Fred Stone, Do Not Take Her Son's Life in Vain
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka olek...@yahoo.com aka Yang's little poltregeist bitch)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1717 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
G-Ride
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
>
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-lipscomb_x.htm
>
>
That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore and F911
from his perch of ignorance.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga."
- Dalai Llama
Fred Stone
news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
> news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
>>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
lipscomb
> _x.htm
>>
>>
>
>
> That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
>
> I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore and
> F911 from his perch of ignorance.
>
Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a soldier's
request to not have his name used by Michael Moore to further his own
agenda with a citation of Michael Moore using some soldier's mother to
further his own agenda.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
>
> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
> >>
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
> lipscomb
> > _x.htm
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
> >
> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore and
> > F911 from his perch of ignorance.
> >
>
> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a soldier's
> request to not have his name used
Why don't you get Bush Incorporated to start respecting living wills and
the right to privacy first? This same idiotic, reich-wing crowd that
won't respect the rights of others is now clamoring for us to curtail
our personal free speech rights to use some moronic jarhead's name as we
see fit.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d1dde253...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <1119065602.34090acdf40e0628eb45b393e63ad014@teranews>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
>>
>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
>> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
>> lipscomb
>> > _x.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
>> >
>> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore
>> > and F911 from his perch of ignorance.
>> >
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a
>> soldier's request to not have his name used
>
>
> Why don't you get Bush Incorporated to start respecting living wills
> and the right to privacy first?
Non sequitur.
> This same idiotic, reich-wing crowd
> that won't respect the rights of others is now clamoring for us to
> curtail our personal free speech rights to use some moronic jarhead's
> name as we see fit.
>
Uhh, quibbler, that request is from that particular Marine himself, not
the "right wing". Why don't *YOU* respect him and his privacy?
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d1dde253...@news.readfreenews.net:
>
> > In article <1119065602.34090acdf40e0628eb45b393e63ad014@teranews>,
> > fsto...@earthling.com says...
> >> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
> >>
> >> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> >> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
> >> lipscomb
> >> > _x.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
> >> >
> >> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore
> >> > and F911 from his perch of ignorance.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a
> >> soldier's request to not have his name used
> >
> >
> > Why don't you get Bush Incorporated to start respecting living wills
> > and the right to privacy first?
>
> Non sequitur.
That's your usual,idiotic response. I didn't claim it was part of the
same argument. I just asked you a question which you are obviously
incapable of answering.
>
> > This same idiotic, reich-wing crowd
> > that won't respect the rights of others is now clamoring for us to
> > curtail our personal free speech rights to use some moronic jarhead's
> > name as we see fit.
> >
>
> Uhh, quibbler, that request is from that particular Marine himself, not
> the "right wing". Why don't *YOU* respect him
There are a lot of reasons that I don't respect him as a person, like
the fact that he is too stupid to recognize the immorality of his
behavior and that his partisan agenda blinds him to the rights of
others.
> and his privacy?
I do respect his right to privacy. However, it is not a private matter
when he makes a statement to the media and it is not a private matter
when his name is reported in official government documents as a
casualty. It is further not a matter of "privacy" when he demands that
I limit my free speech rights because he doesn't like what I might say
about him or his ignoble, otherwise pointless death. He can write
whatever bullshit epitaph he wants for his own tombstone, but he has no
right to demand that others believe it, or that they they refrain from
expressing their own opinions about him and his death. In fact, now
that the homicidal little moronicon has asked people not to use his name
I think that we should positively make it a point to crow about his
impending death and scornfully laugh about how humiliating it is to his
cause that he has been blown away by some third-world amateurs.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d1e211c6...@news.readfreenews.net:
More non sequiturs and diversionary rhetoric.
>
>>
>> > This same idiotic, reich-wing crowd
>> > that won't respect the rights of others is now clamoring for us to
>> > curtail our personal free speech rights to use some moronic
>> > jarhead's name as we see fit.
>> >
>>
>> Uhh, quibbler, that request is from that particular Marine himself,
>> not the "right wing". Why don't *YOU* respect him
>
> There are a lot of reasons that I don't respect him as a person, like
> the fact that he is too stupid to recognize the immorality of his
> behavior and that his partisan agenda blinds him to the rights of
> others.
>
He's not passing any laws to deny you the privilege of plastering your
obscenities around. He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
it.
>
>
>> and his privacy?
>
> I do respect his right to privacy.
Liar.
> However, it is not a private
> matter when he makes a statement to the media and it is not a private
> matter when his name is reported in official government documents as a
> casualty. It is further not a matter of "privacy" when he demands
> that I limit my free speech rights because he doesn't like what I
> might say about him or his ignoble, otherwise pointless death.
If you had actually taken the time to read his article, he acknowledges
that he can't actually stop you from pissing on him and his comrades in
the military, the country and the entire concept of freedom and
democracy, but he wants it to be entirely plain that he doesn't approve
of your using his name in your bitter, vicious, anti-American
propaganda.
> He can
> write whatever bullshit epitaph he wants for his own tombstone, but he
> has no right to demand that others believe it, or that they they
> refrain from expressing their own opinions about him and his death.
He can also express himself in advance about what he thinks of your
despicable propaganda.
> In fact, now that the homicidal little moronicon has asked people not
> to use his name I think that we should positively make it a point to
> crow about his impending death and scornfully laugh about how
> humiliating it is to his cause that he has been blown away by some
> third-world amateurs.
>
Nice to see how despicable your politics makes you, quibbler.
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
> More non sequiturs and diversionary rhetoric.
There's certainly some Fred Stonewalling going on, but those are the
only "non sequiturs and diversionary rhetoric".
> >> Uhh, quibbler, that request is from that particular Marine himself,
> >> not the "right wing". Why don't *YOU* respect him
> >
> > There are a lot of reasons that I don't respect him as a person, like
> > the fact that he is too stupid to recognize the immorality of his
> > behavior and that his partisan agenda blinds him to the rights of
> > others.
> >
>
> He's not passing any laws to deny you the privilege of plastering your
> obscenities around.
No, because he thinks that by playing soldier that automatically confers
upon him the right to order other people to do things without resorting
to "passing any laws". He demands that we give up freedom, as do all
brownshirted pseudo patriotic military murderbots, who lyingly claim to
be "defending freedom" as they decimate our civil liberties.
> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
> it.
Request DENIED. Next.
>
> >
> >
> >> and his privacy?
> >
> > I do respect his right to privacy.
>
> Liar.
No, you're the liar. I respect what he does in private. I'm not
invading his privacy. When he is dead he will cease to exist and his
privacy is irrelevant. However, what I am commenting upon is his
moronic public speech and activities.
> > However, it is not a private
> > matter when he makes a statement to the media and it is not a private
> > matter when his name is reported in official government documents as a
> > casualty. It is further not a matter of "privacy" when he demands
> > that I limit my free speech rights because he doesn't like what I
> > might say about him or his ignoble, otherwise pointless death.
>
> If you had actually taken the time to read his article, he acknowledges
> that he can't actually stop you from pissing on him
He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he thought he
could get away with it and then I might have to accelerate his journey
toward sloughing his mortal coil.
> and his comrades in
> the military, the country and the entire concept of freedom and
> democracy, but he wants it to be entirely plain that he doesn't approve
> of your using his name
Nobody gives a shit what the moron thinks. Yeah, he's still dumb enough
to die for a lie and doesn't want anyone else to speak the truth that he
did die for a lie. But it will be spoken and that will make something
good come from his death. At least his death will underscore the folly
of neocon imperialism.
> in your bitter, vicious, anti-American
> propaganda.
In light of the pathetic propaganda you've just spewed, you might want
to go look in the mirror...or maybe you already did and that's why your
name is "stone".
>
> > He can
> > write whatever bullshit epitaph he wants for his own tombstone, but he
> > has no right to demand that others believe it, or that they they
> > refrain from expressing their own opinions about him and his death.
>
> He can also express himself in advance about what he thinks of your
> despicable propaganda.
There's no propaganda in me saying that he mindlessly wants to die for a
lie and to prevent other people from calling him on it. He is knowingly
fighting an unjust, unlawful war which makes him the moral equivalent of
a cold-blooded murderer. He might think that shaving his head and
donning funky clothing magically absolves him from ethical
responsibility, but he is still a murderer and is still betraying our
constitution by his actions. The fact that he is trying to get people
to voluntarily give up their rights is just more indication of the
depraved depths to which moronicons will sink.
>
> > In fact, now that the homicidal little moronicon has asked people not
> > to use his name I think that we should positively make it a point to
> > crow about his impending death and scornfully laugh about how
> > humiliating it is to his cause that he has been blown away by some
> > third-world amateurs.
> >
>
> Nice to see how despicable your politics makes you, quibbler.
It doesn't make me despicable in the slightest. I refuse to
automatically respect a soldier just because he or she is a soldier.
This man knows or should know that he fighting an unjust, unlawful,
immoral war which has severely harmed America. That he intends to
engage in unlawful killing makes him homicidal and that he is
undermining the security and freedom of our country makes him
treasonous. It's the truth, however ugly, and it's only by telling this
truth to these soldiers that we can hope to correct their behaviors.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
>news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
>>
>http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-lipscomb_x.htm
>>
>>
>
>
>That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
>
>I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore and F911
>from his perch of ignorance.
Why would Fred Stone watch anything not approved by Rush Limbaugh?
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d1e6147c...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <1119129325.213b471bac6c34e9c50a6f5a7992b5e6@teranews>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
>>
>> More non sequiturs and diversionary rhetoric.
>
> There's certainly some Fred Stonewalling going on, but those are the
> only "non sequiturs and diversionary rhetoric".
>
>
>> >> Uhh, quibbler, that request is from that particular Marine
>> >> himself, not the "right wing". Why don't *YOU* respect him
>> >
>> > There are a lot of reasons that I don't respect him as a person,
>> > like the fact that he is too stupid to recognize the immorality of
>> > his behavior and that his partisan agenda blinds him to the rights
>> > of others.
>> >
>>
>> He's not passing any laws to deny you the privilege of plastering
>> your obscenities around.
>
> No, because he thinks that by playing soldier that automatically
> confers upon him the right to order other people to do things without
> resorting to "passing any laws". He demands that we give up freedom,
> as do all brownshirted pseudo patriotic military murderbots, who
> lyingly claim to be "defending freedom" as they decimate our civil
> liberties.
>
The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
>
>> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
>> it.
>
> Request DENIED. Next.
>
You prove my point.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> and his privacy?
>> >
>> > I do respect his right to privacy.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> No, you're the liar. I respect what he does in private. I'm not
> invading his privacy. When he is dead he will cease to exist and his
> privacy is irrelevant. However, what I am commenting upon is his
> moronic public speech and activities.
>
>
>> > However, it is not a private
>> > matter when he makes a statement to the media and it is not a
>> > private matter when his name is reported in official government
>> > documents as a casualty. It is further not a matter of "privacy"
>> > when he demands that I limit my free speech rights because he
>> > doesn't like what I might say about him or his ignoble, otherwise
>> > pointless death.
>>
>> If you had actually taken the time to read his article, he
>> acknowledges that he can't actually stop you from pissing on him
>
> He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he thought he
> could get away with it and then I might have to accelerate his journey
> toward sloughing his mortal coil.
>
Ah, and now you're a mind reader as well as a blustering asshole.
>> and his comrades in
>> the military, the country and the entire concept of freedom and
>> democracy, but he wants it to be entirely plain that he doesn't
>> approve of your using his name
>
> Nobody gives a shit what the moron thinks. Yeah, he's still dumb
> enough to die for a lie and doesn't want anyone else to speak the
> truth that he did die for a lie. But it will be spoken and that will
> make something good come from his death. At least his death will
> underscore the folly of neocon imperialism.
>
All it will underscore is the bitter calumny of your anti-Americanism.
And you know it or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to denigrate an
honorable soldier.
>> in your bitter, vicious, anti-American
>> propaganda.
>
> In light of the pathetic propaganda you've just spewed, you might want
> to go look in the mirror...or maybe you already did and that's why
> your name is "stone".
>
>>
>> > He can
>> > write whatever bullshit epitaph he wants for his own tombstone, but
>> > he has no right to demand that others believe it, or that they they
>> > refrain from expressing their own opinions about him and his death.
>>
>> He can also express himself in advance about what he thinks of your
>> despicable propaganda.
>
> There's no propaganda in me saying that he mindlessly wants to die for
> a lie and to prevent other people from calling him on it.
There's nothing *but* propaganda in you saying that.
> He is
> knowingly fighting an unjust, unlawful war which makes him the moral
> equivalent of a cold-blooded murderer. He might think that shaving
> his head and donning funky clothing magically absolves him from
> ethical responsibility, but he is still a murderer and is still
> betraying our constitution by his actions. The fact that he is trying
> to get people to voluntarily give up their rights is just more
> indication of the depraved depths to which moronicons will sink.
>
Man, you are so depraved if you think you can justify your depravity by
calling honorable soldiers names.
>
>>
>> > In fact, now that the homicidal little moronicon has asked people
>> > not to use his name I think that we should positively make it a
>> > point to crow about his impending death and scornfully laugh about
>> > how humiliating it is to his cause that he has been blown away by
>> > some third-world amateurs.
>> >
>>
>> Nice to see how despicable your politics makes you, quibbler.
>
> It doesn't make me despicable in the slightest.
You're right, it makes you despicable to the max.
> I refuse to
> automatically respect a soldier just because he or she is a soldier.
> This man knows or should know that he fighting an unjust, unlawful,
> immoral war which has severely harmed America.
You and your fellow moral-equivalencers who constantly try to tear down
America are the ones who are doing the harm. You do more to build up the
terrorists' cause than any amount of preaching by rabid mullahs.
> That he intends to
> engage in unlawful killing makes him homicidal and that he is
> undermining the security and freedom of our country makes him
> treasonous. It's the truth, however ugly, and it's only by telling
> this truth to these soldiers that we can hope to correct their
> behaviors.
>
That is a lie and your bitter vituperation against someone who simply
does not wish to be used in your hateful propaganda proves just how
wrong you are.
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
> The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
Of course your claim is nonsensical, but what else is new.
> >> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
> >> it.
> >
> > Request DENIED. Next.
> >
>
> You prove my point.
Not so. In fact, you denied that he was demanding anything and then
said the guy is "asking". Asking and demanding can be the same thing,
so you've been proven wrong again.
Anyway, your so-called point was silly, even without your gaffes. A
mugger may ask you for your wallet before resorting to force, but that
doesn't make his action any more legitimate. Both this soldier and the
hypothetical mugger know that they are asking for something that they
have no right to demand from anyone in the first place.
> > He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he thought he
> > could get away with it and then I might have to accelerate his journey
> > toward sloughing his mortal coil.
> >
>
> Ah, and now you're a mind reader
Since the guy's mind is virtually empty and written in crayon, it's not
a tough job.
> as well as a blustering asshole.
No, that would be you and the rest of your neocon death cult of imperial
conquest.
> All it will underscore is the bitter calumny of your anti-Americanism.
Nothing that I said was anti-american. I opposed corrupt, evil
criminals like George Bush and this lackeys. BTW, Fred, you are one of
them because you constantly lie for them, often knowing that you are
lying. You knew the WMD bullshit was a lie and yet you supported the
premeditated mass-murder campaign that George Bush carried out. That
makes you complicit. But it's still not "anti-american" to say that you
and George Bush have ceased to be american. I'm a real american for
refusing to rubberstamp that bullshit war.
> And you know it or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to denigrate an
> honorable soldier.
He's not honorable. He's a coward who is following orders because he's
not man enough to disobey. The only honorable thing that he could do at
this point would be to leave the military and expose the lies and
felonies of the Bush administration that he has been enlisted to help
commit.
> > There's no propaganda in me saying that he mindlessly wants to die for
> > a lie and to prevent other people from calling him on it.
>
> There's nothing *but* propaganda in you saying that.
Then you ought to be right at home with it, since that's what you expect
to see in your Fox News world.
>
> > He is
> > knowingly fighting an unjust, unlawful war which makes him the moral
> > equivalent of a cold-blooded murderer. He might think that shaving
> > his head and donning funky clothing magically absolves him from
> > ethical responsibility, but he is still a murderer and is still
> > betraying our constitution by his actions. The fact that he is trying
> > to get people to voluntarily give up their rights is just more
> > indication of the depraved depths to which moronicons will sink.
> >
>
> Man, you are so depraved
I'm sorry if that offends your right-wing version of political
correctness, Fred, but it's still the truth. I know that calling a
soldier a murderer when he carries out illegal killings in an unjust war
is a new concept for you, but that's the reality.
> if you think you can justify your depravity by
> calling honorable soldiers names.
Which honorable soldier is that. You certainly can't be talking about
the cowardly criminals who are carrying out Bush's illegal orders, are
you?
> > I refuse to
> > automatically respect a soldier just because he or she is a soldier.
> > This man knows or should know that he fighting an unjust, unlawful,
> > immoral war which has severely harmed America.
>
> You and your fellow moral-equivalencers who constantly try to tear down
> America
I've torn down nothing. You smashed the integrity and moral authority
of our country with your acts of wanton aggression. But we will
rebuild it for the better, without you and your ilk to corrupt it.
> are the ones who are doing the harm. You do more to build up the
> terrorists' cause than any amount of preaching by rabid mullahs.
>
> > That he intends to
> > engage in unlawful killing makes him homicidal and that he is
> > undermining the security and freedom of our country makes him
> > treasonous. It's the truth, however ugly, and it's only by telling
> > this truth to these soldiers that we can hope to correct their
> > behaviors.
> >
>
> That is a lie and your bitter vituperation
AAA, poor politically correct Fred is gonna cry because him and his kind
were called out as the murder-abetting traitors that they are. You
better get used to it, because history will never forget your criminal
acts.
> against someone who simply
> does not wish to be used in your hateful propaganda proves just how
> wrong you are.
His death, like the approximately 2000 "coalition" fatalities before him
will only underscore how wrong he was to participate and will only
emphasize how despicable it was to wage this war.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d1e831b7...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <1119142506.e979bc596ce5a18849461dd2db92a7be@teranews>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
>> The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
>
> Of course your claim is nonsensical, but what else is new.
>
>
>> >> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > Request DENIED. Next.
>> >
>>
>> You prove my point.
>
> Not so. In fact, you denied that he was demanding anything and then
> said the guy is "asking". Asking and demanding can be the same thing,
> so you've been proven wrong again.
>
Twist and turn, lie and spin, quibbler. It's so transparent even your
liberal buddies might be able to see through it.
> Anyway, your so-called point was silly, even without your gaffes. A
> mugger may ask you for your wallet before resorting to force, but that
> doesn't make his action any more legitimate. Both this soldier and
> the hypothetical mugger know that they are asking for something that
> they have no right to demand from anyone in the first place.
>
Stretch and whine some more, q. You know that he has the *right* to ask,
and you try to twist that *request* into a *demand* so you can exercise
your pathetic, cowardly, moral outrage.
>
>> > He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he thought
>> > he could get away with it and then I might have to accelerate his
>> > journey toward sloughing his mortal coil.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, and now you're a mind reader
>
> Since the guy's mind is virtually empty and written in crayon, it's
> not a tough job.
>
Ah, you're caught again. Whine because you're getting spanked, q.
>
>
>> as well as a blustering asshole.
>
> No, that would be you and the rest of your neocon death cult of
> imperial conquest.
>
Whine some more, q.
>
>> All it will underscore is the bitter calumny of your
>> anti-Americanism.
>
> Nothing that I said was anti-american. I opposed corrupt, evil
> criminals like George Bush and this lackeys. BTW, Fred, you are one
> of them because you constantly lie for them, often knowing that you
> are lying. You knew the WMD bullshit was a lie and yet you supported
> the premeditated mass-murder campaign that George Bush carried out.
> That makes you complicit. But it's still not "anti-american" to say
> that you and George Bush have ceased to be american. I'm a real
> american for refusing to rubberstamp that bullshit war.
>
You're a phony bullshit artist, quibbler, and a moral coward looking for
an excuse to trash the country that protects your right to *be* a moral
coward.
>
>> And you know it or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to denigrate
>> an honorable soldier.
>
> He's not honorable. He's a coward who is following orders because
> he's not man enough to disobey. The only honorable thing that he
> could do at this point would be to leave the military and expose the
> lies and felonies of the Bush administration that he has been enlisted
> to help commit.
>
You're a seditious fool too, quibbler.
>
>> > There's no propaganda in me saying that he mindlessly wants to die
>> > for a lie and to prevent other people from calling him on it.
>>
>> There's nothing *but* propaganda in you saying that.
>
> Then you ought to be right at home with it, since that's what you
> expect to see in your Fox News world.
>
FOX News is a bastion of truth compared to your moral copouts.
>
>>
>> > He is
>> > knowingly fighting an unjust, unlawful war which makes him the
>> > moral equivalent of a cold-blooded murderer. He might think that
>> > shaving his head and donning funky clothing magically absolves him
>> > from ethical responsibility, but he is still a murderer and is
>> > still betraying our constitution by his actions. The fact that he
>> > is trying to get people to voluntarily give up their rights is just
>> > more indication of the depraved depths to which moronicons will
>> > sink.
>> >
>>
>> Man, you are so depraved
>
> I'm sorry if that offends your right-wing version of political
> correctness, Fred, but it's still the truth. I know that calling a
> soldier a murderer when he carries out illegal killings in an unjust
> war is a new concept for you, but that's the reality.
>
>
>> if you think you can justify your depravity by
>> calling honorable soldiers names.
>
> Which honorable soldier is that. You certainly can't be talking about
> the cowardly criminals who are carrying out Bush's illegal orders, are
> you?
>
I'm talking about the honorable soldiers who are fighting against the
terrorists who would slit your throat rather than listen to you.
>> > I refuse to
>> > automatically respect a soldier just because he or she is a
>> > soldier. This man knows or should know that he fighting an unjust,
>> > unlawful, immoral war which has severely harmed America.
>>
>> You and your fellow moral-equivalencers who constantly try to tear
>> down America
>
> I've torn down nothing. You smashed the integrity and moral authority
> of our country with your acts of wanton aggression. But we will
> rebuild it for the better, without you and your ilk to corrupt it.
>
We're the only thing that *supports* the moral authority of the country.
Without those acts of *legitimate* aggression we would be seen as the
same sort of pusillanimous moral coward that you are. You don't have the
*guts* to do anything more than whine.
>
>> are the ones who are doing the harm. You do more to build up the
>> terrorists' cause than any amount of preaching by rabid mullahs.
>>
>> > That he intends to
>> > engage in unlawful killing makes him homicidal and that he is
>> > undermining the security and freedom of our country makes him
>> > treasonous. It's the truth, however ugly, and it's only by telling
>> > this truth to these soldiers that we can hope to correct their
>> > behaviors.
>> >
>>
>> That is a lie and your bitter vituperation
>
> AAA, poor politically correct Fred is gonna cry because him and his
> kind were called out as the murder-abetting traitors that they are.
I ain't crying quibbler. You're the one trying to justify your moral
cowardice with gross sedition and wild unsupportable charges.
> You better get used to it, because history will never forget your
> criminal acts.
>
>> against someone who simply
>> does not wish to be used in your hateful propaganda proves just how
>> wrong you are.
>
> His death, like the approximately 2000 "coalition" fatalities before
> him will only underscore how wrong he was to participate and will only
> emphasize how despicable it was to wage this war.
>
You're a textbook example of the psychological displacement of the
threat of terrorism onto the only world leaders who were willing to put
their reputations on the line to *defeat* terrorists instead of
*appeasing* them.
Divin Marquis
> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a soldier's
> request to not have his name used by Michael Moore to further his own
> agenda with a citation of Michael Moore using some soldier's mother to
> further his own agenda.
What mother are you talking about? The one in Fahrenheit 9/11? She agrees
100% w/ the movie and was even consulted prior to it being released.
Katt
news:pan.2005.06.19....@127.0.0.1...
I remember her: the poor woman who went and stood outside the White House,
and was almost coughing up her heart in grief -- when some brain-dead
Republiprat asshole came up and shouted that it was all a put-up job and a
con and just staged for the cameras...
I saw that film in 3 different cinemas in different parts of the UK and,
each time I saw it I sat at the side so I could better see and hear the
audience reaction. And believe me: *you people have no fucking idea how much
you are despised*.
Katt.
Fred Stone
So Moore had her explicit permission. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d1e831b7...@news.readfreenews.net:
>
> > In article <1119142506.e979bc596ce5a18849461dd2db92a7be@teranews>,
> > fsto...@earthling.com says...
> >
> >> The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
> >
> > Of course your claim is nonsensical, but what else is new.
> >
> >
> >> >> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
> >> >> it.
> >> >
> >> > Request DENIED. Next.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You prove my point.
> >
> > Not so. In fact, you denied that he was demanding anything and then
> > said the guy is "asking". Asking and demanding can be the same thing,
> > so you've been proven wrong again.
> >
>
> Twist and turn, lie and spin, quibbler.
Get a dictionary, fool. It's not spin. Then again, you believed Bush's
spin on the Iraq war, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to tell the
difference.
> It's so transparent even your
> liberal buddies might be able to see through it.
What's transparent is that the neoconnazi marine thug tried to silence
those he disagreed with and his efforts were an utter failure.
>
> > Anyway, your so-called point was silly, even without your gaffes. A
> > mugger may ask you for your wallet before resorting to force, but that
> > doesn't make his action any more legitimate. Both this soldier and
> > the hypothetical mugger know that they are asking for something that
> > they have no right to demand from anyone in the first place.
> >
>
> Stretch and whine some more, q. You know that he has the *right* to ask,
Oh, a mugger does have a right to ask for your wallet, despite the
implied threat of violence if you don't comply? Criminality has
obviously pervaded your little neocon excuse for a brain. We don't need
that fuckhead's permission and it's not legitimate for him to demand
that we give up our rights.
> and you try to twist that *request* into a *demand*
You really need to learn what an etymology is. "Demand" and "request"
can certainly mean the same thing.
> so you can exercise
> your pathetic, cowardly, moral outrage.
>
> >
> >> > He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he thought
> >> > he could get away with it and then I might have to accelerate his
> >> > journey toward sloughing his mortal coil.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ah, and now you're a mind reader
> >
> > Since the guy's mind is virtually empty and written in crayon, it's
> > not a tough job.
> >
>
> Ah, you're caught again.
Not by you. I only commented about what the guy actual said and the
intentions that he telegraphed.
> Whine because you're getting spanked, q.
Oh sure, you're really spanking me getting me to say that the guy is a
veritable moron with an obvious agenda that is easily tracked.
>
> >
> >
> >> as well as a blustering asshole.
> >
> > No, that would be you and the rest of your neocon death cult of
> > imperial conquest.
> >
>
> Whine some more, q.
I'm not surprised that you dismiss these facts so disdainfully.
Give your repetitious, illogical propaganda a rest Fred. Nobody wants
to hear your Rush Limbaugh impersonations.
<rest snipped>
G-Ride
news:1119065602.34090acdf40e0628eb45b393e63ad014@teranews...
> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
>
> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
> >>
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
> lipscomb
> > _x.htm
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
> >
> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore and
> > F911 from his perch of ignorance.
> >
>
> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a soldier's
> request to not have his name used by Michael Moore to further his own
> agenda with a citation of Michael Moore using some soldier's mother to
> further his own agenda.
What the hell are you talking about Fred?
Regardless of what does and does not surprise you, I didn't respond to your
post about a soldier not wanting his name used. Nor did I post the link to
the story about Michael Moore and Lila Lipscomb. My above reply is to a
post from an entirely different thread. Are you sure that you can read?
So much for you trying to not look like an idiot.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d1feaf44...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <1119152682.74293b14898f0a3d0ab2bb6c92524a41@teranews>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d1e831b7...@news.readfreenews.net:
>>
>> > In article <1119142506.e979bc596ce5a18849461dd2db92a7be@teranews>,
>> > fsto...@earthling.com says...
>> >
>> >> The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
>> >
>> > Of course your claim is nonsensical, but what else is new.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Request DENIED. Next.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You prove my point.
>> >
>> > Not so. In fact, you denied that he was demanding anything and
>> > then said the guy is "asking". Asking and demanding can be the
>> > same thing, so you've been proven wrong again.
>> >
>>
>> Twist and turn, lie and spin, quibbler.
>
> Get a dictionary, fool. It's not spin. Then again, you believed Bush's
> spin on the Iraq war, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to tell the
> difference.
>
Get a brain, quibbler, it's spin. "asking" is not "demanding". You have
to spin things pretty hard to say that they *can* be, when it's clear
that they they *are not* the same thing. And you certainly haven't made
the case that this GI is demanding anything, since he himself says that
he isn't.
Admit it quibbler, you're just pissed because he makes it so obvious
what an asshole you and your messiah Moore are.
>
>
>> It's so transparent even your
>> liberal buddies might be able to see through it.
>
> What's transparent is that the neoconnazi marine thug tried to silence
> those he disagreed with and his efforts were an utter failure.
>
What's transparent is that you're not afraid to call him names because
you know perfectly well that he *won't* try to silence you.
>
>>
>> > Anyway, your so-called point was silly, even without your gaffes.
>> > A mugger may ask you for your wallet before resorting to force, but
>> > that doesn't make his action any more legitimate. Both this
>> > soldier and the hypothetical mugger know that they are asking for
>> > something that they have no right to demand from anyone in the
>> > first place.
>> >
>>
>> Stretch and whine some more, q. You know that he has the *right* to
>> ask,
>
> Oh, a mugger does have a right to ask for your wallet, despite the
> implied threat of violence if you don't comply? Criminality has
> obviously pervaded your little neocon excuse for a brain. We don't
> need that fuckhead's permission and it's not legitimate for him to
> demand that we give up our rights.
>
>> and you try to twist that *request* into a *demand*
>
> You really need to learn what an etymology is. "Demand" and "request"
> can certainly mean the same thing.
>
Smirk. Etymology certainly doesn't prove that. Neither does any
dictionary on the planet. It's only in your warped mind that "request"
means "demand".
>> so you can exercise
>> your pathetic, cowardly, moral outrage.
>>
>> >
>> >> > He's damn right that he can't. I'm sure he'd try to if he
>> >> > thought he could get away with it and then I might have to
>> >> > accelerate his journey toward sloughing his mortal coil.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ah, and now you're a mind reader
>> >
>> > Since the guy's mind is virtually empty and written in crayon, it's
>> > not a tough job.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, you're caught again.
>
> Not by you. I only commented about what the guy actual said and the
> intentions that he telegraphed.
>
To your miserable, paranoid imagination.
>> Whine because you're getting spanked, q.
>
> Oh sure, you're really spanking me getting me to say that the guy is a
> veritable moron with an obvious agenda that is easily tracked.
>
Yes, that's right. You're showing your ass big time.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> as well as a blustering asshole.
>> >
>> > No, that would be you and the rest of your neocon death cult of
>> > imperial conquest.
>> >
>>
>> Whine some more, q.
>
> I'm not surprised that you dismiss these facts so disdainfully.
>
> Give your repetitious, illogical propaganda a rest Fred. Nobody wants
> to hear your Rush Limbaugh impersonations.
>
Nobody wants to hear your Michael Moore moonbat bullshit either.
Fred Stone
news:3hn56hF...@individual.net:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:1119065602.34090acdf40e0628eb45b393e63ad014@teranews...
>> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
>>
>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
>> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
>> lipscomb
>> > _x.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
>> >
>> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore
>> > and F911 from his perch of ignorance.
>> >
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a
>> soldier's request to not have his name used by Michael Moore to
>> further his own agenda with a citation of Michael Moore using some
>> soldier's mother to further his own agenda.
>
>
> What the hell are you talking about Fred?
>
Who the hell are you trying to fool, G-Ride?
> Regardless of what does and does not surprise you, I didn't respond to
> your post about a soldier not wanting his name used. Nor did I post
> the link to the story about Michael Moore and Lila Lipscomb. My above
> reply is to a post from an entirely different thread.
> Are you sure that you can read?
>
Are you sure that *YOU* can?
> So much for you trying to not look like an idiot.
>
I didn't have to try at all. You do that just fine on your own.
quibbler
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d1feaf44...@news.readfreenews.net:
>
> > In article <1119152682.74293b14898f0a3d0ab2bb6c92524a41@teranews>,
> > fsto...@earthling.com says...
> >> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1d1e831b7...@news.readfreenews.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <1119142506.e979bc596ce5a18849461dd2db92a7be@teranews>,
> >> > fsto...@earthling.com says...
> >> >
> >> >> The only one making demands here is *YOU*, quibbler.
> >> >
> >> > Of course your claim is nonsensical, but what else is new.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> He's *asking* that you not use his name when you do
> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Request DENIED. Next.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You prove my point.
> >> >
> >> > Not so. In fact, you denied that he was demanding anything and
> >> > then said the guy is "asking". Asking and demanding can be the
> >> > same thing, so you've been proven wrong again.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Twist and turn, lie and spin, quibbler.
> >
> > Get a dictionary, fool. It's not spin. Then again, you believed Bush's
> > spin on the Iraq war, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to tell the
> > difference.
> >
>
> Get a brain, quibbler, it's spin. "asking" is not "demanding".
You know that the words are often used interchangably and it's hilarious
that you won't consult a dictionary, since you know I'm right. I'm not
surprised that you can't address the issue, so you try to water it down
and claim that the guy was somehow politely supplicating, versus some
more rude and forceful way of attempting to deprive others of their
rights.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d2078549...@news.readfreenews.net:
I don't care how hard you try to spin it, quibbler. You're making the
lamest possible excuse to justify yourself.
> I'm not surprised that you can't address the issue, so you try
> to water it down and claim that the guy was somehow politely
> supplicating, versus some more rude and forceful way of attempting to
> deprive others of their rights.
>
I'm not surprised that you pretend that he was trying to force you to
surrender some "right" when all he was doing was to make it entirely
clear that you want to use him against his will for your own propaganda.
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
> I don't care how hard you try to spin it, quibbler.
It's obvious that you don't care about the truth either, since I'm not
spinning it. Regardless of claims, it is just just a polite
supplication.
> You're making the
> lamest possible excuse to justify yourself.
Gee...that's your strategy in every argument.
> > I'm not surprised that you can't address the issue, so you try
> > to water it down and claim that the guy was somehow politely
> > supplicating, versus some more rude and forceful way of attempting to
> > deprive others of their rights.
> >
>
> I'm not surprised that you pretend that he was trying to force you to
> surrender some "right"
I don't have to pretend, since he definitely did attempt to force his
views and opinions upon others and is not entitled to attempt to engage
in the prior restraint of the speech acts of others.
G-Ride
> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3hn56hF...@individual.net:
>
> > "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119065602.34090acdf40e0628eb45b393e63ad014@teranews...
> >> "G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:3hhgepF...@individual.net:
> >>
> >> > "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> >> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:qdt6b1p39u4h8l65p...@4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-28-fahrenheit-
> >> lipscomb
> >> > _x.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That would mean that Fred would have to actually watch the film.
> >> >
> >> > I bet that Fred would prefer to continue to snipe at Michael Moore
> >> > and F911 from his perch of ignorance.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why am I not surprised that you would respond to a post of a
> >> soldier's request to not have his name used by Michael Moore to
> >> further his own agenda with a citation of Michael Moore using some
> >> soldier's mother to further his own agenda.
> >
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about Fred?
> >
>
> Who the hell are you trying to fool, G-Ride?
>
I'm not trying to fool anyone, Fred. One just has to look at the message
headers to see that you are the idiot making false statements. You are
completely wrong, Fred.
> > Regardless of what does and does not surprise you, I didn't respond to
> > your post about a soldier not wanting his name used. Nor did I post
> > the link to the story about Michael Moore and Lila Lipscomb. My above
> > reply is to a post from an entirely different thread.
> > Are you sure that you can read?
> >
>
> Are you sure that *YOU* can?
>
I'm not the one that posted a reply claiming to be unsurprised about
something that didn't happen. That would be you, Fred. And that is why I
still wonder if you actually can read. Because you're obviously unable to
determine the actual content of posts or what they are in response to.
Illiteracy would explain much about you Fred.
And to answer you question, I am quite positive of my ability to not only
read, but to also comprehend that which I read. However, it looks like
those are skills you still need to work on.
> > So much for you trying to not look like an idiot.
> >
>
> I didn't have to try at all. You do that just fine on your own.
>
Too bad we're not talking about me, Fred. You have proven yourself to be an
idiot time and time again. Is it that hard for you to admit you're wrong?
I inform you that you have made completely false and incorrect statements
about me (which is proven by simply looking at the message headers), and all
you can do is reply with childish "I know you are but what am I" style
statements.
Your refusal to even acknowledge the fact that you made false statements
about me only goes to further show that you are an idiot Fred. And a liar.
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1d20b897c...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <1119278175.75e05604c657430ef3f9f879f74548db@teranews>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>
>> I'm not surprised that you pretend that he was trying to force you to
>> surrender some "right"
>
> I don't have to pretend, since he definitely did attempt to force his
> views and opinions upon others and is not entitled to attempt to
> engage in the prior restraint of the speech acts of others.
>
You're so full of shit, quibbler.
There was no threat of force, not even a *hint* of force, in fact he
says right out that he can't force anybody.
He just made it perfectly clear that he does not consent to being used
in any sort of anti-war propaganda.