea, like maybe Merlin or Elric) could mount a reasonable argument that
the presented articles don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Some suggest that while they don't believe the alleged offenses rise to
the level of impeachment, the President could be indicted and tried
(with some reasonable hope of success, i.e., conviction) in a regular
criminal court after his term expires. That would never happen, of
course, because the next President (from either party) would issue a
pre-emptive pardon much as President Ford did regarding Mr. Nixon, and I
would support such a pardon.
The deserved damage has been done. No matter what else happens, Mr.
Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech who was
impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office from a dumpy
intern young enough to be his daughter.
What a legacy.
Willwork4food
His legacy will be that he participated in the destruction of a radical wing of the
Republican Party who attempted to use him as a vehicle for solidifying their power
in their attempt to subvert the constitution and dominate America politically.
These are the very same zealots who, when their failed religion was rejected by the
majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they were too extreme
for even the most pious of Americans to follow, embarked on a plan to achieve in the
political area what they were unable to achieve based on their own merits. To do so,
they entered into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American types,
militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the Confederacy who still
won't accept that they lost that war too, and corporate capitalist who's realms were
being attacked by the moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual sheep,
like yourself, attached themselves to the cause because they have nothing else to
attach themselves to (but they are fair weather friends of the movement, and will
abandon it as soon as they see they can't prosper by sucking the life out of it, and
will find another cause to champion).
The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political hacks being
paid to voice their opinions in public, believe otherwise. Common sense tells
everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of everyone, that it's all blown out of
proportion. They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on him, so
they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self consumed that
they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage is merely a snicker in the real
world. Nobody cares!
And, repeating the charges as done deals, as in "deliberately and flagrantly
breaking the law" are merely charges, and not proof of anything. Repeating it over
and over again still doesn't make it true! You reveal your true anti Americanism by
doggedly insisting that the man is guilty before he has had the benefit of a trial,
ignoring the basic tenant of our system of law that we all are to be considered
innocent until proven guilty. Get that, proven guilty - not just charged and ranted
about, but actually proven.
The impeachment was a travesty, and the nut cases that pushed it through the
House will pay for their misdeeds, not only in the short run at the polls, but in
the long run in the history books. Their great grandchildren (and their illigament
spawns as well) can read about how they foolishly tried to destroy the constitution
for their own selfish purposes, and hide their heads in shame.
Willwork4food
illegitimate spawns as well) can read about how they foolishly tried to destroy the
tracey12
First, is it all of those non-caring people who are causing Congress to
react?
And, we elected Representatives to uphold the law, therefore, they should
operate under the law and deal with a president who has committed felonies.
Next, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is composed of a Vast number of
Christians.
WE have common goals based upon our value system. One of those goals is to
keep America on the RIGHT track moving away from big government that
overpowers the
people, and away from socialism. This means one thing: We are greatly
opposed to the goals
of the new left that now has taken ownership of the Demcratic party.
Whats amazing is how many of you leftists are willing to use propaganda to
keep a felon in office!
Also, it is rather amazing that you leftists will not cut your losses and
join in the removal of Clinton
so that you can have a clean slate with Gore, but you're willing to drag the
country through this entire
process when you know full well that Clinton is a felon; a politician who
should not be allowed to serve another day.
This truly highlights the misguided nature of the left, and it makes them
appear to the average American as the party
that will do anything to stay in power including support criminal
politicians. Because of this, you have lost all hopes of regaining control
of the House.
2000 is around the corner. George W. will be the next president.
illigament
American
own food. It's funny how someone who "will work for food" thinks that their opinion
counts. Clinton is a pervert and needs to be removed from office. This country does
not want to have his morals, he seems to think that being president means he can dangle
his dingo around the office for the office girls to swallow. This guy's a monster and
it's time that good people took back over the control of the government. It's not about
Democrat or Republican, it's about a perverted man who is on my tax dollar getting his
willies in MY whitehouse. Next time, let him take his fun and games to the appropriate
location: an whore house would suffice. This devil with his lies and trickery is
doomed to destruction. Let's not allow ourselves to become devils along with him.
Merlin Dorfman
: Willwork4food, stop standing on the corner begging for handouts. Get a job and buy your
"It's not about sex." Yeah, right.
Merlin Dorfman
: Willwork4food wrote:
: >
: > Merlin Dorfman wrote:
: >
: > > Willwork4food (work...@thetable.org) wrote:
: > > : > >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
: > > : > >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
: > > : > >strung up on every other tree.....
: > >
: > > 'food, that means that you don't think Clinton should be impeached/
: > > convicted. Per Jafo, anybody who has respect for the rule of law is
: > > pro-impeachment. In my view, of course, the impeachment shows no respect
: > > for the rule of law because even the alleged offenses are not impeachable
: > > according to the constitution.
Nice job of snipping. The point being raised and responded to
here has been cut.
: > ...as I understand it, they aren't even indictable, let alone being
: > impeachable....
: It's very sad that you don't consider felonies indictable. One can only
: infer, from your own words, that you just don't understand things
: like... oh, why deliberately and flagrantly breaking the law is
: sometimes considered a bad thing. In clear point of fact, Mr. Clinton
: HAS been impeached, which is tantamount to an indictment.
Learn to count higher than 2. The set of "bad things" is not
identical to the set of "illegal things" or "indictable things" or
"impeachable things" or "things that would ever be prosecuted if
an ordinary citizen, not a president in the cross-hairs of the
Republican Church, was accused of."
: Somebody (not you, of course, but somebody who can formulate a cohesive
: idea, like maybe Merlin or Elric) could mount a reasonable argument that
: the presented articles don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
: Some suggest that while they don't believe the alleged offenses rise to
: the level of impeachment, the President could be indicted and tried
: (with some reasonable hope of success, i.e., conviction) in a regular
: criminal court after his term expires. That would never happen, of
: course, because the next President (from either party) would issue a
: pre-emptive pardon much as President Ford did regarding Mr. Nixon, and I
: would support such a pardon.
"Some" suggest that none of the accusations against the president
would ever be prosecuted if he were an ordinary citizen. In fact, any
DA who brought charges like those would at best get a stern tongue-
lashing from the judge whose time was being wasted. So, pardon or no,
it is unlikely that Clinton would be prosecuted after leaving office--
though I wouldn't put it past Starr to try. The chances of conviction
on such flimsy charges are, however, about zero.
: The deserved damage has been done. No matter what else happens, Mr.
: Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech who was
: impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office from a dumpy
: intern young enough to be his daughter.
"It's not about sex," remember??
Clinton will be remembered as the second president to be impeached
on flimsy charges by a politically-motivated opposition party that
happened to have a simple majority in the House of Representatives.
When we read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, we shake our
heads. In the future when people read about the impeachment of Bill
Clinton, they will laugh.
Merlin Dorfman
: Something you guys need to understand is that the primary component of the
: RNC is the Religious Right.
: We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
: party.
: We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
: the main
: focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
: government down to a much smaller size.
Tracey, I've given up trying to convince you that it is a bad idea
to try to use the political process to impose your religious views on
the whole country. So my efforts now are to keep you from doing it.
Merlin Dorfman
: Next, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is composed of a Vast number of
: Christians.
QED.
: WE have common goals based upon our value system. One of those goals is to
: keep America on the RIGHT track moving away from big government that
: overpowers the
: people, and away from socialism. This means one thing: We are greatly
: opposed to the goals
: of the new left that now has taken ownership of the Demcratic party.
A truly amazing statement. The Democratic Party has moved far
away from the (almost vanished) New Left and is for the most part quite
conservative!
: This truly highlights the misguided nature of the left, and it makes them
: appear to the average American as the party
: that will do anything to stay in power including support criminal
: politicians. Because of this, you have lost all hopes of regaining control
: of the House.
The "average American" supports Clinton remaining in office, and
views the effort to impeach and remove him as extreme partisanship by
the Republican Party. This will have the effect in future elections
of decimating the Republican Party office-holders at all levels.
: 2000 is around the corner. George W. will be the next president.
Are you planning to vote for that abortion-supporting, Jew-
loving, Mexican-loving traitor? :-)
David
>my hero, and a true prophet, and the words he spoke five years ago...
>
>
>"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater
>
>"the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater
>continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go
>clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today,
>I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and
>others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the
>Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that
>ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
>Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
>By Lloyd Grove
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Thursday, July 28, 1994; Page C01
>Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater's Left Turn
The difference between Barry Goldwater and the new Republican Fundamentalist
Right is not right and left. It's the difference between men with integrity
and men with none. Barry is as "right" as ever. Still a hawk on defense,
still for strong defense of second amendment, still for traditional American
values (as opposed to "Family Values"). The difference is he knows he's not
here alone on the continent and he knows he has to come to accommodation with
others by respecting their views as well. This is one quality missing in the
Gingrich Republicans.
cdr
The Pervert
> : The deserved damage has been done. No matter what else happens, Mr.
> : Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech who was
> : impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office from a dumpy
> : intern young enough to be his daughter.
>
> "It's not about sex," remember??
The impeachment is not about sex but his legacy will be. Please note
that I said he will be remembered for being impeached AND for getting
the BJ in the Oval office. Two separarate things.
> Clinton will be remembered as the second president to be impeached
> on flimsy charges by a politically-motivated opposition party that
> happened to have a simple majority in the House of Representatives.
> When we read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, we shake our
> heads. In the future when people read about the impeachment of Bill
> Clinton, they will laugh.
I'm really not sure. (That's not rhetorical. I'm really not so sure
either way.) I don't see how anyone can look at how this President
dignified or enhanced the Office by his behavior. Also note that
Kennedy's personal behavior has tarnished his historical reputation, as
well. Interestingly enough, Mr. Nixon's reputation managed to repair
itself (a bit) after he left office. It took a couple of decades, but
he managed to end up as a respected elder statesman, not to mention a
respected baseball authority.
And I really disagree that Clinton is merely the object of a simple
majority in the House. Nobody was more politically hated than Reagan,
yet there was never anything even remotely impeachable about him. I
have to wonder why only the staunchest of Clinton defenders insists on
some nefarious conspiracy which, on even the most casual examination,
will have severely negative political consequences for the alleged
conspirators. Say what you will about Republicans, they aren't that
stupid. You may not like their ideas, and you might not like their
personalities. But they really aren't all that dumb.
I also wonder why solid Democratic opposition isn't considered
partisan? By definition, it almost has to be. The Republicans have so
much more to lose by following their consciences (and what they perceive
to be the law), you have to wonder why they are taking such a risk? Why
aren't they being political whores to the polls like the Democrats might
be considered to be? They'd get more votes that way... if that's all
they really cared about.
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>The Pervert wrote:
>> The deserved damage has been done. No matter what else happens,
>> Mr. Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech
>> who was impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office
>> from a dumpy intern young enough to be his daughter.
>>
>> What a legacy.
>His legacy will be that he participated in the destruction of a
>radical wing of the Republican Party who attempted to use him as a
>vehicle for solidifying their power in their attempt to subvert the
>constitution and dominate America politically. These are the very
>same zealots who, when their failed religion was rejected by the
>majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they
>were too extreme for even the most pious of Americans to follow,
Like that well-known subversive document, the Constitution of the
United States...
>embarked on a plan to achieve in the political area what they were
>unable to achieve based on their own merits. To do so, they entered
>into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American types,
>militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the
>Confederacy who still won't accept that they lost that war too, and
>corporate capitalist who's realms were being attacked by the
>moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual sheep, like
>yourself,
No 'food, the only "sheep" involved here are those, "like yourself",
who would forgive a liberal President any crime imaginable in order
to keep him in power. Such "sheep" can usually be found off in a
corner, chanting the party-line mantra that "it's all about sex".
>The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political
>hacks being paid to voice their opinions in public, believe
>otherwise. Common sense tells everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of
>everyone, that it's all blown out of proportion.
Hardly bogus, 'food; the man - and I use the term advisedly - lied
repeatedly under oath. And what, pray tell, would you know about
"common sense"? It seems that your concept of it can easily be
confused with mob justice.
>They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on him, so
>they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self
>consumed that they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage
>is merely a snicker in the real world. Nobody cares!
Hmmm... is that sorta like a certain writer in alt.california who
failed to "hang anything substantial" on another frequent writer
regarding issues under discussion, so resorted to "bringing out the
smut"? Of course, I'm far too urbane to mention any names, but
doesn't this sound a bit like a bit of the old pot.kettle.black?
<snipped; see thread>
>The impeachment was a travesty, and the nut cases that pushed it
>through the House will pay for their misdeeds, not only in the short
>run at the polls, but in the long run in the history books. Their
>great grandchildren (and their illigament spawns as well) can read
>about how they foolishly tried to destroy the constitution for their
>own selfish purposes, and hide their heads in shame.
Not a problem. If the Democrats, with their Department of Education,
prevail, those great grandchildren probably won't be able to read,
anyway. :)
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"McCarthyism: Character assassination for political purposes, by
asserting that some person is a member of the Communist conspiracy,
especially when this is done by an admirer of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Not to be confused with asserting that some person is a member of the
fascist conspiracy, especially when this is done by an admirer of Sen.
Eugene McCarthy." - Withit's Collegiate Dictionary, 1973
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
> A truly amazing statement. The Democratic Party has moved far
>away from the (almost vanished) New Left and is for the most part quite
>conservative!
Appearances be damned! I've seen nothing to convince me that the Democrats
have abandoned their longing for jaded New Deal/Great Society-type programs.
Beneath the thin veneer of conservatism that coats the Democratic party's
rhetoric lies a vision of society that is fundamentally socialist.
bkd
The Pervert
>
> The Pervert wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Willwork4food (work...@thetable.org) wrote:
> >
> > > > : > >I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
> > > > : > >the roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican
> > > > : > >strung up on every other tree.....
> >
> > > >
> > > > 'food, that means that you don't think Clinton should be impeached/
> > > > convicted. Per Jafo, anybody who has respect for the rule of law is
> > > > pro-impeachment. In my view, of course, the impeachment shows no respect
> > > > for the rule of law because even the alleged offenses are not impeachable
> > > > according to the constitution.
> > >
> > > impeachable....
> >
> > It's very sad that you don't consider felonies indictable. One can only
> > infer, from your own words, that you just don't understand things
> > like... oh, why deliberately and flagrantly breaking the law is
> > sometimes considered a bad thing. In clear point of fact, Mr. Clinton
> > HAS been impeached, which is tantamount to an indictment.
> >
> > idea, like maybe Merlin or Elric) could mount a reasonable argument that
> > the presented articles don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
> > Some suggest that while they don't believe the alleged offenses rise to
> > the level of impeachment, the President could be indicted and tried
> > (with some reasonable hope of success, i.e., conviction) in a regular
> > criminal court after his term expires. That would never happen, of
> > course, because the next President (from either party) would issue a
> > pre-emptive pardon much as President Ford did regarding Mr. Nixon, and I
> > would support such a pardon.
> >
> > Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech who was
> > impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office from a dumpy
> > intern young enough to be his daughter.
> >
> > What a legacy.
>
> His legacy will be that he participated in the destruction of a radical wing of the
> Republican Party who attempted to use him as a vehicle for solidifying their power
> in their attempt to subvert the constitution and dominate America politically.
Then why did the Republicans gain control of the Congress for the first
time in forty years? Wouldn't that popular vote indicate something?
Sure, they deservedly lost some seats in the 98 election, and Mr.
gingrich took personal responsibility for that loss by resigning
(showing a sense of personal courage and responsibility not shared by
the President), but they still have a majority.
> These are the very same zealots who, when their failed religion was rejected by the
> majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they were too extreme
> for even the most pious of Americans to follow, embarked on a plan to achieve in the
> political area what they were unable to achieve based on their own merits. To do so,
> they entered into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American types,
> militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the Confederacy who still
> won't accept that they lost that war too, and corporate capitalist who's realms were
> being attacked by the moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual sheep,
> like yourself, attached themselves to the cause because they have nothing else to
> attach themselves to (but they are fair weather friends of the movement, and will
> abandon it as soon as they see they can't prosper by sucking the life out of it, and
> will find another cause to champion).
And the evidence to this absurd charge is...? And I am a sheep because
I hold an opionion not shared by the majority of the American people?
Do you make any sense at all? And just to piss you off a bit further, I
happen to be strongly pro-choice (on demand) and even stronger
anti-Religious Right. My family history is all in the north and my
ancestors served in the Union Army. (You wouldn't know about serving
anything, would you.) I'm a moderate (fiscally conservative, socially
liberal... kinda semi-libertarian) and was working on race relations
projects thirty years ago... in the deep south where it was not too cool
for a northern boy to be involved with such things Gee... you're
blowing smoke out of your ass yet again! We're all surprised.
> The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political hacks being
> paid to voice their opinions in public, believe otherwise. Common sense tells
> everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of everyone, that it's all blown out of
> proportion. They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on him, so
> they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self consumed that
> they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage is merely a snicker in the real
> world. Nobody cares!
If nobody cares, why has this scandal been front page news for so long?
Certainly nobody calls the mainstream media a mouthpiece for
conservatives! Fortunately, this is a nation ruled by law, not by
polls. Were we run strictly by public opinion, blacks might still be
legally considered three-fifths of a human being and segregation would
still be in place in the South.
> And, repeating the charges as done deals, as in "deliberately and flagrantly
> breaking the law" are merely charges, and not proof of anything. Repeating it over
> and over again still doesn't make it true! You reveal your true anti Americanism by
> doggedly insisting that the man is guilty before he has had the benefit of a trial,
> ignoring the basic tenant of our system of law that we all are to be considered
> innocent until proven guilty. Get that, proven guilty - not just charged and ranted
> about, but actually proven.
This is cute. I am accused of being Anti-American by a man who was an
admitted draft dodger while I was in the service in Southeast Asia?
Your lack of credibiltiy and lack of integrity is amazing.
I believe the man is guilty of the charges. That does not make me
anti-American. I don't know that I think he should be removed from
office, but I do believe he has violated both the letter and the spirit
of the law. You believe he is innocent. That alone does not
necessarily make you anti-American either. I believe that O.J. is
guilty. Does that make me anti-American? I mean, he was charged and
aquitted. Does that make it so? The four cops who beat Rodney King
were aquitted of the state charges. Do you believe they were innocent?
Did you believe them to be guilty even before the verdicts were reached
or before they went to trial? Did you dare to express your opinion to
that effect? Did that make you anti-American?
> The impeachment was a travesty, and the nut cases that pushed it through the
> House will pay for their misdeeds, not only in the short run at the polls, but in
> the long run in the history books. Their great grandchildren (and their illigament
> spawns as well) can read about how they foolishly tried to destroy the constitution
> for their own selfish purposes, and hide their heads in shame.
Speaking about nut cases, and I think you know about that first hand, is
everybody who has a different opinion than you a nut case? Does every
Congressperson who voted for the Articles of Impeachment have
"illigament" spawn? (I have ligament damage, but that's due to football
injuries and injuries incurred in military service... the same military
service you dodged and helped others to dodge, all while claiming to be
some kind of quasi- "Vietnam Vet". Lucky military.) Indeed, I think a
case could be made that Conservatives might have a lower incidence of
illegitimacy due to their more rigid (too rigid as far as I'm concerned)
value structure than liberals.
But why confuse you with logic... except that it's a cheap thrill to so
easily rip your flimsy ravings apart just for the sport of it.
aquadoc
tracey12 wrote in message ...
>Something you guys need to understand is that the primary component of the
>RNC is the Religious Right.
>We are members not because we have been recruited, but because we own the
>party.
>We, the Religious members of the Republican party are its primary base and
>the main
>focusing unit working to keep the party away from socialism, and to cut
>government down to a much smaller size.
>
Years ago, when I had more regard for the two-party system, I voted for
Republicans in most elections - until, that is, the Religious Right reared
it's ugly head and began to run candidates who based their campaigns on
issues that had little or nothing to do with economics, foreign policy, etc.
Their obsession with abortion and other narrowly-defined issues ultimately
drove me - and many others - toward the Libertarian Party, largly as a means
of protesting the influence of spokesmen like Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and
Pat Robertson. So the money and time that I used to contribute to support
Republican candidates for local, state and national offices now go to
support Libertarians - as I will not, under any circumstances, waste my
contribution on a party run by fundamentalist zealots. Democrats, of
course, are worthless scum - but will probably end up on top because the
Religious Right has succeeded in driving off many who might otherwise vote
Republican. You reap what you sow.
bkd
Jafo
David wrote:
>The difference between Barry Goldwater and the new Republican
>Fundamentalist Right is not right and left. It's the difference
>between men with integrity and men with none. Barry is as "right"
>as ever. Still a hawk on defense, still for strong defense of
>second amendment, still for traditional American values (as opposed
>to "Family Values"). The difference is he knows he's not here alone
>on the continent and he knows he has to come to accommodation with
>others by respecting their views as well. This is one quality
>missing in the Gingrich Republicans.
Goldwater was always an independent thinker who was not afraid to
chart his own course. Your repeated choice of the present tense,
however, leads me to think that while he may well be "still a hawk
on defense, still for strong defense of second amendment, still for
traditional American values", you may be unaware of the fact that
he's also "still" dead.
Willwork4food
> Oh, you're so misguided, Will.
>
> First, is it all of those non-caring people who are causing Congress to
> react?
Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, with the zealots
of the right, and those that they hold hostage with their threats of retaliation
at the polls, voting the line. And the Democrats voting against them.
>
> And, we elected Representatives to uphold the law, therefore, they should
> operate under the law and deal with a president who has committed felonies.
they aren't elected to uphold the law, but to make the laws. And the President
has only been charged with acts that warrant impeachment, not felonies, and, to
repeat, he has not been convicted of anything!!!! Nothing!!!! Saying it doesn't
make it so......
>
>
> Next, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is composed of a Vast number of
> Christians.
a relatively insignificant number of christians are right wing zealots like you
are. The vast majority of Christians want nothing to do with you and your
friends.
>
> WE have common goals based upon our value system. One of those goals is to
> keep America on the RIGHT track moving away from big government that
> overpowers the
> people, and away from socialism.
like subjecting a persons private life to intense investigation, and persecuting
them if they don't happen to meet your values and standards??? Bad enough when
you do it individually, but when you use the government to do it under the guise
of a legitimate investigation , and then claim to be moving away from big
government, your hypocrisy shows all too well...
> This means one thing: We are greatly
> opposed to the goals
> of the new left that now has taken ownership of the Demcratic party.
>
> Whats amazing is how many of you leftists are willing to use propaganda to
> keep a felon in office!
gotta be convicted to be one.... at least here in America.
>
> Also, it is rather amazing that you leftists will not cut your losses and
> join in the removal of Clinton
> so that you can have a clean slate with Gore, but you're willing to drag the
> country through this entire
> process when you know full well that Clinton is a felon; a politician who
> should not be allowed to serve another day.
and lose the man and woman who were voted most admired by the in the Gallup
poll?
The President who has the highest popularity ratings in modern history?
Ya, we should just give that up and get in line with you sheep.
>
>
> This truly highlights the misguided nature of the left, and it makes them
> appear to the average American as the party
> that will do anything to stay in power including support criminal
> politicians.
would that be the 72% that approve of the way the President has and is doing his
job??
> Because of this, you have lost all hopes of regaining control
> of the House.
> 2000 is around the corner.
ya, the House, all Democratic, all the time.......
> George W. will be the next president.
not if he is a Republican
>
>
> >His legacy will be that he participated in the destruction of a radical
> wing of the
> >Republican Party who attempted to use him as a vehicle for solidifying
> their power
> >in their attempt to subvert the constitution and dominate America
> politically.
> >These are the very same zealots who, when their failed religion was
> rejected by the
> >majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they were too
> extreme
> >for even the most pious of Americans to follow, embarked on a plan to
> achieve in the
> >political area what they were unable to achieve based on their own merits.
> To do so,
> >they entered into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American
> types,
> >militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the Confederacy
> who still
> >won't accept that they lost that war too, and corporate capitalist who's
> realms were
> >being attacked by the moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual
> sheep,
> >like yourself, attached themselves to the cause because they have nothing
> else to
> >attach themselves to (but they are fair weather friends of the movement,
> and will
> >abandon it as soon as they see they can't prosper by sucking the life out
> of it, and
> >will find another cause to champion).
> > The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political
> hacks being
> >paid to voice their opinions in public, believe otherwise. Common sense
> tells
> >everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of everyone, that it's all blown out of
> >proportion. They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on
> him, so
> >they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self
> consumed that
> >they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage is merely a snicker in
> the real
> >world. Nobody cares!
> > And, repeating the charges as done deals, as in "deliberately and
> flagrantly
> >breaking the law" are merely charges, and not proof of anything. Repeating
> it over
> >and over again still doesn't make it true! You reveal your true anti
> Americanism by
> >doggedly insisting that the man is guilty before he has had the benefit of
> a trial,
> >ignoring the basic tenant of our system of law that we all are to be
> considered
> >innocent until proven guilty. Get that, proven guilty - not just charged
> and ranted
> >about, but actually proven.
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:38:40 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >The Pervert wrote:
> >> The deserved damage has been done. No matter what else happens,
> >> Mr. Clinton will be remembered for being a hypocritical lying lech
> >> who was impeached and for getting a hummer(s) in the Oval Office
> >> from a dumpy intern young enough to be his daughter.
> >>
> >> What a legacy.
>
> >His legacy will be that he participated in the destruction of a
> >radical wing of the Republican Party who attempted to use him as a
> >vehicle for solidifying their power in their attempt to subvert the
> >constitution and dominate America politically. These are the very
> >same zealots who, when their failed religion was rejected by the
> >majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they
> >were too extreme for even the most pious of Americans to follow,
>
> Like that well-known subversive document, the Constitution of the
> United States...
...here is a question for you to ask one of them next time you meet one.
Which do they hold as a higher authority, the Constitution, or the Bible?
You might answer that one yourself, but I really don't see you as anything
more than a well polished USENET troll presenting any position that you
think will get you some attention....
>
>
> >embarked on a plan to achieve in the political area what they were
> >unable to achieve based on their own merits. To do so, they entered
> >into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American types,
> >militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the
> >Confederacy who still won't accept that they lost that war too, and
> >corporate capitalist who's realms were being attacked by the
> >moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual sheep, like
> >yourself,
>
> No 'food, the only "sheep" involved here are those, "like yourself",
> who would forgive a liberal President any crime imaginable in order
> to keep him in power. Such "sheep" can usually be found off in a
> corner, chanting the party-line mantra that "it's all about sex".
...it's a big flock... something like 65 to 70% of all Americans.
>
>
> >The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political
> >hacks being paid to voice their opinions in public, believe
> >otherwise. Common sense tells everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of
> >everyone, that it's all blown out of proportion.
>
> Hardly bogus, 'food; the man - and I use the term advisedly - lied
> repeatedly under oath. And what, pray tell, would you know about
> "common sense"? It seems that your concept of it can easily be
> confused with mob justice.
...proof positive that you are a moron, 'cause you certainly aren't a paid
hack. Since there have been no verdicts handed down by and courts, that
he lied can only be an opinion.
>
>
> >They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on him, so
> >they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self
> >consumed that they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage
> >is merely a snicker in the real world. Nobody cares!
>
> Hmmm... is that sorta like a certain writer in alt.california who
> failed to "hang anything substantial" on another frequent writer
> regarding issues under discussion, so resorted to "bringing out the
> smut"? Of course, I'm far too urbane to mention any names, but
> doesn't this sound a bit like a bit of the old pot.kettle.black?
...having nothing to say, the old scripts come out. Nice debate
buffie....
>
>
> <snipped; see thread>
>
> >The impeachment was a travesty, and the nut cases that pushed it
> >through the House will pay for their misdeeds, not only in the short
> >run at the polls, but in the long run in the history books. Their
> >great grandchildren (and their illigament spawns as well) can read
> >about how they foolishly tried to destroy the constitution for their
> >own selfish purposes, and hide their heads in shame.
>
> Not a problem. If the Democrats, with their Department of Education,
> prevail, those great grandchildren probably won't be able to read,
> anyway. :)
...well, they can look at the pictures then, like Baja does........
>
Willwork4food
> Willwork4food, stop standing on the corner begging for handouts. Get a job and buy your
> own food.
... missed the 'work' part, eh? doesn't say beg for food...
> It's funny how someone who "will work for food" thinks that their opinion
> counts.
...if I begged for food, would my opinion count????
> Clinton is a pervert and needs to be removed from office. This country does
> not want to have his morals,
...this is America. you can chose your morals, just as you can chose your President.
> he seems to think that being president means he can dangle
> his dingo around the office for the office girls to swallow.
...never had your dingo swallowed? you should try it sometime. and you don't have to be
President to get some. of course you might have to say that your President for you to get
some, but then.....
> This guy's a monster
...maybe that's why she kept coming back for more....?
> and
> it's time that good people took back over the control of the government.
...depends on the meaning of the word 'good' is.....
> It's not about
> Democrat or Republican, it's about a perverted man who is on my tax dollar getting his
> willies in MY whitehouse.
...if it's your White house, could you send me back all my tax money that has been used to
pay for it's upkeep?
> Next time, let him take his fun and games to the appropriate
> location: an whore house would suffice.
...you have personal knowledge of these 'whore houses'?
> This devil with his lies and trickery is
> doomed to destruction.
...don't bet your last buck on it....
> Let's not allow ourselves to become devils along with him.
...oh, I'm sure you could never act like a devil. you seem so civil, so together, so
christian.....
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>
> ...and while we are at it, the difference between the New Deal/Great
>Society and socialism.
>
.....which is insignificant.
Willwork4food
oh come on! you are revealing yourself as not only a moron, but a political novice as
well. They lost seats in '96 and again in '98, both elections where they should have at
least held their own. They now have a five or six seat majority, not very significant
when you count in the four northeastern Republicans who consistently vote with the
Democrats.
And if Gnewt was a real man, he would have jumped off of a bridge when his miss judgments
lost them the advantage he promised. Did you know that of all of the issues in the
Contract with America that got him elected as Speaker, none, I repeat, none of them ever
reached the point of becoming law???? Now that's leadership.
>
>
> > These are the very same zealots who, when their failed religion was rejected by the
> > majority of Americans, and who, facing a extinction because they were too extreme
> > for even the most pious of Americans to follow, embarked on a plan to achieve in the
> > political area what they were unable to achieve based on their own merits. To do so,
> > they entered into relationships with all manner of sordid anti-American types,
> > militias, racists, bigots, antiabortion radicals, Sons of the Confederacy who still
> > won't accept that they lost that war too, and corporate capitalist who's realms were
> > being attacked by the moderate polices of concerned politicians. The usual sheep,
> > like yourself, attached themselves to the cause because they have nothing else to
> > attach themselves to (but they are fair weather friends of the movement, and will
> > abandon it as soon as they see they can't prosper by sucking the life out of it, and
> > will find another cause to champion).
>
> And the evidence to this absurd charge is...?
...read your own post below and see if I didn't adequately define you. You are so wishy
washy I'm surprised you can remember what your for everyday when you post...
> And I am a sheep because
> I hold an opionion not shared by the majority of the American people?
> Do you make any sense at all? And just to piss you off a bit further, I
> happen to be strongly pro-choice (on demand) and even stronger
> anti-Religious Right.
....wish wash wish wash....
> My family history is all in the north and my
> ancestors served in the Union Army. (You wouldn't know about serving
> anything, would you.)
...I think we had servants once, but don't quote me...
> I'm a moderate (fiscally conservative, socially
> liberal... kinda semi-libertarian)
wish wash wish wash...
> and was working on race relations
> projects thirty years ago... in the deep south where it was not too cool
> for a northern boy to be involved with such things
...your just a darn patriot, aren't you......
> Gee... you're
> blowing smoke out of your ass yet again! We're all surprised.
>
> > The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political hacks being
> > paid to voice their opinions in public, believe otherwise. Common sense tells
> > everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of everyone, that it's all blown out of
> > proportion. They have repeatedly failed to hang anything substantial on him, so
> > they bring out the smut. The only problem is that they are so self consumed that
> > they failed to realize that their trumped up outrage is merely a snicker in the real
> > world. Nobody cares!
>
> If nobody cares, why has this scandal been front page news for so long?
> Certainly nobody calls the mainstream media a mouthpiece for
> conservatives!
...hummm...when the Pew organization polled (sorry :( ) the public on the stories that
they paid attention to the most in '98, the 'scandal' was waaaaaaay down the list,
something like sixth or seventh.... really important, huh.
> Fortunately, this is a nation ruled by law, not by
> polls.
...correction! as you offered above, we are ruled by what makes the headlines of the
popular press, not by polls or by laws...
> Were we run strictly by public opinion, blacks might still be
> legally considered three-fifths of a human being and segregation would
> still be in place in the South.
...really weak 'talking point' from your head sheep. if I remember right, we fought a war
over that issue, and it was a Democratic president who pushed through the majority of the
laws that eased segregation in the south, a popularly elected president, and, then as now,
the ones who opposed it most violently and most vocally are the same ones who control your
Republican party now.
>
>
> > And, repeating the charges as done deals, as in "deliberately and flagrantly
> > breaking the law" are merely charges, and not proof of anything. Repeating it over
> > and over again still doesn't make it true! You reveal your true anti Americanism by
> > doggedly insisting that the man is guilty before he has had the benefit of a trial,
> > ignoring the basic tenant of our system of law that we all are to be considered
> > innocent until proven guilty. Get that, proven guilty - not just charged and ranted
> > about, but actually proven.
>
> This is cute. I am accused of being Anti-American by a man who was an
> admitted draft dodger while I was in the service in Southeast Asia?
> Your lack of credibiltiy and lack of integrity is amazing.
when did I admit that????
>
>
> I believe the man is guilty of the charges. That does not make me
> anti-American. I don't know that I think he should be removed from
> office, but I do believe he has violated both the letter and the spirit
> of the law. You believe he is innocent. That alone does not
> necessarily make you anti-American either. I believe that O.J. is
> guilty. Does that make me anti-American? I mean, he was charged and
> aquitted. Does that make it so? The four cops who beat Rodney King
> were aquitted of the state charges. Do you believe they were innocent?
> Did you believe them to be guilty even before the verdicts were reached
> or before they went to trial? Did you dare to express your opinion to
> that effect? Did that make you anti-American?
...what? what? what? what? what does any of that have anything to do with anything that
we have discussed??? you rant about the law of the land, but you constantly proclaim the
President's guilt without benefit of any kind of a trial whatsoever. what happened to the
rule of law you so cherish???
>
>
> > The impeachment was a travesty, and the nut cases that pushed it through the
> > House will pay for their misdeeds, not only in the short run at the polls, but in
> > the long run in the history books. Their great grandchildren (and their illigament
> > spawns as well) can read about how they foolishly tried to destroy the constitution
> > for their own selfish purposes, and hide their heads in shame.
>
> Speaking about nut cases, and I think you know about that first hand, is
> everybody who has a different opinion than you a nut case? Does every
> Congressperson who voted for the Articles of Impeachment have
> "illigament" spawn? (I have ligament damage, but that's due to football
> injuries and injuries incurred in military service... the same military
> service you dodged and helped others to dodge, all while claiming to be
> some kind of quasi- "Vietnam Vet". Lucky military.) Indeed, I think a
> case could be made that Conservatives might have a lower incidence of
> illegitimacy due to their more rigid (too rigid as far as I'm concerned)
> value structure than liberals.
...never claimed to be any kind of a vet; never dodged any draft; never helped anyone
'dodge' anybody's draft. misspellings are due to my VanaWhite SpellChecker... it misses
things sometimes... opinions are opinions, and I never attack someone who post their
opinions, only those who post their opinions as the truth, and try to get away with it...
never said anything about 'every Congressperson' who voted for impeachment having
illegitimate spawn, but it was illustrative of your style of posting to say that I did....
that's why you qualify as a nut case.
>
>
> But why confuse you with logic... except that it's a cheap thrill to so
> easily rip your flimsy ravings apart just for the sport of it.
..love it when you pat yourself on the back. but then if you didn't, who would, huh???
Will...
JB
> >Willwork4food wrote:
> >> I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble the
> >> roads that led to Rome... with a conservative christian republican strung up
> >> on every other tree.....
>
> >And liberals have the balls to call anything close to a conservative
> >"mean spirited?" What hypocritical bullshit!
>
> Such is modern liberalism.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Gregs-Jafo remember the following which you wrote ?
Re: Black Men/White Women
Author: GREGS
Email: gr...@inforamp.net
Date: 1996/02/04
Forums: soc.culture.african.american, a.p.n.w
Message-ID: <gregs-04029...@ts8-08.tor.inforamp.net>
organization: INFANTRIE DUCIMUS
In article <DM61J...@iquest.net>, "Kirth N. Roach" <ka...@iquest.net>
wrote:
<gregs-04029...@ts8-08.tor.inforamp.net> wrote:
** You see it everywhere; white women with black men.
Maybe dem crazy white bitches gots a deathwish bout being jus like dat
skeezin ho
nicole brown simpsin
--
gregs
Merlin Dorfman
: No 'food, the only "sheep" involved here are those, "like yourself",
: who would forgive a liberal President any crime imaginable in order
: to keep him in power. Such "sheep" can usually be found off in a
: corner, chanting the party-line mantra that "it's all about sex".
Learn to count higher than 2. "Not impeached" does not mean
forgiven, any more than giving a criminal life in prison instead of
death represents forgiveness. It represents a view of the appropriate
punishment for the offense. Clinton's alleged offenses are nothing
that any ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for, so to use the
Constitution's mechanism of impeachment, which should be used only
when the (not only alleged but proven) offenses are so serious that
we cannot risk waiting for the next election, is completely out of
proportion. In this case it is simply an excuse for those who want
him removed from office for "offenses" that either are not illegal or
cannot be proven.
: >The charges are bogus. Only the most rabid morons, or the political
: >hacks being paid to voice their opinions in public, believe
: >otherwise. Common sense tells everyone, or at least 60% to 70% of
: >everyone, that it's all blown out of proportion.
: Hardly bogus, 'food; the man - and I use the term advisedly - lied
: repeatedly under oath. And what, pray tell, would you know about
: "common sense"? It seems that your concept of it can easily be
: confused with mob justice.
Even if true--and remember that the deposition in the Paula
Jones case was dropped from the articles of impeachment--this is
something that no ordinary citizen would ever be prosecuted for, and
if somehow prosecuted and convicted the punishment would be about the
same as for carpool lane violations. Hardly the stuff of being so
risky that we cannot wait for the next election. Again, it is an
excuse for other real or alleged offenses.
Merlin Dorfman
: I'm really not sure. (That's not rhetorical. I'm really not so sure
: either way.) I don't see how anyone can look at how this President
: dignified or enhanced the Office by his behavior. Also note that
: Kennedy's personal behavior has tarnished his historical reputation, as
: well. Interestingly enough, Mr. Nixon's reputation managed to repair
: itself (a bit) after he left office. It took a couple of decades, but
: he managed to end up as a respected elder statesman, not to mention a
: respected baseball authority.
Not respected by me, or by many other people that I know. And
what's this about being a baseball authority?? :-)
: And I really disagree that Clinton is merely the object of a simple
: majority in the House. Nobody was more politically hated than Reagan,
: yet there was never anything even remotely impeachable about him. I
: have to wonder why only the staunchest of Clinton defenders insists on
: some nefarious conspiracy which, on even the most casual examination,
: will have severely negative political consequences for the alleged
: conspirators. Say what you will about Republicans, they aren't that
: stupid. You may not like their ideas, and you might not like their
: personalities. But they really aren't all that dumb.
Say what you like about Democrats, their minds just don't work
along the lines of trying to impeach somebody just because you "hate"
him. Fools that they are, they insist on impeachable offenses...like
falsely invoking national security grounds to have the CIA call the
FBI off a criminal investigation of a crime committed by your staff.
It's not a "nefarious conspiracy" against Clinton, it's just the
Republican Church doing what its drivers tell it to do, against all
common sense and political strategy.
: I also wonder why solid Democratic opposition isn't considered
: partisan? By definition, it almost has to be. The Republicans have so
: much more to lose by following their consciences (and what they perceive
: to be the law), you have to wonder why they are taking such a risk? Why
: aren't they being political whores to the polls like the Democrats might
: be considered to be? They'd get more votes that way... if that's all
: they really cared about.
It is partisan. Impeachments should not be partisan--they lose all
credibility if 95% of one party votes in favor and 95% of the other
party votes against. You can bet it would not have been that way if
Nixon's impeachment had come to a vote--Republicans were convinced he
had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Democrats are not
convinced Clinton did; in fact quite the opposite.
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
: > A truly amazing statement. The Democratic Party has moved far
Well, you are wrong about the "veneer," but the point of the statement
was to recognize the difference between New Deal/Great Society and the New
Left.
Merlin Dorfman
: Goldwater was always an independent thinker who was not afraid to
: chart his own course. Your repeated choice of the present tense,
: however, leads me to think that while he may well be "still a hawk
: on defense, still for strong defense of second amendment, still for
: traditional American values", you may be unaware of the fact that
: he's also "still" dead.
Is he listed as dead on the Dead People's Server yet? I refuse
to believe that anybody is dead until so listed.
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
: >aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: >
: > ...and while we are at it, the difference between the New Deal/Great
: >Society and socialism.
: >
: .....which is insignificant.
I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
The Pervert
Yet the courts repeatedly denied Mr. Clinton's falsly invoking
"Executive Privelege" in order to withold damaging evidence... fools
that those courts are.
> : I also wonder why solid Democratic opposition isn't considered
> : partisan? By definition, it almost has to be. The Republicans have so
> : much more to lose by following their consciences (and what they perceive
> : to be the law), you have to wonder why they are taking such a risk? Why
> : aren't they being political whores to the polls like the Democrats might
> : be considered to be? They'd get more votes that way... if that's all
> : they really cared about.
>
> It is partisan. Impeachments should not be partisan--they lose all
> credibility if 95% of one party votes in favor and 95% of the other
> party votes against. You can bet it would not have been that way if
> Nixon's impeachment had come to a vote--Republicans were convinced he
> had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Democrats are not
> convinced Clinton did; in fact quite the opposite.
You acknowlege that the Democrats are acting in a partisan manner. By
your own evaluation as stated above, have they not compromised the
credibility of the process? There are Republicans who have voted
against all of the articles as evidenced by only two of the articles
being voted by the House. And there are indications that some will
possibly vote against conviction which suggests some independant
thinking on the part of the Republicans, yet it is a forgone conclusion
that teh Democrats will vote as a solid block against anything. Why is
this not brought out in any discussions on the situation? By your own
account, Republicans were willing to see their own standard bearer as
having committed offenses. Not so any Democrats in the present case.
On whom, then, is that a commentary... according to your own words?
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, with
>the zealots of the right, and those that they hold hostage with
>their threats of retaliation at the polls, voting the line. And the
>Democrats voting against them.
Of course, 'food ignores the fact - only hinted at in his last
sentence - that the Democrats voted even more zealously and
monolithicly "down party lines".
This, of course, is *different* because their hearts were pure. :-D
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"Activist: a person employing tactics in the cause of *liberation*
which, when used by a *fascist*, are known as *McCarthyism* and
*repression*. - Withit's Collegiate Dictionary, 1973
B Wood
On 9 Jan 1999, Bill wrote:
* Willwork4food wrote:
* I look forward to the day when the roads to Washington D.C. resemble
* the roads that led to Rome...with a conservative christian republican
* strung up on every other tree.....
You look forward to having me strung up on a tree? Gee, thanks....
> Bill responded:
> ...you've got to admit that the prospect of driving down PA ave and
> seeing Pat Robertson crucified is not compleately unappealing.
This is the brutality which hides behind the mask of liberal "tolerance".
You might both PRAY to whatever powers you worship that I will never
fall away from Christianity...I am afterall, a Marine Corps trained
Scout Sniper. Would you really want me to play by *your* rules?
Fenrisulven
B Wood
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
> you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
> the means of production
Uhm...its slightly more complex than that. The first indicator that
Socialism "smells" is the stealthy & sneaky manner of its supporters.
I mean, if Socialism is such a Great Thing, why can't it be presented
to the public in the light of day?
Methinks its a subtle way to make a pluralistic society dependent on
the government's "good will". Keep the public fat and lazy with federal
handouts and they'll be too lethargic to react when their Liberty is
stolen from them.
Cheers
Barry
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:05:34 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, with
> >the zealots of the right, and those that they hold hostage with
> >their threats of retaliation at the polls, voting the line. And the
> >Democrats voting against them.
>
> Of course, 'food ignores the fact - only hinted at in his last
> sentence - that the Democrats voted even more zealously and
> monolithicly "down party lines".
>
> This, of course, is *different* because their hearts were pure. :-D
>
how much clearer could I have stated it???
>>Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, <<
I even used a coma to separate that part of the sentence, thusly
indicating that I meant all of Congress, not just the Republicans.
But then you knew that, and dealing with facts and the truth would be
difficult for you. Easier to slander..........
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Jafo wrote:
>> Willwork4food wrote:
>> >Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, with
>> >the zealots of the right, and those that they hold hostage with
>> >their threats of retaliation at the polls, voting the line. And the
>> >Democrats voting against them.
>> Of course, 'food ignores the fact - only hinted at in his last
>> sentence - that the Democrats voted even more zealously and
>> monolithicly "down party lines".
>>
>> This, of course, is *different* because their hearts were pure. :-D
>how much clearer could I have stated it???
>>>Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, <<
>I even used a coma to separate that part of the sentence, thusly
>indicating that I meant all of Congress, not just the Republicans.
>But then you knew that, and dealing with facts and the truth would be
>difficult for you. Easier to slander..........
Easier, rather, for you to post in a suggestive manner. Or weren't we
supposed to notice?
On the one side, you have "the zealots of the right, and those that
they hold hostage with their threats of retaliation at the polls,
voting the line." And on the other, you have... "the Democrats".
Where, for example, is the comment about the "zealots" of the left,
who represented a more monolithic voting bloc than did the
Republicans? Or are all "zealots" members of the right wing by
definition? And are all Democrats noble because they oppose such
"zealots"?
Puttin' on the spin, eh, 'food?
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote:
: > Say what you like about Democrats, their minds just don't work
: > along the lines of trying to impeach somebody just because you "hate"
: > him. Fools that they are, they insist on impeachable offenses...like
: > falsely invoking national security grounds to have the CIA call the
: > FBI off a criminal investigation of a crime committed by your staff.
: > It's not a "nefarious conspiracy" against Clinton, it's just the
: > Republican Church doing what its drivers tell it to do, against all
: > common sense and political strategy.
: Yet the courts repeatedly denied Mr. Clinton's falsly invoking
: "Executive Privelege" in order to withold damaging evidence... fools
: that those courts are.
I don't see the connection. The Republican Church presses
charges, Clinton tries to use a defense, the courts decide the defense
isn't valid. It's not up to the courts to say, "You shouldn't be
pressing these charges, so we'll allow what would otherwise not be
a valid defense."
: > : I also wonder why solid Democratic opposition isn't considered
: > : partisan? By definition, it almost has to be. The Republicans have so
: > : much more to lose by following their consciences (and what they perceive
: > : to be the law), you have to wonder why they are taking such a risk? Why
: > : aren't they being political whores to the polls like the Democrats might
: > : be considered to be? They'd get more votes that way... if that's all
: > : they really cared about.
: >
: > It is partisan. Impeachments should not be partisan--they lose all
: > credibility if 95% of one party votes in favor and 95% of the other
: > party votes against. You can bet it would not have been that way if
: > Nixon's impeachment had come to a vote--Republicans were convinced he
: > had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Democrats are not
: > convinced Clinton did; in fact quite the opposite.
: You acknowlege that the Democrats are acting in a partisan manner. By
: your own evaluation as stated above, have they not compromised the
: credibility of the process? There are Republicans who have voted
: against all of the articles as evidenced by only two of the articles
: being voted by the House. And there are indications that some will
: possibly vote against conviction which suggests some independant
: thinking on the part of the Republicans, yet it is a forgone conclusion
: that teh Democrats will vote as a solid block against anything. Why is
: this not brought out in any discussions on the situation? By your own
: account, Republicans were willing to see their own standard bearer as
: having committed offenses. Not so any Democrats in the present case.
: On whom, then, is that a commentary... according to your own words?
There are Republicans who voted against some or all of the articles,
and Democrats who voted for some or all--less than 5% altogether. As I
said, the process is partisan. On both sides. An impeachment doesn't
have much credibility if it is partisan.
The reason Republicans were willing to see Nixon as having committed
offenses, and the Democrats are not willing to see Clinton as having
committed (impeachable) offenses, is that Nixon committed them and
Clinton did not.
Merlin Dorfman
: On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Merlin Dorfman wrote:
: > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
: > you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
: > the means of production
: Uhm...its slightly more complex than that. The first indicator that
: Socialism "smells" is the stealthy & sneaky manner of its supporters.
: I mean, if Socialism is such a Great Thing, why can't it be presented
: to the public in the light of day?
I'm not clear what you mean here. You seem to be saying that
the Democrats are socialists because they deny it.
There are socialists in this world...in Scandinavia, in France
and Germany, vestigially in Britain, etc. They do present their
ideas to the public openly and they occasionally win elections.
There may even be a few socialists in the US--a bit of Web searching
might turn them up.
: Methinks its a subtle way to make a pluralistic society dependent on
: the government's "good will". Keep the public fat and lazy with federal
: handouts and they'll be too lethargic to react when their Liberty is
: stolen from them.
Again...any number of "federal handouts" are not socialism.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Merlin Dorfman
: On the one side, you have "the zealots of the right, and those that
: they hold hostage with their threats of retaliation at the polls,
: voting the line." And on the other, you have... "the Democrats".
: Where, for example, is the comment about the "zealots" of the left,
: who represented a more monolithic voting bloc than did the
: Republicans? Or are all "zealots" members of the right wing by
: definition? And are all Democrats noble because they oppose such
: "zealots"?
In this case, the Democrats, who are not particularly
ideological, nor do they have any particular affection for Bill
Clinton (for many good reasons I could go into at length) were
mobilized into near unanimity by the zealots of the right. These
zealots are by no means the entire Republican majority of the
last Congress; they were probably 25-30% of the Republicans. But
they had a solid majority on the Judiciary Committee (where
admittedly the Democrats are also quite ideological), and in the
absence of decisive leadership due to Gingrich's and Livingston's
problems they were able to browbeat nearly all the Republicans in
the House to vote yes on impeachment.
If you know anything about the Democratic Party, you will
realize what a remarkable accomplishment it was to get 95% of
them to vote to defend Bill Clinton, and then to get two busloads
of them to go to the White House where Clinton made them stand
outside in the cold before they could give him an endorsement and
urge him not to resign.
aquadoc
B Wood wrote in message ...
>
>
>Methinks its a subtle way to make a pluralistic society dependent on
>the government's "good will". Keep the public fat and lazy with federal
>handouts and they'll be too lethargic to react when their Liberty is
>stolen from them.
You responded much as I had intended. When Americans finally realize that
the Democratic Party thrives on masses of people who are dependent on the
largesse of politicians (e.g., Democrats), then perhaps - just perhaps -
we'll have a real chance of paring taxation back to the bone and cutting
back the scope of the government's intrusion into our lives.
bkd
bkd
hc23hc
>
> B Wood (fen...@utdallas.edu) wrote:
>
> : On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> : > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
> : > you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
> : > the means of production
> : Uhm...its slightly more complex than that. The first indicator that
> : Socialism "smells" is the stealthy & sneaky manner of its supporters.
> : I mean, if Socialism is such a Great Thing, why can't it be presented
> : to the public in the light of day?
>
> I'm not clear what you mean here. You seem to be saying that
> the Democrats are socialists because they deny it.
> There are socialists in this world...in Scandinavia, in France
> and Germany, vestigially in Britain, etc. They do present their
> ideas to the public openly and they occasionally win elections.
> There may even be a few socialists in the US--a bit of Web searching
> might turn them up.
Also fenris might try reading John Sayles' "The Anarchists' Convention".
Political theory comes in many flavors, despite the effects of decades
of attempted marginalization.
> : Methinks its a subtle way to make a pluralistic society dependent
Arrr, a pirate, methinks !
> Again...any number of "federal handouts" are not socialism.
> Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
You are so patient, Merlin.
Phil Ronzone
>aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>
>: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>: >aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>: >
>
>: > ...and while we are at it, the difference between the New Deal/Great
>: >Society and socialism.
>: >
>: .....which is insignificant.
>
>you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
>It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
>to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
>
And what is ownership but control? WHO owns something is the State tells
what, when, how much, what kind (etc.) of things to produce?
--
---
Let justice prevail though the Heavens fall. Judge, and prepare to be judged.
Phil Ronzone
>the Democrats are socialists because they deny it. There are
>socialists in this world...in Scandinavia, in France and
>Germany, vestigially in Britain, etc. They do present their
>ideas to the public openly and they occasionally win
>elections. There may even be a few socialists in the US--a
>bit of Web searching might turn them up.
>Again...any number of "federal handouts" are not socialism.
Socialism is government INTERFERENCE by coercive means.
What is ownership, if not control?
Ask, say, any drug company if it can produce the drugs it wants,
for the problems it seeks to fix, for the price it wants.
Dictionary records usage, it does NOT define words.
Phil Ronzone
>ideological, nor do they have any particular affection for
>Bill Clinton (for many good reasons I could go into at
>length) were mobilized into near unanimity by the zealots of
People should not lie. Especially under oath.
OOOPPSS! I'ma zealot, says Friend Of Bill Dorfman.
Let's ignore the fact taht any Fortune 500 CEO that did what
Clinton did would be out on his ass ASAP.
hc23hc
>
> the only "sheep" involved here are those, "like yourself",
> who would forgive a liberal President any crime imaginable in order
> to keep him in power. Such "sheep" can usually be found off in a
> corner, chanting the party-line mantra that "it's all about sex".
Bob Dole, glorifying the office of POTUS by doing lame pharmaceutical ads:
"Viagra is so powerful, I have to keep one of these little suckers
in each boot [pan down to show young sheep squirming rhythmically
to escape from Bob's wellingtons, one tucked securely into each leg]
or I'd probably have to go bomb Liechtenstein, or something, heh!"
Voice-over, synch to Bob's stiff frozen grin :
"Viagra - It's not about sex."
"Some restrictions apply.
Rules read daily."
Sheep in background, off camera: "Baaah, humbug!"
qwerty
--
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
employer.
Phil Ronzone wrote in message ...
|In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com> dor...@netcom.com (Merlin
Dorfman) writes:
| >In this case, the Democrats, who are not particularly
| >ideological, nor do they have any particular affection for
| >Bill Clinton (for many good reasons I could go into at
| >length) were mobilized into near unanimity by the zealots of
| >the right. These zealots are by no means the entire ...
|
|
|People should not lie. Especially under oath.
|
|
|OOOPPSS! I'ma zealot, says Friend Of Bill Dorfman.
|
|Let's ignore the fact taht any Fortune 500 CEO that did what
|Clinton did would be out on his ass ASAP.
The following is an article from The Seattle Times.
Posted at 6:56 a.m. PST Tuesday, November 24, 1998
Office sex almost never puts CEOs out of work
BY ALEX FRYER AND CAROL M. OSTROM
The Seattle Times
SEATTLE -- Around the dinner table, on the talk-show circuit and in
editorial board meetings, it has been a constant refrain: ``If President
Clinton were a CEO, he'd be fired.''
But is it true?
A genuine apples-to-apples comparison between Clinton, the ultimate public
figure, and top chief executives in the private sector is impossible.
For one thing, many observers say, no public board would have spent $40
million investigating its CEO. And even if the scandal were to go public,
the story likely wouldn't make it off the business page.
That said, counselors, analysts, lawyers and Northwest business leaders
insist that even when sexual indiscretions become known to the company, CEOs
rarely are fired.
Those affairs are typically discreet, and policies totally prohibiting work
place romance are rare. Unless they feel betrayed by lies, attacked by
unrelenting publicity or faced with an out-of-control workplace, corporate
directors are loathe to interfere in a top executive's private life.
But in the vast majority of cases, observers say, financial performance
trumps moral outrage when determining whether a CEO stays or goes.
``With consensual sex, it's very hard to get fired,'' says Laura Brown, a
psychologist who has testified in numerous sexual harassment cases.
One of the few publicized relationships between a CEO and a subordinate
involved William Agee of Michigan-based Bendix almost 20 years ago.
Questioned by the board about his relationship with Mary Cunningham, a
29-year-old Harvard Business School graduate, he said they were ``very, very
good friends.''
After Agee promoted Cunningham to vice president, the Bendix board fired
her. The two divorced their respective mates and married. A failed takeover
bid ultimately prompted Agee to resign.
Of course, Cunningham was a highly paid MBA, and Monica Lewinsky was an
unpaid intern.
Some people believe that Clinton, because of his age and power advantage,
had a duty to protect Lewinsky and that because of those differences, her
consent was irrelevant. Others say that's ridiculous.
``I consider (the relationship) to be emotionally exploitative,'' says
Brown. ``But legally, it was consensual on both ends. Young women have
agency. They can make choices.''
The dearth of CEOs captured in sex scandals doesn't mean they're not having
affairs, says Lana Staheli, a Seattle counselor and author.
Studies of successful men, including top executives, indicate that about 80
percent admitted to some kind of infidelity during their married life, she
says.
Romance on the job is so common, in fact, that Littler Mendelson, a law firm
based in San Francisco, has drawn up a ``love contract'' for client
companies that attempts to boil down a budding relationship into terse
legalese.
Meant to be signed by prospective corporate lovebirds, the ``acknowledgement
and agreement'' has the two lovers certify that their ``Social
Relationship'' is ``completely and entirely welcome, voluntary and
consensual.''
Employees signing the document also agree to forgo ``sexual or amorous''
conduct or speech in the workplace, including ``romantic or sexually
suggestive speech or communications.'' They also agree, says Kathy Cooper
Franklin, Seattle office manager for Littler Mendelson, that they are not in
a supervisory-subordinate relationship.
Employment lawyers keep a sharp eye on that line between sexual
relationships that are truly consensual and those that threaten to trigger
lawsuits.
The corporate world is replete with examples of nasty, embarrassing and
expensive lawsuits involving unwanted attentions or retaliation for denial
of sexual favors. And experts warn that the line separating welcome from
unwelcome advances can be just a single phone call or e-mail.
Mark Busto, a Bellevue, Wash., lawyer who specializes in labor and
employment law, has three cases in which CEOs had relationships with
employees. In each case, the CEOs believed the relationship was consensual,
but after things went sour, the employee claimed coercion.
``Once you have a superior-subordinate relationship,'' he says, ``consent is
amorphous.'' Legally speaking, he says, any kind of affair has the potential
to become ``very dangerous for the company and for the CEO personally.''
After making a pass last year at a top saleswoman during a retreat, for
example, the CEO of a one Puget Sound, Wash., company was asked to leave by
board members who were told by the woman of his unwelcome advances. The
board gave him a generous severance package and six months to find another
job, Staheli recalls.
Most companies have established policies to deal with sexual harassment.
Consensual affairs, however, present a much thornier problem.
According to a poll of 600 organizations conducted by the Society for Human
Resource Management, 72 percent do not have a written policy to address
workplace romance.
At Safeco, even trying to have a romantic relationship with someone whom you
supervise or whose salary you authorize could be grounds for dismissal,
according to a company spokeswoman.
A spokesman for Weyerhaeuser said there are no ``hard rules about it,'' but
employees who date each other should not work in the same chain of command.
Microsoft has a policy that prevents managers from dating those who directly
report to them. But interoffice relationships are largely uncontroversial;
Bill Gates dated and eventually married a Microsoft subordinate.
Even allegations of unwanted attentions don't necessarily result in a CEO's
being dismissed, observers say. But, some add, lying to your board, as
Clinton lied to the American people, might.
``I think the board of directors would really be outraged by having been
misled so long, so consistently, and in so many different ways,'' says John
Aslin, a partner in the labor and employment law section of the Seattle law
firm Perkins Coie. ``I feel pretty comfortable that in corporate America
he'd be gone.''
Observers also say that long runs of negative publicity or internal morale
problems linked to the top executive's behavior could result in dismissal.
``The Clinton situation is so visible,'' says Don Brunell, president of the
Association of Washington Business. ``If a CEO became that visible, I don't
know if he'd be able to survive.''
On the other hand, there's Larry Ellison. Chief executive of Silicon
Valley-based Oracle, Ellison presents a telling example of the different
standards for the leader of a global company vs. the leader of the free
world.
As CEO, Ellison developed a reputation as a bombastic, intensely competitive
technologist. He is also known to have dated women at the company, often
more than one at a time. One them sued Ellison for wrongful termination,
failure to prevent discrimination and negligent mental distress in a 1993
lawsuit. Ellison eventually prevailed in court.
Jack Kemp, one-time Republican presidential contender and co-director of the
conservative advocacy group Empower America, sits on Oracle's board of
directors. Though Kemp has refrained from publicly addressing Ellison's
personal affairs, he has called for Congress to investigate Clinton's
conduct, calling it an ``unfortunate, tragic incident.''
It is unlikely the board of directors would ever seek to remove Ellison for
reasons related strictly to his personal life, say analysts of the company.
The board of directors is legally bound to safeguard shareholders'
investments, not enforce a moral code.
``When you remove someone and the stock goes down, what have you
accomplished?'' asked John Puricelli, an analyst with A.G. Edwards.
So far, most Americans appear to have similar considerations when it comes
to the president, polls show.
Susan Webb, a nationally recognized expert on sexual harassment, says many
people see two sides to the crisis.
On one hand, people say Clinton should be held to higher standards because
he's the nation's top executive. But, with unemployment low, stocks high,
and confidence up, they also ask: ``Do you want to knock the legs out of the
economy by firing the CEO of the free world?''
©1997 - 1998 Mercury Center. The information you receive online from Mercury
Center is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The
copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or
repurposing of any copyright-protected material.
Merlin Dorfman
: In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com> dor...@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) writes:
: > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
: >you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
: >the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
: >It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
: >to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
: And what is ownership but control? WHO owns something is the State tells
: what, when, how much, what kind (etc.) of things to produce?
Ownership is ownership. If you can prevent me from shooting
somebody that I don't like, or punish me for doing it, do you
control me? To some extent, yes. Do you own me? No.
If I work for you and you have a regulation that forbids me
from taking or destroying your property, you have some control over
me. Except in complete anarchy, individuals and groups including
government have some control over each other. But not ownership.
Merlin Dorfman
: In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com> dor...@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) writes:
: >the Democrats are socialists because they deny it. There are
: >socialists in this world...in Scandinavia, in France and
: >Germany, vestigially in Britain, etc. They do present their
: >ideas to the public openly and they occasionally win
: >elections. There may even be a few socialists in the US--a
: >bit of Web searching might turn them up.
: >...
: >Again...any number of "federal handouts" are not socialism.
: Socialism is government INTERFERENCE by coercive means.
So you concur with the definition I gave elsewhere: Socialism
is the government doing anything you don't want it to do, that you
need a nasty name for.
: What is ownership, if not control?
Ownership is ownership. You know, nationalization. It's
happened in the history of the world.
: Ask, say, any drug company if it can produce the drugs it wants,
: for the problems it seeks to fix, for the price it wants.
So there are only two states: anarchy and socialism? If you can't
do exactly what you want, when you want, as you want, with no fear of
punishment, are you in a socialist state?
: Dictionary records usage, it does NOT define words.
What defines words if not usage? We don't have a National
Academy in the United States to define words and how we must use
them. You don't want that level of government control, do you??
Merlin Dorfman
: In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com> dor...@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) writes:
: >ideological, nor do they have any particular affection for
: >Bill Clinton (for many good reasons I could go into at
: >length) were mobilized into near unanimity by the zealots of
: >the right. These zealots are by no means the entire ...
: People should not lie. Especially under oath.
Agreed. That doesn't make it either:
- Something that would be prosecuted in all circumstances
- Something that would draw more than a slap on the wrist in all
circumstances
- Something that is worthy of impeachment, which the constitution
limits to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
: OOOPPSS! I'ma zealot, says Friend Of Bill Dorfman.
I'm not Bill's friend, nor do I have any affection or much
respect for him. But I can count higher than 2, so I recognize
that this does not mean he should be impeached.
: Let's ignore the fact taht any Fortune 500 CEO that did what
: Clinton did would be out on his ass ASAP.
What world do you live in? For what would he be out on his
ass? If the financials were good and he hadn't violated any laws,
he would be untouched. If he violated a company policy, he might
(or might not) be out, or punished in some way. Clinton violated
no laws or policies by having an affair.
aquadoc
>the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
>to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
>
from a website run by the Democratic Socialists:
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/orgs/democratic-socialists/new_flyer.html
"*Isn't DSA a party that's in competition with the Democratic party for
votes and support?"
"No, DSA is not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the
feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing
movements, we are members of the Democratic party. We work with those
movements to push the party in a progressive direction and to advance vital
issues of justice, opportunity, and economic democracy."
An example of socialism at work .... in the Democratic Party, that is.
bkd
I
CharlieKilo
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> <snip>
> What world do you live in? For what would he be out on his
> ass? If the financials were good and he hadn't violated any laws,
> he would be untouched. If he violated a company policy, he might
> (or might not) be out, or punished in some way. Clinton violated
> no laws or policies by having an affair.
Try getting a high level government job. . .policies specifically state that impropriety,
or even the appearance of impropriety is grounds for dismissal. Inter/intraoffice sexual
improprieties are included in the dismissable acts - and with an intern! Whew! Watch out,
don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out . . .is the way the government would
look at it.
My wife was an E18 when she left the DoD - she was in charge of policies and procedures and
knows of which she (and I) now speak.
CK
Willwork4food
> In article <dorfmanF...@netcom.com> dor...@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) writes:
> >In this case, the Democrats, who are not particularly
> >ideological, nor do they have any particular affection for
> >Bill Clinton (for many good reasons I could go into at
> >length) were mobilized into near unanimity by the zealots of
> >the right. These zealots are by no means the entire ...
>
> People should not lie. Especially under oath.
>
> OOOPPSS! I'ma zealot, says Friend Of Bill Dorfman.
>
> Let's ignore the fact taht any Fortune 500 CEO that did what
> Clinton did would be out on his ass ASAP.
>
hummm.. you and Henry Hyde would have an interesting conversation about this. Hyde is on
record that it's ok to lie, and lie, and lay (ooops, that was 30 years ago...)
Willwork4food
> Scout Sniper. Would you really want me to play by *your* rules?
>
> Fenrisulven
oh no... I would expect you to be true to your faith, and turn the other
cheek.
asshole!
I'll bring the nails........ three of them if I remember right heheheehhe...
Willwork4food
> As viewed from alt.california on Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:01:30 -0800,
> Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> Willwork4food wrote:
> >> >Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, with
> >> >the zealots of the right, and those that they hold hostage with
> >> >their threats of retaliation at the polls, voting the line. And the
> >> >Democrats voting against them.
>
> >> Of course, 'food ignores the fact - only hinted at in his last
> >> sentence - that the Democrats voted even more zealously and
> >> monolithicly "down party lines".
> >>
> >> This, of course, is *different* because their hearts were pure. :-D
>
> >how much clearer could I have stated it???
> >>>Congress has reacted as might be predicted... down party lines, <<
> >I even used a coma to separate that part of the sentence, thusly
> >indicating that I meant all of Congress, not just the Republicans.
> >But then you knew that, and dealing with facts and the truth would be
> >difficult for you. Easier to slander..........
>
> Easier, rather, for you to post in a suggestive manner. Or weren't we
> supposed to notice?
>
> On the one side, you have "the zealots of the right, and those that
> they hold hostage with their threats of retaliation at the polls,
> voting the line." And on the other, you have... "the Democrats".
> Where, for example, is the comment about the "zealots" of the left,
> who represented a more monolithic voting bloc than did the
> Republicans? Or are all "zealots" members of the right wing by
> definition? And are all Democrats noble because they oppose such
> "zealots"?
>
> Puttin' on the spin, eh, 'food?
>
just a reading lesson for you, which you can't absorb anyway.
Demos don't have zealots, only patriots!
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>
> I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
>you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
>the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
>It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
>to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
>
Here is another posting lifted from the Socialist Labor Party website -
"What Socialism is Not."
"Socialism does not mean government or state ownership.
It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights.
It does not mean "nationalization," or "labor-management boards,"
or state capitalism of any kind.
It means a complete end to all capitalist social relations."
Now, the above was written by people who call themselves Socialists. And
these yahoos specifically deny that Socialism is "defined as government
ownership of
the means of production...you know, factories and things like that."
Don't you just hate it when reality collides with the dictionary?
bkd
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>
>: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>: >aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>: >
>
>: > ...and while we are at it, the difference between the New
Deal/Great
>: >Society and socialism.
>: >
>: .....which is insignificant.
>
>you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
>the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
>It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
>to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
>
Also - from the Democratic Socialists of America website:
http://www.dsausa.org/about/about.html
"To forge a new American politics DSA has launched the Campaign for Economic
Justice. The Campaign for Economic Justice has three central tenets:
economic justice and security require first, that corporations and the
wealthy pay their fair share, and second, that every American deserves a
living wage and benefits for the work s/he does."
Nothing in the above about GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production
and distribution of resources - but a great deal (in a very few words) about
what the haves owe the have-nots - all of which is right in line with the
rhetoric of the Democratic Party ..... the party of the peeeeepuuull!
bkd
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
Oh, Socialist Labor Party website can be found at:
http://www.slp.org/What_Is.htm
bkd
aquadoc
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>
>you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
>the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
>It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
>to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
>
Vol 21 of Collier's Encyclopedia (1989, Author - Paul Streeten):
"Socialism, an economic and social order under which essential industries
and social services are publicly and co-operatively owned and democratically
controlled with a view to equal opportunity for all."
As noted in previous postings of mine - "publically and co-operatively
owned" is not synonymous with "government owned," and "democratically
controlled" does not mean "government control."
So much for your foray into the dictionary.
bkd
tracey12
National Guard BATTLE PLAN for Y2K (find your state)
worldnetdaily
01-11-99 David Bresnahan
PANIC IN THE YEAR ZERO The National Guard battle plan How communications
will be handled in
event of breakdown
By David M. Bresnahan Š 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The National Guard Bureau has issued standard
operating procedures for
the communications system to be used in the event the Y2K bug disrupts all
telephone and other
communications.
The unclassified document was provided to WorldNetDaily by an officer who
works full-time within the
guard's national headquarters. It contains plans for dividing the nation
into five regions, previously reported
as seven. Two small regions were combined with larger ones.
Region 1 New York (control center), Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Rhode Island,
West Virginia, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Vermont and
Virginia (alternate control center) (regional manager).
Region 2 Mississippi (control center), Alabama, Kentucky, Puerto Rico,
Tennessee, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virgin Islands and Florida (alternate control
center) (regional manager).
Region 3 Oklahoma (control center), Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico,
Louisiana, Nebraska, Texas and
Kansas (alternate control center) (regional manager).
Region 4 Indiana (control center), Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin,
Michigan, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Illinois (alternate control center) (regional manager).
Region 5 California (control center), Washington, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, Idaho,
Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and Utah (alternate control center)
(regional manager).
The National Guard, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, is planning for a
worst-case scenario for the threats projected by the Y2K computer problem.
If all communications are
out, the National Guard will communicate through battery-powered,
high-frequency radios.
The National Guard High Frequency Operations Net implementation plan has
been on the drawing board
since 1993 when Brigadier General John R. D'Araujo, Jr. approved of the
plan.
"Staffing for the implementation is completed. States and territories have
necessary equipment on hand for
implementation," declared D'Araujo in a memo dated Jan. 25, 1993.
"This plan addresses the High Frequency (sic) radio communications system
required to support the
National Guard in the event of a major disruption to commercial
communications systems resulting from a
natural or man-made disaster," explained D'Araujo. "Through the use of radio
relays, the system has the
capability to link all National Guard entities."
Headquarters for the high-frequency communications system is at the National
Guard Bureau Readiness
Center in Arlington, Virginia. The National Net Control Station is in
Delaware.
"The network has a National Net Control Station and an Alternate National
Net Control Station and is
broken down into 5 regions. Each region has a Regional Manager, a Regional
Net Control Station, and an
Alternate Regional Net Control Station. The network provides
emergency/disaster contingency
communications on a national basis," stated the document.
The plan covers all 54 states and territories, nine mobilization stations,
and state and federal agencies.
Frequencies for the radio system are asigned by the Army Frequency
Management Office, Fort Sam
Houston, Texas. The frequencies were not included in the report.
Despite the approval of the plan in 1993, the network is not operational.
The National Guard is rapidly
installing the equipment and training operators, according to an officer who
spoke with WorldNetDaily on
condition of anonymity.
The National Guard plans to have the system in place and ready for a test on
May 1. At that time exercise
COMEX/MOBEX will take place to test the ability of the guard to recall all
480,000 guard members
without the use of telephones, television, or radio.
The document provided to WorldNetDaily states there are a number of uses for
the radio system:
Military support to civil authorities
Administrative requirements IAW NGR 500-1
Counter-drug operations
Civil defense
State emergency operations center
Regional managers
The communications system will be used by the National Guard and FEMA, as
well as other federal
agencies. FEMA is expected to be a part of the COMEX/MOBEX exercise when the
system is tested.
Training for the high-frequency radio system takes place at Bethany Beach,
Delaware, by the 261st Signal
Command Delaware Army National Guard.
Although the plan has been in place for at least six years, it is only now
being implemented.
tracey12
tracey12 wrote in message <#RBlyPdP#GA.170@upnetnews03>...
>
>
>
>
>National Guard BATTLE PLAN for Y2K (find your state)
>
>worldnetdaily
>01-11-99 David Bresnahan
>
>PANIC IN THE YEAR ZERO The National Guard battle plan How communications
>will be handled in
>event of breakdown
>
>By David M. Bresnahan © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
tracey12
Europe plans huge SpyWeb
Electronic Telegraph et al
1/7/99 et al Simon Davies et al
LAW enforcement agencies have laid the foundations for a massive
eavesdropping system capable of
intercepting all mobile phone calls, Internet communications, and fax and
pager messages in Europe. The
plan, known as Enfopol 98, has been drawn up in secret by police and justice
officials as part of a
Europe-wide strategy to create a seamless web of telecommunications
surveillance across national
boundaries.
The strategy, which has received widespread support in the EU Justice and
Home Affairs Council, will
oblige all ISPs and telephone exchanges to provide agencies with "real time,
full time" access to all
communications, regardless of the country of origin.
Current eavesdropping techniques require specific authority to be granted
within each individual country
so that agencies can monitor pre-designated communications within each
jurisdiction. Under the proposed
system, Europe will create a "one-stop shop" for snooping on communications.
Satellite systems such as
Iridium will be forced to create "wiretap-friendly" technology, while ISPs
must submit to requirements for
interception of content.
The plan was revealed by the German Internet magazine Telepolis, which
recently published details of the
strategy. The EU has refused to acknowledge the status of the proposal, but
it is now known that Enfopol
has passed through the Justice and Home Affairs Council to the stage of
draft resolution. So far, national
parliaments have scarcely been involved.
To the dismay of advocates of strong encryption, Enfopol will function on
the principle that all code must
be capable of being broken. The Enfopol system will be aided by a "subject
tagging" system capable of
tracking targets wherever they travel. Known as the "International User
Requirements for Interception"
(IUR), the tagging system will create a data processing and transmission
network that involves not only the
names, addresses and phone numbers of targets and associates, but email
addresses, credit card details,
PINs and passwords.
The move to establish Enfopol follows a five-year lobbying exercise by
American agencies such as the
FBI. When completed, the system will provide a global interception regime.
But the proposal has infuriated civil liberties and Internet rights
organisations. Ian Brown, technology
policy director of Privacy International calls, it a "sniper's bullet to the
heart of privacy".
SPY STATION F83
Josef Tarkowski, former head of counter-espionage for the German government,
is wary of using the
telephone. An expert in electronic spying, he knows that even when he is at
home in Cologne his words
can be picked up by the world's most powerful eavesdropping station 400
miles away on a windswept
English moor.
"We know this technology is there and it is being used on us," he said. As
he spoke last week his words
may well have been plucked out of the ether by the billions of dollars-worth
of listening equipment housed
in Menwith Hill, a secretive American base in Yorkshire. Built to monitor
the Soviet Union, it has
continued to grow despite the end of the cold war, and is suspected of being
increasingly involved in
commercial as well as military spying.
New construction work is under way at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate, adding
three more giant "radomes".
Each of these houses antennae which can intercept satellite information and
listen to the traffic of millions
of telephone conversations, faxes and e-mails from across Europe.
As the base grows, so does the unease of Britain's European partners who do
not have such a "special
relationship" with America.
Last week Wölfgang Zeitlmann, chairman of the German parliament's commission
overseeing its
intelligence services, went on the offensive. "It is known that the
Americans have spied [on us] in the past.
We have caught them at it. The issue is: were these just isolated cases or
are they part of a wider strategy
by the American government," he demanded. "It is important that both the
British and the German
governments pursue this matter with the Americans as soon as possible."
Unease is also evident in France. "What is Great Britain, as a member of the
European Union, doing
participating in a programme which since the end of the cold war has
concentrated on spying on her
European partners on behalf of the United States?" asked David Nataf, a
French lawyer for a body
representing French defence, aerospace and telecommunications companies.
In Italy, Franco Frattini, head of the parliamentary committee for
information and security services, has
demanded an explanation of Menwith Hill's activities from Romano Prodi, the
prime minister.
Menwith Hill is run by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). It
is the largest, most
sophisticated and most secretive intelligence agency in the world. Last week
the agency denied that it
spies on European countries on behalf of American companies. However, almost
right from the start, its
British base has had extraordinary capabilities.
LOOMING out of the mist on the North Yorkshire moors is a series of huge
domes, looking like giant
golf balls, incongruous among the fields, drystone walls and flocks of
sheep. By night, the base casts a
glow from the lights of its 24-hour operation rooms and high-tech listening
equipment. The perimeter fence
is punctuated by watchtowers and patrolled by guard dogs. Curious passers-by
who linger too long are
soon intercepted by military guards who speed across to inquire into the
nature of their interest.
What goes on behind the razor wire is so secret that far less is known about
it than the workings of MI5
or MI6. British ministers in successive governments have persistently dodged
the subject when challenged
about why the base continues to expand.
John Reid, the armed forces minister, refused to give any information when
asked recently why the base
has taken on 200 extra staff. "I am not prepared to comment in detail on the
operations of RAF Menwith
Hill," he said.
That name is itself misleading - it is not a British airbase. Opened in the
late 1950s on land purchased by
the crown, it was taken over directly by the NSA in 1966 and became its
Field Station F83. It is now the
NSA's largest listening post in the world. Sprawling across 560 acres, it
has an operation centre and
on-site town, including houses, shops, a chapel and a sports centre. It also
has its own uninterruptible
electricity supply.
Early on it was given the task of intercepting what is known as
international leased carrier (ILC) traffic,
essentially ordinary commercial communications. In the 1980s it developed a
new operations block
codenamed Steeplebush to expand its programme of satellite surveillance. A
second phase, Steeplebush
II, was developed in the early 1990s. A third is believed to be in
preparation. Originally the number of
radomes - the Kevlar protection covers which fit over the satellite dishes
or radio masts - on the site was
just four. It is now 25, not including the three under construction. The
size of its staff has kept pace. In
1980 there were 400. By 1996 the number had tripled and has since risen to
more than 1,400 American
staff including engineers, physicists, mathematicians, linguists and
computer scientists, plus 370 staff from
the Ministry of Defence. In total the seemingly quiet Station F83 has a
staff as large as MI5, Britain's
domestic security service.
They operate scores of systems for collecting data, including the main spy
satellite system for monitoring
Europe and Asia, codenamed Vortex. At any one time three Vortex satellites,
positioned over the
Equator, are in operation. More recent, larger satellites codenamed Magnum
and Orion are also run from
Menwith, and its sister station, F91, at Bad Aibling in Germany. What does
Menwith Hill listen to? Some
light was shed in a report to the European parliament earlier this year.
It declared: "Within Europe, all e-mail, telephone and fax communications
are routinely intercepted by the
NSA, transferring all target information to Fort Meade in Maryland [the
headquarters of the NSA] via the
crucial hub of Menwith Hill in the North Yorkshire moors of the United
Kingdom." The report also details
a system called "Echelon", a network of listening stations around the world.
Each one intercepts millions of messages in speech or data commonly
transmitted by microwaves. Using
computerised recognition programmes, the listening stations attempt to pick
out key words from phone,
fax and e-mail traffic. When target words are identified, the communication
is recorded for further
analysis.
Such information might arguably be needed in the fight against terrorism or
the drugs trade or other
political purposes. But last month Alain Pompidou, a European parliament
technical specialist, said:
"Echelon is in fact an economic intelligence system - amplified thanks to
the satellite network." Critics
argue that Menwith Hill can provide the NSA with valuable insights into, for
example, contract tenders, oil
prospecting or international trade deals.
Evidence that at least some of the traffic Station F83 listens to is
non-military communications emerged
from a court case last year. Two protesters accused by the Ministry of
Defence of trespassing at the base
were tried at York Crown Court. In the trial British Telecom revealed it had
installed high-capacity optical
fibre with capacity for 100,000 simultaneous calls - far more than the
number of lines at the base -
implying that Menwith Hill was tapping into the BT network. The base is less
than four miles from another
BT installation, a microwave transmitter called Hunter's Stone tower, which
relays hundreds of thousands
of calls.
Under a 50-year-old pact - the UKUSA agreement - the NSA is given a free
hand to operate from
Britain, supposedly ensuring that the United States shares its signals
intelligence with Britain.
However, the NSA admits that although the facility is jointly operated with
a minority of British personnel,
GCHQ is not automatically privy to the intelligence gathered. Tapes
containing data from American spy
satellites are returned to NSA headquarters; the sharing of intelligence is
discretionary.
IF America has the means to spy on private and commercial calls, does it
have the motive? One reason is
that companies may be supplying arms or components for weapons of mass
destruction to terrorists or
Third World dictatorships. But there have also been suspicions of commercial
gain. In a row between
Volkswagen and General Motors over commercial espionage, it was suggested
that conversations by
Volkswagen executives had been intercepted by the Americans.
The French have claimed that Thomson-CSF, a French electronics company, lost
a $1.4 billion (£858m)
deal to supply Brazil with a radar system because the Americans intercepted
details of the negotiations
and passed them to Raytheon, the American firm which makes the Patriot
missile; Raytheon subsequently
won the contract. Another claim is that Airbus Industrie lost a contract
worth £1 billion to Boeing and
McDonnell Douglas because information was intercepted by American spying.
But in all these cases there is no proof. That is the nature of the beast.
The eavesdroppers leave no trace.
Security is tight and few who have worked at Menwith Hill have ever talked.
One former US Air Force
signals specialist who worked at a US signals intelligence (Sigint) base in
the 1960s has described how he
watched print-outs of commercial telexes: "I was provided with a list of
about 100 words I had to look
out for. I had to keep a watch for commercial traffic, details of
commodities that big companies were
selling, like iron and steel and gas."
An aerospace worker, who was at Menwith Hill in the late 1970s and early
1980s, also claims she
witnessed the interception of civilian and commercial communications.
By its own admission the NSA leads the world in eavesdropping technology.
And inside the US
Department of Commerce is believed to be the "office of intelligence
liaison" - thought to be the conduit by
which the NSA passes on commercially sensitive information. Whether it is
spying on foreign companies
remains unclear. The suspicion, however, may cause just as much trouble. An
American diplomat was
expelled from Germany last year, accused of gathering data on
high-technology projects. Zeitlmann said
the only answer to the eavesdropping dilemma is for "the Germans to run the
Bad Aibling base in
conjunction with the Americans and the British to do the same at Menwith
Hill".
Even that might not solve the tensions. Nataf observed: "Echelon is an
Anglo-Saxon system. As de
Tocqueville pointed out, the 'language tie is often the strongest and most
durable element which binds men
together'. Europe was intended to bind nations together with a common
culture, political and judicial
system - but the English will always be a race apart".
Additional reporting: Peter Conradi, Michael Woodhead, Frankfurt; Kirsty
Lang, Paris; Matthew
Campbell, Washington; and Ian Key
Cracking the Menwith codes
National Security Agency
World's largest intelligence gathering operation. Founded 1952, headquarters
at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Commanded by Lt Gen Kenneth Minihan, former air force officer and Pentagon
official. Responsible for
signals intelligence (Sigint) about foreign communications, and information
security (Infosec) of US
communications. Biggest listening post at Menwith Hill, Yorkshire
Moonpenny
Codename for series of radio dishes at Menwith Hill intercepting
communications from foreign satellites
Runway
Array of dishes directing and communicating with US satellites, including
Vortex satellites operating over
Europe and Asia. May have been complemented or replaced by new system called
Rutley
Silkworth
Main processing system for intercepted information at Menwith Hill. Grouping
of super computers,
including Magistrand system believed to be link into Echelon network
Echelon
Global system of electronic eavesdropping, thought to be used for commercial
purposes as well as military
spying. Monitors millions of communications, uses computerised systems to
target those of interest, by
origin, destination, language or key words. Targets tagged and forwarded to
Fort Meade for analysis and
action
Voicecast
Advanced voice recognition and processing system in operation at Menwith
Hill. According to some
reports, can be programmed with the voice prints of specified individuals
C/TAR
Collection Transcription Analysis and Reporting division at Menwith,
employing language specialists. Split
into two groups: C/TAR1 for Russia and former Soviet Union, and C/TAR2, rest
of the world
UKUSA agreement
Protocol drawn up between UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia
identifying common security
objectives and operations. Includes Echelon, and assigns spheres of
influence. NSA has ultimate control.
Information shared at discretion of US
GCHQ
General Communications Headquarters, largest British intelligence and
eavesdropping operation. Last
week unveiled plans for expanded head quarters in Cheltenham for its 4,000
staff. Operates the other
main listening station in Britain at RAF Morwenstow at cliffs on north
Cornwall coast
Simon Trump
Here are some of the 'words' 'they' monitor:
SAFE, Information Security, SAI, Information Warfare, Privacy, Information
Terrorism, The Artful
Dodger, NAIA, Reno, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet
Connections, Passwords, NAAP,
DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, UFO, Angela, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA,
S/Key, FBI, Secret
Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP,
MSNBC, bet, AOL,
AOL TOS, JANET, Active X, Meta-hackers, ^?, SADT, Steve Case, Tools, RECCEX,
Telex, OTAN,
monarchist, BCCI, BRGE, Europol, SARL, Military Intelligence, JICA, Scully,
Flame, Infowar, Bubba,
Freeh, Archives, jack, Investigation, spook words[Uh-oh], Bugs Bunny, Lebed,
ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis,
DIA, FINCEN, site, bird dog, Masuda, Exxon Shell, Echelon[Uh-oh],
Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA,
diwn, 747, ASIC, 777, RDI, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757,707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon,
NSS, Duress,
RAID, Uziel, wojo[Whew], Psyops, NACSI, Mafia[Uh-oh], The Hague, SHF, ASIO,
SASP, WANK,
Colonel, domestic disruption, 5ESS, smuggle, Z-200, 15kg, DUVDEVAN, RFX,
nitrate, OIR, Pretoria,
M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, NSO, Police, Dateline, Tyrell,
KMI, 1ee, Pod, 9705
Samford Road, 20755-6000, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security
Consulting, M-x spook,
Z-150T, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17,
ISR, NSAS,
Counterterrorism, real, spies, IWO, eavesdropping, debugging, CCSS,
interception, COCOT, NACSI,
rhost, rhosts, ASO, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Guppy, Ionosphere,
Mole, Keyhole, NABS,
Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Emerson, Tzvrif, SDIS, T2S2, STTC, DNR,
NADDIS, NFLIS, CFD,
quarter, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, JSOTF, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile,
Vinnell, B.D.M., Sphinx,
Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent[bad news for the porno sites], Trump,
FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG,
rusers, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, LASINT,
csystems, .tm, passwd, 2600
Magazine, JUWTF, Competitor, EO, Chan, Pathfinders, SEAL Team 3, JTF, Nash,
Mace, Cap-Stun,
stakeout, ninja Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, SUW, J2, Embassy, ETA,
Porno, Fax, finks, Fax
encryption, white noise, Fernspah, MYK, GAFE, forcast, import, rain, tiger,
buzzer, N9, pink noise,
CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh
Internet Security, OC3,
Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD,
TDR, Z, sweeping,
SURSAT, 5926, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite
imagery, force, NAIAG,
Cypherpunks, NARF, 127, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7,
explicit[this one
sounds a little too self-serving], FLAME, J-6, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy[Ever
dangerous], ISSSP,
Anonymous, W, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad,
fish, data havens, unix, c, a,
b, d, SUBACS, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, UXO, (),
OC-12,
counterintelligence, Shaldag, sport, NASA, TWA, DT, gtegsc, nowhere, .ch,
hope, emc, industrial
espionage, SUPIR, PI, TSCI, spookwords, industrial intelligence, H.N.P.,
SUAEWICS, Juiliett Class
Submarine, Locks, qrss, loch, 64 Vauxhall Cross, Siemens, RPC, Met, CIA-DST,
INI, watchers,
keebler, contacts, Blowpipe[bubba is safe], BTM, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class,
squib, primacord, RSP, Z7,
Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, no|d, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS,
SORO, M5,
BROMURE, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand
Corporation, Starr,
Wackenhutt[I see their spelling isn't too good], EO, burhop, Wackendude,
mol, Shelton, 2E781, F-22,
2010, JCET, cocaine, Vale, IG, Kosovo, Dake, 36,800, Hillal, Pesec, Scud,
SecDef, Magdeyev, VOA,
Kosiura, Small Pox, Tajik, +=, Blacklisted 411, TRDL, Internet Underground,
BX, XS4ALL, Retinal
Fetish, WIR, Fetish, , edition, cards, mania, 701, CTP, CATO, Phon-e,
Chicago Posse, NSDM, l0ck,
beanpole, spook[Uh-oh], keywords, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination,
Dead, GRU,
M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick[Tipper beware], Glock, Ft. Meade, NSWT,
press-release,
WISDIM, burned, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge[news to
me], Enforcers,
Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, NACSE, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN,
MCI, Blacknet, ISM,
JCE, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, NSV, Texas, jihad, SDI, BRIGAND, Uzi, Fort
Meade, *&,
gchq.gov.uk, supercomputer, bullion, 3, NTTC, Blackmednet, :, Propaganda,
ABC[If used in conjunction
with the word 'news', it is safe to omit], Satellite phones, IWIS, Planet-1,
ISTA, rs9512c, Jiang Zemin,
South Africa, Sergeyev, Montenegro, Toeffler, Rebollo, sorot, Yucca
Mountain, FARC, Toth, Xu
Yongyue, Bach, Razor, AC, cryptanalysis, nuclear, 52 52 N - 03 03 W, Morgan,
Canine, GEBA,
INSCOM, MEMEX, Stanley, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta
Force, SEAL,
virtual, WASS, WID, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, O/S, Area51,
SABC, basement, ISWG,
$@, data-haven, NSDD, black-bag, rack, TEMPEST, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5,
IDEA, garbage,
market, beef, Stego, ISAF, unclassified, Sayeret Tzanhanim, PARASAR, Gripan,
pirg, curly[bubba bait],
Taiwan, guest, utopia, NSG, orthodox, CCSQ, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla,
Bob, UNSCOM,
Fukuyama, Manfurov, Kvashnin, Marx, Abdurahmon, snullen, Pseudonyms, MITM,
NARF, Gray Data,
VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, NSES, Sugar Grove, WAS, Cowboy, Gist, 8182,
Gatt, Platform, 1911,
Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, XM, Parvus, NAVSVS, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul,
Oratory, Pine Gap,
Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, blow out, BUDS, WQC, Flintlock, PABX,
Electron, Chicago
Crust, e95, DDR&E, 3M, KEDO, iButton, R1, erco, Toffler, FAS[Uh-oh], RHL,
K3, Visa/BCC, SNT,
Ceridian, STE, condor, CipherTAC-2000, Etacs, Shipiro, ssor, piz, fritz, KY,
32, Edens, Kiwis,
Kamumaruha, DODIG, Firefly, HRM, Albright[how 'bout, NotatAlbright?][Double
Uh-oh], MOD,
York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, WWSV, Atlas,
IWWSVCS, Delta, TWA,
Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp[back at it, again],
SASSTIXS, IWG, Lynch, 414,
Face, Pixar, IRIDF, NSRB, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton,
Johohonbu, LUK, Cohiba,
Soros[look out, Nav], Standford, niche, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell,
NSOF, DC7, Glock
26, snuffle, Patel, package, froglegs, advisors, SAP, Monica[Oh, Lord], OAU,
PFS, Aladdin, AG,
chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, .375, Peering, CSC, Tangimoana
Beach, blackjack,
Fox[Sorry, Britt], VIA, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, Mary, honor, Templar, THAAD,
package, CISD, ISG,
BIOLWPN, JRA, ISB, ISDS, chosen, LBSD, van, schloss, secops, DCSS, DPSD,
LIF, J-Star,
PRIME, SURVIAC, telex, Analyzer, embassy, Golf, B61-7, Maple, Tokyo, ERR,
SBU, Threat, JPL,
Tess, SE, Alex, EPL, SPINTCOM, FOUO, ISS-ADP, Merv[I didn't make it up],
Mexico, SUR,
blocks, SO13, Rojdykarna, RSOC, USS Banner, S511, 20755, airframe, jya.com,
Furby, football,
Agfa, 3210, Crowell, OWP, moore, 510, OADR, Smith, toffee, FIS, N5P6,
EuroFed, SP4, shelter,
Crypto AG[Uh-oh], [Hello to all my friends and fans in domestic
surveillance]
I knocked out over 70% of this. The whole list is under the Echelon link.
Jafo
Willwork4food wrote:
>Demos don't have zealots, only patriots!
Heh. Thanks for the bit of humor. :)
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
aquadoc
Charles Quinn wrote in message <77egk5$g20$3...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>Sorry, to get elected they must be owned by the corporations to have enough
>money for an effective campaign. Explain this.
I guess that means the Socialists don't know much about business. That's
why they'll always amount to nothing more than wage slaves.
bkd
David
>Jafo (jafo@_cheetah.net) wrote:
>
>: Goldwater was always an independent thinker who was not afraid to
>: chart his own course. Your repeated choice of the present tense,
>: however, leads me to think that while he may well be "still a hawk
>: on defense, still for strong defense of second amendment, still for
>: traditional American values", you may be unaware of the fact that
>: he's also "still" dead.
>
> Is he listed as dead on the Dead People's Server yet? I refuse
>to believe that anybody is dead until so listed.
You're right. Died May 29, 1998.
See for yourself at the dead people's server at:
The Pervert
>
> >> Bill responded:
> >> ...you've got to admit that the prospect of driving down PA ave and
> >> seeing Pat Robertson crucified is not compleately unappealing.
> >
> >This is the brutality which hides behind the mask of liberal "tolerance".
>
>
> >You might both PRAY to whatever powers you worship that I will never
> >fall away from Christianity...I am afterall, a Marine Corps trained
>
> Sure thing. I have no problem playing tag with a religous fanatic.
> --
Being a Christian does not *necessarily* make one a religious fanatic.
Neither does being a Jew or Bhuddist. Understand, of course, that I
personally am a staunch anti-religionist, and particularly anti-born
again Christian. But I also do not feel the necessity to impose my
standards or morality (assuming I have any) on anybody else.
And while I was trained as an Air Force Combat Intelligence specialist
during Vietnam, I would never be so foolish as to go one-on-one with a
Marine Corps Scout Sniper. But then again, I come from a position of
knowlege as to what they are trained to do.
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
: >aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: >
: > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
: >you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
: >the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
: >It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
: >to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
: >
: Merlin, I hate to give you indigestion - but the following has been lifted
: from a website run by the Democratic Socialists:
: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/orgs/democratic-socialists/new_flyer.html
: "*Isn't DSA a party that's in competition with the Democratic party for
: votes and support?"
: "No, DSA is not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the
: feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing
: movements, we are members of the Democratic party. We work with those
: movements to push the party in a progressive direction and to advance vital
: issues of justice, opportunity, and economic democracy."
: An example of socialism at work .... in the Democratic Party, that is.
I have no doubt that there are those who are trying to make the
Democratic Party move toward Socialism. (I am not one of them.) They
are very few and they will not succeed. However your quote only
reinforces that the Democratic Party is not Sociaist today, and it
does nothing to refute my definition of socialism.
Given that...what was the point of the quote??
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote:
She must have left quite a while ago if E18 = GS18; that rank
has been abolished.
If you think people can be fired from the Government for the
appearance of impropriety you have obviously never dealt with Civil
Service boards. But it is also true that elected officials are not
subject to the same policies as Civil Servants. (You don't see
Bob Barr or Dan Burton or Helen Cheynoweth rushing to resign before
they get fired, do you?)
But I would be very interested in the text of a DoD or other
Civil Service regulation that states that people can be fired for
even the appearance of impropriety, especially sexual. There are
regulations in DoD that require the avoidance of the appearance of
impropriety in dealings with contractors or customers, but they
are very specific: no free meals, no free travel, no gifts with a
value above $20, etc.
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
: >
: > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
: >you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
: >the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
: >It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
: >to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
: >
: One last point, Merlin. I found the following definition of Socialism in
: Vol 21 of Collier's Encyclopedia (1989, Author - Paul Streeten):
: "Socialism, an economic and social order under which essential industries
: and social services are publicly and co-operatively owned and democratically
: controlled with a view to equal opportunity for all."
: As noted in previous postings of mine - "publically and co-operatively
: owned" is not synonymous with "government owned," and "democratically
: controlled" does not mean "government control."
Can you tell me what "publicly (not "publically") owned means if
not "government owned?" Corporations are publicly owned today--I
can go out and buy shares of GE, GM, Lockheed Martin today. Under
Socialism I cannot do that because the government owns all the
shares.
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
: >
: > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
: >you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
: >the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
: >It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
: >to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
: >
: Here is another posting lifted from the Socialist Labor Party website -
: "What Socialism is Not."
: "Socialism does not mean government or state ownership.
: It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights.
: It does not mean "nationalization," or "labor-management boards,"
: or state capitalism of any kind.
: It means a complete end to all capitalist social relations."
What does "end to all captialst social relations" mean? To
me it means the end of private ownership. What does it mean to
you?
Capitalism is private ownership of business. The end of capital-
ism means the end of private ownership of businesses. Who owns them,
then? The government, yes? The definition provided by the
socialists is incomplete and/or self-contradictory. And of course it
does not support your definition; they claim they will continue
democratic rights.
I guess they equate "state ownership" with "state capitalism."
They claim they don't want that. They are very unclear about what
they do want. Do you understand what they want?
: Now, the above was written by people who call themselves Socialists. And
: these yahoos specifically deny that Socialism is "defined as government
: ownership of
: the means of production...you know, factories and things like that."
I hate it when people who claim to be socialists don't know
what they DO want and state specifically that Socialism is what they
don't want. But it's really not too surprising.
: Don't you just hate it when reality collides with the dictionary?
If the Socialist Labor Party is "reality," we are all in a lot
of trouble!
The Pervert
>
> B Wood wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >Methinks its a subtle way to make a pluralistic society dependent on
> >the government's "good will". Keep the public fat and lazy with federal
> >handouts and they'll be too lethargic to react when their Liberty is
> >stolen from them.
>
> You responded much as I had intended. When Americans finally realize that
> the Democratic Party thrives on masses of people who are dependent on the
> largesse of politicians (e.g., Democrats), then perhaps - just perhaps -
> we'll have a real chance of paring taxation back to the bone and cutting
> back the scope of the government's intrusion into our lives.
>
> bkd
>
> bkd
That's unlikely to happen to anygreat extent. The Democrats openly
appeal to the "have nots." Since there are so many of them and since
with their programs they are not encouraged to become part of the
"haves" they will forever survive by pandering to the lowest common
denominator.
The GOP's only chance is that the Democrats, by trying to appeal to so
many strongly diversified under-producers, will fragment themselves too
much by trying to please everybody, thereby pleasing nobody. Then the
Republicans have to sneak in and elevate a portion of the marginally
under-producers to the more productive segment so that they become
dissatisfied with the agenda of the more liberal Democrats taxing the
fruits of their labors to death.
The Republicans insist on playing to those who are more educated and who
acheive a level of success. Essentially, they appeal to the minority of
voters and are outnumbered by the unwashed masses who are more easily
manipulated by those who tell them for whom to vote (on a local level)
and for those who make the biggest promises of programs (handouts, if
you wish) that generally prove to not work. Many very popular social
programs, like Head Start, D.A.R.E and others, cost billions of tax
dollars and have been shown by the GAO (Government Accounting Office) to
be virtually ineffectual in addresing the ills they were designed to
correct. But they sound good... like "warm fuzzies" so they stay in
existence.
And the Clinton supports complain about the $40 million over several
years that the Special Prosecutor's office has spent investigating a
President who has hampered the investigation (thus increasing the cost
of it) from day one.
I've always had a problem with hypocricy based on false morality.
The Pervert
>
> aquadoc (wate...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>
> : Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
> : >
> : > I'm probably wasting my time, but if you look in the dictionary
> : >you will find that "socialism" is defined as government ownership of
> : >the means of production...you know, factories and things like that.
> : >It is not defined as "the government doing things I don't want it
> : >to do, and that I need a nasty name to describe."
> : >
> : from a website run by the Democratic Socialists:
> : http://student-www.uchicago.edu/orgs/democratic-socialists/new_flyer.html
>
> : "*Isn't DSA a party that's in competition with the Democratic party for
> : votes and support?"
>
> : "No, DSA is not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the
> : feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing
> : movements, we are members of the Democratic party. We work with those
> : movements to push the party in a progressive direction and to advance vital
> : issues of justice, opportunity, and economic democracy."
>
> : An example of socialism at work .... in the Democratic Party, that is.
>
> I have no doubt that there are those who are trying to make the
> Democratic Party move toward Socialism. (I am not one of them.) They
> are very few and they will not succeed. However your quote only
> reinforces that the Democratic Party is not Sociaist today, and it
> does nothing to refute my definition of socialism.
> Given that...what was the point of the quote??
Your "definition" of socialism may not be in synch with many others. My
definition of "conservative" or "libetarian" or even "reasonable" may
not agree with yours. Given that, you can avoid just about any
meaningful discussion if you really put your mind to it.
If you insist that only a very few Democrats are moving the party in a
more socialistic direction (and I believe that you are not one of those
who are trying to do so), is it not also reasonable to argue that only a
very few (but annoyingly vocal) Republicans are part of the Religious
Wrong trying to move the GOP in a more theocratic direction?
One could argue that some of the positions of Sen. Boxer, state Sen. Tom
Hayden, and certainly the icon of modern political liberalism former
Sen. Eugene McCarthy, while not part of any official socialist platform,
might be considered socialistically inclined.
Simply denying something does not make it so or not so. Clinton denies
responsibility in just about everything. The Republicans deny that
their proceedings against him are purely partisan.
What's so?
Willwork4food
...will I for one, would never back down from a guy who shoots Scouts! And I
aghast that the Marine Corps trains them for that. I knew that they were
trained to shoot surfers, but not Scouts!