TOAST: To peace
Rivka
the closed, pinched mask of someone who has been hit hard and isn't quite
sure how badly she's been hurt. She bumps into a couple of tables on her way
to the bar to collect a shot of Glenmorangie from Mike.
Stepping up to the chalk line, she stares moodily into the flames for a
moment and then begins to speak.
"I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
*hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
"To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
country."
She stalks into the Danger Room and closes the door.
--
Rivka is rivka ATiowacity DOTnet, RivkaWald on AOL IM, and a fourth-year
graduate student in clinical psychology.
All I ask of life is a constant and exaggerated sense of my own importance.
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
"Rivka" <ri...@iowacity.net> wrote:
> Rivka eases the door open and slips into the Place. Her face is drawn into
> the closed, pinched mask of someone who has been hit hard and isn't quite
> sure how badly she's been hurt. She bumps into a couple of tables on her way
> to the bar to collect a shot of Glenmorangie from Mike.
>
> Stepping up to the chalk line, she stares moodily into the flames for a
> moment and then begins to speak.
>
> "I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
>
> She stalks into the Danger Room and closes the door.
> --
To peace.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRASH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Jim
"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." The Red Queen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
bet...@earthlink.net
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
The Pyrate Queen quietly contemplates. And remembers the last time she
contemplated upon this subject about nine years ago.
I have a good friend who went the last time. Got a couple of letters back
from Lonnie, mostly talking about how boring it was. But when I saw him
again after he came back from Desert Storm there was
something...different...about him. And to this day, I can't quite put my
finger on what it was, but I always had the feeling that there were certain
things he went through that he just never talked about.
Dr.Bill almost went. But Uncle Sugah, in his Infinite Wisdom, decided it was
more important for him to finish his residency. From a strictly logistics
standpoint, it makes no sense -- who better to send into a war zone than a
doctor who specializes in trauma care? But from a personal standpoint, I was
glad he didn't go.
As much as I worried about Lonnie, I also wanted Bush to chase Hussein's sorry
ass all the way back to Baghdad and finish the job he had started.
And here we are again. Lonnie isn't there, and the New and Improved Civilian
Dr.Bill ain't goin', so there is less at stake personally for me. But I still
think that this never woulda had to happen if the job had been done right the
first time.
Maybe this is nothing more than Clinton Wagging the Dog. Dunno. But, having
seen the haunted look on Lonnie's face from the last time, I would consider an
end to Hussein a fair trade. Just so that no more friend of mine have to have
That Look...
--
BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
LePheaux
>> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
>> country."
><<<>>>>
Nukem all, and let Alah sort em out,
then on with the games.
If Saddam insane, is left alone to his own sick devices.
there will be a war to end all wars.
just piping from the Bar.
Kate
>"I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
>sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
>really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
>She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
>*hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
>winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
>country."
*CRASH*
Kate slips a gift certificate for a hug under the door of the Danger Room for
Rivka to use when she's ready.
Weather on IRC
remove spamblock to reply
It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained-glass
window.--Raymond Chandler
Stormy Weather Books--in association with
amazon.com-- http://www.angelfire.com/tn/smartblonde/bibliophile.html
Bill Gawne
Rivka:
> "I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
>
> She stalks into the Danger Room and closes the door.
The Marine at the end of the bar watches her go, somberly. Then
draining his own glass, he echos her sentiment.
"To right action, no matter the political cost."
and the empty glass hurtles through the air, across the Penrose tiles
to shatter against the back wall of the parabolic reflector.
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> |
Astronomer at Large - Retired Master Sergeant USMCR - Nothing I
post represents an official position of any organization.
On the web: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne
Jimmy M. Pierce
: contemplated upon this subject about nine years ago.
: I have a good friend who went the last time. Got a couple of letters back
: from Lonnie, mostly talking about how boring it was. But when I saw him
: again after he came back from Desert Storm there was
: something...different...about him. And to this day, I can't quite put my
: finger on what it was, but I always had the feeling that there were certain
: things he went through that he just never talked about.
the 10,000 Yard Stare perhaps ?
I knew some friends who went to 'Nam. Some didn't come back, and most
of the rest don't talk about it. One of my chums told me some
things I'll never mention. gack.
I've mentioned some of my non-combat experiences in here from time to time.
I've never been in combat. I almost went. I volunteered to join the Navy
before the Army drafted me.
I mentioned one of things I hardly ever talk about, back several
Veteran's Days ago. I rarely talk about it. An aircraft went down
during a training exercise. [blip] no more aircraft. no more crew.
North Atlantic. 38 F water.
: As much as I worried about Lonnie, I also wanted Bush to chase Hussein's sorry
: ass all the way back to Baghdad and finish the job he had started.
Yeah, those U.N. mandates can cause problems... to get cooperation,
they had to follow the letter of the document.
: Maybe this is nothing more than Clinton Wagging the Dog. Dunno. But, having
: seen the haunted look on Lonnie's face from the last time, I would consider an
: end to Hussein a fair trade. Just so that no more friend of mine have to have
: That Look...
DJ.
--
Jim Pierce jmpi...@DESPAMMEDocean.otr.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
Video: Smash Mouth 'Walking on the Sun'
updated Nov. 24, 1998 My Web page: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~jmpierce
Coast Con 22. March 19-21, 1999. http://www.coastcon.org/
Jenna Lionors
The brunette with a knife throws her empty cider glass into the fireplace and
sighs.
"I have the same bad vibes about this that I had about the invasion of Kuwait.
All of my
instincts are screaming that 'Operation Desert Fox' will turn into the second
Gulf War."
"I know that look. I know bad things went on out there and now I fear it all
starting again, and not even for a good purpose this time. And we started it.
/We/ are the ones
bombing downtown Baghdad. I have had enough. I am not a pacifist, but this..."
She
falls silent and stares into the fire.
--
And, they ask me, why is there suffering in the world, not understanding that
it is
through suffering that we cease to be disparate individuals tossed on the ocean
of
life, and become brothers and sisters joined in a bond of love...
<<Any and all Unsolicited Commercial Email sent to this address will be
automatically deleted unread>>
Randolph Fritz
>
>"To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
>winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
>country."
>
*CRASH*
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>[p&e]
>
>Rivka:
>> "I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
>> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
>> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>>
>> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
>> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>>
>> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
>> country."
>>
>
>The Marine at the end of the bar watches her go, somberly. Then
>draining his own glass, he echos her sentiment.
>
>"To right action, no matter the political cost."
<The Pilegrim's looks up sourly>
In this particular set of situations I can think of half a dozen
ways of taking that.
>and the empty glass hurtles through the air, across the Penrose tiles
>to shatter against the back wall of the parabolic reflector.
<he orders up a glass of bitter beer since it matches his mood, drains it>
To right action, no matter the cost
<and sends it after The Marine's>
No, disrespect meant toward your formulation Bill.
<he leaves>
Gesi Rovario
>
> Rivka eases the door open and slips into the Place. Her face is drawn into
> the closed, pinched mask of someone who has been hit hard and isn't quite
> sure how badly she's been hurt. She bumps into a couple of tables on her way
> to the bar to collect a shot of Glenmorangie from Mike.
>
> Stepping up to the chalk line, she stares moodily into the flames for a
> moment and then begins to speak.
>
> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
**********CRASH**********
Gesi
--
Myschyf on IRC
And whoever said
There's nothing new under the sun
Never thought much about individuals.
But he's dead anyway.
- The Refreshments
Rivka
LePheaux wrote in message <75bb5r$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
[I had written:]
>>> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being
the
>>> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
>>> country."
>><<<>>>>
>
> then on with the games.
> If Saddam insane, is left alone to his own sick devices.
>there will be a war to end all wars.
Rivka stops still. She turns, very slowly, draws herself up to her full
height, and speaks slowly and distinctly to LePheaux.
"It could be argued that this is a necessary action. It could be argued
that, in the long run, it is better for civilian lives to be lost now in an
attack than for Hussein to be left alone to increase his power and his
ability to wreak carnage in the future. Those are arguments which, as
troubling as they are, could be accepted as a rationale for war by honest
people of good will.
"But 'nukem all, and let Alah sort em out'? You sick-minded, evil-hearted
son of a bitch, you're talking about destroying the lives of individuals who
are every bit as real, as deserving of life, and as sensitive to pain and
grief and death as you are, as your wife and children are. Have you not the
tiniest shred of human decency or compassion, that you can advocate the
wholesale slaughter of people who never did a damn thing wrong other than
live under the wrong goddamned dictator? Have you not even the slightest
particle of shame, that you can drag this slimy smug little opinion out from
under a rock and trot it forth among decent people?"
Rivka stops and just stares at LePheaux for a moment, trembling with rage.
Her hand gropes out for the nearest glass - oblivious to the protests of the
Patron who is drinking from it - and hurls it into the fireplace with all of
her might.
"People are dying," she says softly, then. "Whether or not you think that is
necessary for world safety or American military objectives or justice and
right, can't you at least show some respect for the fact that people just
like you and me are dying in agony and that their families are torn apart
with fear and grief? Don't you understand that their deaths matter, that
their deaths are not something to be belittled or rejoiced over in a rush of
bloodthirsty barroom jingoism? For God's sake, don't you understand that
they're human beings?"
Susan Cohen
Jenna Lionors wrote:
> "I know that look. I know bad things went on out there and now I fear it all
> starting again, and not even for a good purpose this time. And we started it.
No, we didn't. Saddam Hussein started it right after he lost the last war.
> /We/ are the ones bombing downtown Baghdad.
Right. Because Saddam Hussein *repeatedly* *refuses* to comply
with the UN mandates. In doing so, he has pretty much been *asking*
for us to bomb him. I expected this almost 2 months ago. I figured
Clinton didn't want to look as though he was trying to "wag the dog."
Oh well.
Jacob Sommer
Susan, I have to agree with you on this. And I want to add a point:
<RANT>
I have been hearing a lot of guff about how "the timing could have
been better because of this whole political brouhaha." Folks, this
*entire* *last* *year* has all been bad timing for the President to
try to do *anything*. *Any* *single* *thing* he tried to do which
involved aggressive foreign policy was bandied about by the GOP and
the mainstream aka *CONSERVATIVE* press as a "Wag the Dog" scenario.
I'm so damn annoyed that *everything* is being cast in terms of the
whole impeachment mess. Hello? He's a President of the USA? We
*expect* him to do things? Would people rather he *vacationed* for
four months out of the year like Reagan did?
</rant>
**steps down off the soapbox**
Jacob
Laura Packer
> Rivka eases the door open and slips into the Place. Her face is drawn into
> the closed, pinched mask of someone who has been hit hard and isn't quite
> sure how badly she's been hurt. She bumps into a couple of tables on her way
> to the bar to collect a shot of Glenmorangie from Mike.
>
> Stepping up to the chalk line, she stares moodily into the flames for a
> moment and then begins to speak.
>
> "I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
>
> She stalks into the Danger Room and closes the door.
Laura listens to Rivka's toast, and the subsequent responses.
"I remember, when I was watching the news nine years ago, the first time
the US went head to head with Saddam Hussein, crying in front of the t.v.
I was one of the people who thought, and still thinks, that we should have
responded to his threats before he ever invaded Kuwait. Some show of
force, battalions on the border, waiting, something. And I still cried.
"Last night, I lit my Chanukah candles, and then turned on the news. I
cried again. Yet I do think this is probably the correct action.
"I hate knowing that civilians will be (are being) killed. Yet I also know
that thousands were starving in Iraq because of the sanctions. And I don't
know what the answers are.
"So, I guess I agree with your toast. And I agree with Bill's, to the
right course of action. And I wish I knew what the effective middle ground
was in between."
<<<CRASH>>>
--
Laura
storyteller, folklorist, dreamer
ba...@full-moon.com
Please cc: any replies to me via e-mail. Thanks
Richard Michael Todd
> "At the risk of touching off an inappropriate discussion at this very
> sensitive time ... What do you know? How do you know it? And how
> would what happened in Kuwait and Iraq during 1991 be qualitatively
> different from what happens in other armed conflicts? I think that
> our intervention into Mozambique was actually much more brutal."
I may just be showing off my lack of knowledge here, but what exactly was
our intervention in Mozambique? I'd not heard before of the US having troops
there...
Bill Gawne
>"I have the same bad vibes about this that I had about the invasion of
> Kuwait. All of my instincts are screaming that 'Operation Desert Fox'
> will turn into the second Gulf War."
"I think that's an unwarranted fear, Jenna. The action would have to
undergo a MAJOR change of scope in order to turn into a sustained
ground force action. No, this is going to be a few days of intensive
nighttime bombing followed by both sides declaring success, unless I
miss my guess very badly."
>"I know that look.
"Are you refering to what BetNoir mentioned? About her friend?"
> I know bad things went on out there
"At the risk of touching off an inappropriate discussion at this very
sensitive time ... What do you know? How do you know it? And how
would what happened in Kuwait and Iraq during 1991 be qualitatively
different from what happens in other armed conflicts? I think that
our intervention into Mozambique was actually much more brutal."
> and now I fear it all
>starting again, and not even for a good purpose this time. And we started it.
"This is an issue on which reasonable people may differ. Many,
including the Secretary General of the UN, would say that the bombing
of Baghdad is a logical consequence of repeated violations of the
ceasefire agreement reached in 1991. Obviously others would disagree
with that logic and claim this is pure opportunistic aggression."
"But whatever it is, it's not a CLEAR case of either right now, except
in the words of the spin doctors."
>/We/ are the ones bombing downtown Baghdad.
"Yes, that's true. We collectively are. Our elected leadership has
indeed deployed the military forces we pay to equip and train, and
those military people are acting right now in the belief that it is
the collective will of the American, and British, people they carry
out."
> I have had enough. I am not a pacifist, but this..."
"Yes? What do you find so repugnant about it? Or do you think it
should be self-evident?"
>She falls silent and stares into the fire.
No need to answer Jenna, if you don't want to. I'm not trying to bait
you. I ask out of genuine desire to understand how you see things.
michae...@worldnet.att.net
> "Rivka" <ri...@iowacity.net> wrote:
>
> > "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> > winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> > country."
>
> contemplated upon this subject about nine years ago.
>
> I have a good friend who went the last time. Got a couple of letters back
> from Lonnie, mostly talking about how boring it was. But when I saw him
> again after he came back from Desert Storm there was
> something...different...about him. And to this day, I can't quite put my
> finger on what it was, but I always had the feeling that there were certain
> things he went through that he just never talked about.
>
> more important for him to finish his residency. From a strictly logistics
> standpoint, it makes no sense -- who better to send into a war zone than a
> doctor who specializes in trauma care? But from a personal standpoint, I was
> glad he didn't go.
>
> ass all the way back to Baghdad and finish the job he had started.
>
> Dr.Bill ain't goin', so there is less at stake personally for me. But I still
> think that this never woulda had to happen if the job had been done right the
> first time.
>
> seen the haunted look on Lonnie's face from the last time, I would consider an
> end to Hussein a fair trade. Just so that no more friend of mine have to have
> That Look...
> --
> BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
>
Lady, your money's no good tonight. I'm buying. My respect for you is
climbing with each of your thoughtful posts. Thank you for saying so
lucidly what I (and others) might have foundered over. This subject is
painful to some of us and we often have a kneejerk reaction. Thanks.
Nice to know someone understands. It's not all sword rattling and macho
one-upsmanship. It's about making sure friends and family never have to
see (or wear) That Look.
Scribe (praying for the day we can all live as brothers and hoping that,
until that day, we learn never to start fights, but to *always* finish
them. Yeah, it's almost a direct quote from Sheridan in B5. JMS has a
way with words.)
michae...@worldnet.att.net
> > sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> > really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
> >
> > She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> > *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
> >
> > winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> > country."
> >
>
> draining his own glass, he echos her sentiment.
>
> "To right action, no matter the political cost."
>
>
> --
> Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> |
> Astronomer at Large - Retired Master Sergeant USMCR - Nothing I
> post represents an official position of any organization.
> On the web: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne
I'll drink to that!
*CRASH*
Scribe
Bill Gawne
>I may just be showing off my lack of knowledge here, but what exactly was
>our intervention in Mozambique? I'd not heard before of the US having troops
>there...
Actually, we deploy troops into Africa all the time, but I posted that
in haste. I *meant* Somalia, and the sustained deployment we had
there a few years ago in response to General Aideed.
Sorry about the confusion.
Joseph A. Admire
: [p&e]
: >I may just be showing off my lack of knowledge here, but what exactly was
: >our intervention in Mozambique? I'd not heard before of the US having
: >troops there...
: Actually, we deploy troops into Africa all the time, but I posted that
: in haste. I *meant* Somalia, and the sustained deployment we had
: there a few years ago in response to General Aideed.
: Sorry about the confusion.
Now that that's been sorted out, though, I admit to some perplexity about
your earlier use of the word "brutal" in reference to our intervention in
Somalia. Odd word to use in reference to a mission whose original
purpose was to protect aid workers and food shipments, and restore enough
of a semblance of order that the famine there could be stopped.
IIRC, we went after Aideed and his forces for two basic reasons;
1) he was seen as the primary obstacle to the UN humanitarian mission;
2) the US fell once again into the same faction-vs-faction trap that
bedeviled it in Lebanon, and also got "nation-building" ideas.
--
Joe Admire (jad...@netcom.com) (jad...@mnsinc.com)
East Carolina 1985 (Go Pirates!)/GWU JD 1989/legal researcher for hire
*Stevie Nicks is _still_ the queen of rock and roll.*
Team OS/2 / WWW: http://www.mnsinc.com/jadmire/
Due to the high volume of mail coming into my emailbox and Netcom's
policies on charging for disk usage, please do not email copies of posts
made in followup to this post unless specifically requested in the body
of this message. Thank you!
LePheaux
lets squash all, the bad little men and boyz, with there evil twisted.
chemically enhanced, toyz. and to a day when we don.t have to worry about
some sick zelot, or his terroristic butt, buddy,killing more americans.
and you realy oughta have a drink.
and back the fuck off of my opinions.
and NO. I don't have one iota of compassion, for the nut case, army of sad,
insane.
Beaver
Not that I like the idea of people killing more Americans, but what about the
rest of the world? I would like to extend your "toast" to cover them, too.
"To a day when we don't have to worry about anyone killing anyone else
unneccesarily!" (Not holding my breath, but...would be nice.)
--Beaver
"The man who does not read has no advantage over the one who can't."
--Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Sanford E. Walke IV
> Now that that's been sorted out, though, I admit to some perplexity about
> your earlier use of the word "brutal" in reference to our intervention in
> Somalia. Odd word to use in reference to a mission whose original
> purpose was to protect aid workers and food shipments, and restore enough
> of a semblance of order that the famine there could be stopped.
I'm pretty sure that Bill meant "brutal towards the U.S. forces". A platoon
got slaughtered pretty badly. Unfortunately, I can't recall the service they
were from, though I think it was a platoon of Army Airborne Rangers. Not
their fault, they didn't get much support, IIRC.
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
Be a trend-setter, take responsibility for the results of your actions.
I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
WareWolf
><RANT>
>I have been hearing a lot of guff about how "the timing could have
>been better because of this whole political brouhaha." Folks, this
>*entire* *last* *year* has all been bad timing for the President to
>try to do *anything*. *Any* *single* *thing* he tried to do which
>involved aggressive foreign policy was bandied about by the GOP and
>the mainstream aka *CONSERVATIVE* press as a "Wag the Dog" scenario.
>
>I'm so damn annoyed that *everything* is being cast in terms of the
>whole impeachment mess. Hello? He's a President of the USA? We
>*expect* him to do things? Would people rather he *vacationed* for
>four months out of the year like Reagan did?
></rant>
>
>**steps down off the soapbox**
Thank you, Jacob. I too am disgusted with this whole "Wag the Dog"
accusation. If Clinotn hadn't done anything after the UN Commission's
report, , he'd be labeled as "gutless" and we'd be hearing the whole
"draft-dodger" thing again.
Because he IS using military force, he's "manipulating the
situation for political gain."
Of course, the Democrats come in for their share of hypocrisy as
well. The same people who would have been advocating a diplomatic
solution any other time are waving flags and beating drums.
As far as I'm concerned NOBODY in this damn mess has any credibility
whatsoever.
Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
Dusty
(posted and e-mailed)
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused-Elvis Costello
WareWolf's weekly column: Now on the Web at www.angelfire.com/nc/dustyr/index.html
and Mondays at www.thepilot.com
Matthew T. Russotto
Bill Gawne <ga...@eta.pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
}Jenna Lionors:
}>"I have the same bad vibes about this that I had about the invasion of
}> Kuwait. All of my instincts are screaming that 'Operation Desert Fox'
}> will turn into the second Gulf War."
}
}"I think that's an unwarranted fear, Jenna. The action would have to
}undergo a MAJOR change of scope in order to turn into a sustained
}ground force action. No, this is going to be a few days of intensive
}nighttime bombing followed by both sides declaring success, unless I
}miss my guess very badly."
The question is -- can Saddam capitulate? That is, regardless of the
noise he makes, will he, after this bombing, allow the UN inspectors
back in to do whatever it is he doesn't want them doing? I don't see
how he can without major loss of face -- it might well take ground
action to force him to capitulate again.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Randolph Fritz
wrote:
>In article <75cebm$kh2$1...@bach.cs.columbia.edu>,
>Bill Gawne <ga...@eta.pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
>}
>}"I think that's an unwarranted fear, Jenna. The action would have to
>}undergo a MAJOR change of scope in order to turn into a sustained
>}ground force action. No, this is going to be a few days of intensive
>}nighttime bombing followed by both sides declaring success, unless I
>}miss my guess very badly."
>
>The question is -- can Saddam capitulate? That is, regardless of the
>noise he makes, will he, after this bombing, allow the UN inspectors
>back in to do whatever it is he doesn't want them doing? I don't see
>how he can without major loss of face -- it might well take ground
>action to force him to capitulate again.
>
"Bill, in a certain sense I don't think the first Gulf War ever really
ended. One of the worst things about undeclared wars is that there's
no real way of knowing when peace has been made. I believe that this,
nightmarishly, is the second battle of the Gulf War and there seems to
be no end in sight--right now I am simply hoping that no other states
become militarily involved.
"Matthew, I almost agree with you (does this mean that armageddon
starts tomorrow?:) with the exception that we don't actually know that
'face' is Saddam's motivation for not backing down--in fact, his
motivations are damnably obscure. The cost of this war, both
personally and to his country--which probably means something
different to him than to us--has been immense, yet he has not
surrendered. Why? Without an answer it will be difficult to end the
war while Saddam lives."
Randolph
"'For gods sake, Tully, you don't start a war with something you can't
talk to!'"--Pyanfar Chanur (CJ Cherryh)
Max and the Grey Man
> As far as I'm concerned NOBODY in this damn mess has any credibility
> whatsoever.
"Absolutely!"
> Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
"Ewww.... no thanks. 'Just Say No' to Politicians."
--
MaxCat and the Grey Man
http://www.tsquare.com/~madmax
Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat for President in Y2K!
Frank Ney
Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> to write:
>Would people rather he *vacationed* for
>four months out of the year like Reagan did?
Quite frankly, yes.
It would have severely lessened the chances of little incidents of
government-sponsored terrorism like Waco and Ruby Ridge happening. Not to
mention IRS audits of every conservative and/or libertarian organization in
the DC area that started immediately after the 1996 election. Hell, he's
even re-established the crime of lese majesty, as one Chicago couple found
out the hard way in the spring of 1997.
Then there's this little "Know Your Customer" regulation that the FDIC
sneaked onto the Federal Register where banks and credit unions are now
under orders to scrutinize your financial history and call the FBI if you do
something "unusual." Like sell your house and bank the money for a few
weeks while waiting for the title search on your new home to get done. Or
buy a new car with cash.
I'd be a lot happier if he just locked the door of the oval office and
started down the list of DC call girls, instead of what he's doing to our
liberties. Nixon was small potatoes compared to this fascist.
Clinton has done a lot of things that he *should* be impeached for,
convicted, tossed out of office and then sent to Leavenworth for some tender
loving at the hands of an HIV-positive lifer, that will never see the light
of day in a Senate Trial. I'll take the four articles I can get.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
--
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Matthew T. Russotto
Randolph Fritz <rand...@garcia.efn.org> wrote:
}In article <wRye2.952$LM4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>, Matthew T. Russotto
}wrote:
}ended. One of the worst things about undeclared wars is that there's
}no real way of knowing when peace has been made.
It ended with Saddam's surrender. Since he's violated the terms of
that surrender, the current attacks could easily be considered part of
the same conflict.
}"Matthew, I almost agree with you (does this mean that armageddon
}starts tomorrow?:) with the exception that we don't actually know that
}'face' is Saddam's motivation for not backing down--in fact, his
}motivations are damnably obscure. The cost of this war, both
}personally and to his country--which probably means something
}different to him than to us--has been immense, yet he has not
}surrendered. Why? Without an answer it will be difficult to end the
}war while Saddam lives."
There's another problem: If US officials keep talking that way (as if
Saddam has to go -- and they have been), Saddam has no incentive to
even try to end the war. I mean, whatever HE does will be unacceptable
merely because it's him doing it. The administration has painted
itself into a corner with that sort of talk, when they aren't willing
to wage the total war necessary to achieve that goal (not that I think
THAT would be desirable -- a contained Saddam is acceptable).
michae...@worldnet.att.net
>
> > As far as I'm concerned NOBODY in this damn mess has any credibility
> > whatsoever.
>
> "Absolutely!"
>
> > Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
>
> "Ewww.... no thanks. 'Just Say No' to Politicians."
>
> --
> MaxCat and the Grey Man
HOT BUTTON ALERT!
Re: saying "no to politicians:" This would evidently require too much
effort on the part of the voters. I once wrote a column (or two) on the
subject. In part, I offered this as a simple way to remind ones self
about politicians who piss you off. Get the calendar. Find election day.
Write "vote NO on (fill in the blank). But we keep re-electing the very
ones we complain about. There are days when I feel like we should throw
out everyone and start fresh. No seniority, no "good ol' boys" network,
just fresh faces. If I'm *really* pissed off, I think how nice it
would be if those who represented us were *not* the ones who *want* the
job, but the ones who were *drafted* to serve because of their
qualifications. Do the job, then get out when someone else comes up as
more qualified. Yeah, I know some are good servants to the people and
really do try to be honorable in representing us. But we're talking
about days when the anarchist in me runs rampant.
END ALERT
Scribe
Janice Munday
<snipped> -- go read it. I'm *lazy*!
Much as I dislike Clinton, I don't like the accusation that he's
using Desert Fox as a means to distract us from his "problems" here at
home.
The idea that *anyone* -- even Clinton -- could be that... well,
"evil" is the only word that fits, makes me feel ill. If things really
are *that* bad, the only answer is Revolution, IMO.
I don't like the guy, but this... No. Or at least, I *hope* not. He
may be worthless, and (at best) an embarrassment, but I don't think he's
truly evil.
JEM
I don't suffer from insanity......I'm enjoying every minute of it!
michae...@worldnet.att.net
> Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> to write:
>
> >Would people rather he *vacationed* for
> >four months out of the year like Reagan did?
>
> Quite frankly, yes.
>
> It would have severely lessened the chances of little incidents of
> government-sponsored terrorism like Waco and Ruby Ridge happening. Not to
> mention IRS audits of every conservative and/or libertarian organization in
> the DC area that started immediately after the 1996 election. Hell, he's
> even re-established the crime of lese majesty, as one Chicago couple found
> out the hard way in the spring of 1997.
>
> Then there's this little "Know Your Customer" regulation that the FDIC
> sneaked onto the Federal Register where banks and credit unions are now
> under orders to scrutinize your financial history and call the FBI if you do
> something "unusual." Like sell your house and bank the money for a few
> weeks while waiting for the title search on your new home to get done. Or
> buy a new car with cash.
>
designed to make me start looking over my shoulder, but left them in
because I hope to be fair in my own rantings here. I'd just like to
see some cites on these because in one case, the Attorney General
should have been fired for incompetence if she had to call Clinton to
approve a job within her authority, and the others I'd need more info
to comment on. It does seem that the *concept* of lese majesty has
had a number of laws based upon it. As for Clinton re-instituting it,
my Webster's Dictionary was published in 1989 and lists lese majesty
as a concept of law. Unless Clinton has a time machine, I don't think
he re-instituted it as a point of law. I'm sure someone here with a
law degree can clear that up. I might be wrong. It happens.
> I'd be a lot happier if he just locked the door of the oval office and
> started down the list of DC call girls, instead of what he's doing to our
> liberties. Nixon was small potatoes compared to this fascist.
>
I lived under Nixon as a president. He and his toadies abused and
broke a lot more laws and restricted just a few more liberties than I
can believe we allowed. Banning of books, black lists, removal of
federal funding for campuses who hired speakers on the black lists
burglary, the popularization of "rat-fucking" as a viable political
tool and more than I can't stomach before bed.
Nixon was directly involved in burglaries and the dirty tricks played
against the Democratic Party, possibly (and I say again) possibly
resulting in fixing an election. I *know* he abused his power and
authority to a greater extent than any president we know about. I
will admit there may be abuses by other presidents of which we are
(or I am) unaware. I think your statement should be reversed to be
accurate. Nixon was a thug; Clinton is a screwup. As for the charge
of fascism, the simple fact that he's currently being threatened
with impeachment would negate it. Clinton is no dictator. If you
think he's a fascist, may I (politely) suggest you look up the
definition and then do some reading on Benito Mussolini?
> Clinton has done a lot of things that he *should* be impeached for,
> convicted, tossed out of office and then sent to Leavenworth for some tender
> loving at the hands of an HIV-positive lifer, that will never see the light
> of day in a Senate Trial. I'll take the four articles I can get.
>
>
Since the people responsible for impeachment have found four articles
of impeachment, I'd have to pass off your statement as being slightly
colored by opinion, not fact. I'm a big believer in opinion. You're
welcome to yours, except as others here have pointed out to me, an
opinion not backed by facts is likely to result in a *lot* of posts
explaining just how badly you're wrong. Frankly, I find your statement
repugnant and lacking taste. I'd also request some cites. How do *you*
know?
> Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
> Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
> --
I'd have passed you off as a troll, or simply an extremist,
but if the above information is correct and correctly read by me, you
deserve a little more credit than that.
> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Anyone who reads Ayn Rand can't be all bad, can he? :)
Scribe
Janice Munday
>The question is -- can Saddam capitulate? That is,
>regardless of the noise he makes, will he, after this
>bombing, allow the UN inspectors back in to do
>whatever it is he doesn't want them doing? I don't
>see how he can without major loss of face -- it might
>well take ground action to force him to capitulate
>again.
Me, I'm afraid of (meaning "scared silly by") what could happen
*if* a bomb hits on (or near) one of the alleged chemical-warfare
factories, and the stuff gets loose.
He'd likely(!) start claiming that *we* were using chemical weapons
on *him*, and he was innocent of the (obvious) charges that it was his
own stuff that got loose from his factories.
And there are all too many fanatical USA-haters who'd believe it --
or at least *use* it.
For the experts: *Could* that happen? Or am I worrying needlessly?
Seems to me that a *direct* hit might vaporize the stuff, but what about
a "near miss"? One that just broke the containment systems, whatever
they might be?
Is this scenario/nightmare *possible*? The PTB *must've* considered
the possibility -- mustn't they?
The Trinker
Hey Scribe, you remember what happened when we had a Congress
full of freshman Republicans who didn't know the meaning of
the word "compromise"?
the trinker
--
spam filtered. To send e-mail remove the spamtrap.
Leonard Erickson
> In article <slrn77lhhv....@garcia.efn.org>,
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@garcia.efn.org> wrote:
> }In article <wRye2.952$LM4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>, Matthew T.
> Russotto
> }wrote:
> }"Bill, in a certain sense I don't think the first Gulf War ever really
> }ended. One of the worst things about undeclared wars is that there's
> }no real way of knowing when peace has been made.
>
> It ended with Saddam's surrender. Since he's violated the terms of
> that surrender, the current attacks could easily be considered part of
> the same conflict.
No. Iraq never surrendered. What happened was that a *ceasefire* was
negotiated. And Iraq *has* violated the terms. So... the war resumes.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
1,802,617,500,000 furlongs per fortnight.
It's not just a good idea, it's the Law!
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
> No. Iraq never surrendered. What happened was that a *ceasefire* was
> negotiated. And Iraq *has* violated the terms. So... the war resumes.
>
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just bought
the bastard off and shown a profit?
--
Jim
"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." The Red Queen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LePheaux
Janice Munday wrote in message
<366-367B...@newsd-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Jacob said :
<snipped> -- go read it. I'm *lazy*!
Much as I dislike Clinton, I don't like the accusation that he's
using Desert Fox as a means to distract us from his "problems" here at
home.
The idea that *anyone* -- even Clinton -- could be that... well,
"evil" is the only word that fits, makes me feel ill. If things really
are *that* bad, the only answer is Revolution, IMO.
I don't like the guy, but this... No. Or at least, I *hope* not. He
may be worthless, and (at best) an embarrassment, but I don't think he's
truly evil.
JEM
<<<>>>>
Open your eyes sweety,
it realy is the awfull truth.
Matthew T. Russotto
Janice Munday <Colora...@webtv.net> wrote:
}Jacob said :
}
}<snipped> -- go read it. I'm *lazy*!
}
} Much as I dislike Clinton, I don't like the accusation that he's
}using Desert Fox as a means to distract us from his "problems" here at
}home.
} The idea that *anyone* -- even Clinton -- could be that... well,
}"evil" is the only word that fits, makes me feel ill. If things really
}are *that* bad, the only answer is Revolution, IMO.
Well, there's no need for Revolution when Impeachment is available.
But I don't think the wag-the-dog scenario requires evil. Just
Machiavellianism. Particularly when it isn't as if Hussein didn't
have it coming -- distraction certainly wasn't the only reason for the
attack.
Matthew T. Russotto
The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for saying
"Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
As for the regulation, I would guess that he's referring to
31 CFR 103.21 (iii), concerning suspicious transactions:
"the transaction has no business or apparent lawful purpose _OR_
[emphasis mine] is not the sort in which the particular customer would
normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable
explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts,
including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
Now, I don't know about you, but IMO it's really none of the bank's
business what I do with my money -- the idea that they should figure
out what's "suspicious" for me and if I don't explain any unusual
transactions to their satisfaction they should report me to the feds
is repugnant and Orwellian.
BTW, 31 CFR 103.21 (ii) is pretty damn scary as well. It means that
a transaction deliberately structured so that it does not have to be
reported must be reported for that reason.
Ruby Ridge was done under Bush, but Clinton assisted in its coverup
and it is his adminstration which successfully protected the assassin
through a "just following orders" defense.
Waco was in the national news following the initial bungled raid. If
Clinton didn't give it personal oversight for that reason alone, he's grossly
incompetent.
BetNoir
>
> OK I'll rephrase it for you.
> lets squash all, the bad little men and boyz, with there evil twisted.
> chemically enhanced, toyz. and to a day when we don.t have to worry about
> some sick zelot, or his terroristic butt, buddy,killing more americans.
(rephrasing slashed)
Look, if you want Hussein's head on a platter, I'll bring the apple to
stuff in his mouth. If you want to throw in his military advisors, I'll
bring a bushel of apples. Toss in a few hard-line religous clerics, and
I'll make that two bushels.
Because *those* folx have done actions deserving of wanting their heads
on platters.
But Achmet and Abdul out on the street, just trying to buy groceries to
feed their families? What the hell do they care whose leading their
country? Life is still hard for them, regardless of who holds the
Sceptre of Power. And I'll betcha dinars to dollars they have as much
loyalty and love for Hussein as some folx here do for Clinton.
Achmet and Abdul are not bad people, simply because they have the
rotten-ass luck to live in a piece of real-estate owned by a bad
person. All they want is to live their lives without having the roof of
their house blown off -- and it's not as though it matters to them
whether it was an Iraqi or a US bomb that done the deal.
Or are you saying that all of a country's citizens should be held
responsible for their leader's actions? If so, the FBI has a helluva
job here in the US rounding up all of those Americans who aren't 100%
behind Clinton.
--
BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
'Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats' -- H.L. Mencken
'It's a long day....living in Reseda....' -- T. Petty
Austin Ziegler
On 19 Dec 1998 michae...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
>> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
>> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
>> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
>> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
> Anyone who reads Ayn Rand can't be all bad, can he? :)
Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o sometime to
see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
-f, no respect for Randians.
--
austin ziegler * fantome(at)the(dash)wire(dot)com * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ 25049818 (H) * fantome(at)vnet(dot)net * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ 21088733 (W) * fantome526(at)yahoo(dot)com *-----------------------
AIM Fantome526 * austinz(at)netscape(dot)net * There is no luck
-----------------* aziegler(at)email(dot)com * without discipline
I speak for none * fantome526(at)zdnetmail(dot)com *-----------------------
but myself * aziegler(at)solect(dot)com * Toronto, ON, Canada
Austin Ziegler
On 19 Dec 1998, LePheaux wrote:
> Open your eyes sweety,
> it realy is the awfull truth.
The only truth which has been shown is that you're a bloodthirsty liar.
-f
Michael Hugen
BetNoir wrote in message <367BE1...@earthlink.net>...
>LePheaux wrote:
>>
>> OK I'll rephrase it for you.
>> lets squash all, the bad little men and boyz, with there evil twisted.
>> chemically enhanced, toyz. and to a day when we don.t have to worry about
>> some sick zelot, or his terroristic butt, buddy,killing more americans.
>
>(rephrasing slashed)
>
>Look, if you want Hussein's head on a platter, I'll bring the apple to
>stuff in his mouth. If you want to throw in his military advisors, I'll
>bring a bushel of apples. Toss in a few hard-line religous clerics, and
>I'll make that two bushels.
>
>Because *those* folx have done actions deserving of wanting their heads
>on platters.
>
Can I have a copy of the group photo? :) Then we could include a copy with
every diplomatic communique to whatever zealot of the moment is rattling
sabres.
>But Achmet and Abdul out on the street, just trying to buy groceries to
>feed their families? What the hell do they care whose leading their
>country? Life is still hard for them, regardless of who holds the
>Sceptre of Power. And I'll betcha dinars to dollars they have as much
>loyalty and love for Hussein as some folx here do for Clinton.
>
Without the right to express it. Your generic residents may not even have
the option of leaving.
>Achmet and Abdul are not bad people, simply because they have the
>rotten-ass luck to live in a piece of real-estate owned by a bad
>person. All they want is to live their lives without having the roof of
>their house blown off -- and it's not as though it matters to them
>whether it was an Iraqi or a US bomb that done the deal.
>
Absolutely. Unfortunately, they are casualties of (even an undeclared) war.
There's a big picture of some Achmet or Abdul missing an arm and a leg on
the front page of my morning newspaper. Journalists were allowed to take
photos to show what Big Bad America is doing to poor little Hussein.
Unfortunately, Hussein doesn't seem to care about what results *his* actions
will have on his people. He has power over, but no responsibility to, his
own people.
>Or are you saying that all of a country's citizens should be held
>responsible for their leader's actions? If so, the FBI has a helluva
>job here in the US rounding up all of those Americans who aren't 100%
>behind Clinton.
>
He's offering the same kneejerk reaction a lot of people have. Others have
the kneejerk reaction that we shouldn't be doing it at all. Neither side
seems to have given the matter as much thought as you. In this type of
military action, there are going to be casualties. It's unfortunate and
regrettable, but it *will* happen. Hussein has used his weapons against his
own people. What makes us think he would hesitate to use them against us?
For me, hurting Achmet and Abdul is an unfortunate, but acceptable side
effect of putting Hussein out of business and keeping my family, you and
John and Jill safe from his brand of terrorism. If we *don't* put him out of
business, by killing him or capturing him for a trial before a world court,
then I would agree we shouldn't have made the move. All of the above is IMO.
>
Scribe
Never start a fight, but *always* finish it.
(JMS, through the character of John Sheridan, Babylon 5)
Michael Hugen
Austin Ziegler wrote in message ...
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:39:23 PDT
>
>On 19 Dec 1998 michae...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
>>> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
>>> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
>>> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
>>> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
>> Anyone who reads Ayn Rand can't be all bad, can he? :)
>
>Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o sometime to
>see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
>
couldn't decipher your shorthand. To me, APO means Army Post Office and I'm
not even going to *try* the other. :)
>-f, no respect for Randians.
>--
Well, I was trying to temper my comments, but at least they read, right?
Scribe
Janice Munday
>Idle question for the world at large: at a million
>dollars plus for each cruise missle, plus associated
>operating costs, couldn't we have just bought the
>bastard off and shown a profit?
I'd agree that it was worth a try, except for one thing: I very
much doubt that he's an "honest politician". (IOW, I don't think he'd
*stay* bought.)
He'd just have that much more money to play with -- US dollars,
yet. His (apparent) idea of Fun And Games is *not* A Good Thing, and I
don't think we need to subsidize it to *any* degree.
It's too bad he *wouldn't* stay bought, though. I've a feeling it
would follow the old "Danegeld" saying. <sigh> It might almost be worth
it... (Note that I said "might" and "almost", please!)
The Trinker
Michael Hugen wrote:
>
> Austin Ziegler wrote in message ...
> >-f, no respect for Randians.
> >--
> Well, I was trying to temper my comments, but at least they read, right?
"At least they read" seems like an awfully broad category...
Without being a total literary snob (I like to read trash
for fun, too...) reading too much propagandistic stuff with
a biased bent can warp a person's mind. (In general. I
couldn't get through Ayn Rand, and proffer no read judgment)
Steve Brinich
> The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for
> saying "Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
That would be the case of Patricia and Glenn Mendoza -- see
http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/freespch.html for more details.
(A general overview of Clinton's wretched civil liberties record can be
found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271es.html.)
> As for the regulation, I would guess that he's referring to
> 31 CFR 103.21 (iii), concerning suspicious transactions:
> "the transaction has no business or apparent lawful purpose _OR_
> [emphasis mine] is not the sort in which the particular customer would
> normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable
> explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts,
> including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
>
> Now, I don't know about you, but IMO it's really none of the bank's
> business what I do with my money -- the idea that they should figure
> out what's "suspicious" for me and if I don't explain any unusual
> transactions to their satisfaction they should report me to the feds
> is repugnant and Orwellian.
Indeed. Any attempt by the government to create a vague, open-ended
obligation for third parties to report information is *extremely*
dangerous -- by having some private citizen do the actual snooping, the
government evades all limitations and accountability.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Steve Brinich
> Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o
> sometime to see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
No can do. My brain melted when I tried to wrap it around a bunch of
Taxes=Investment twaddle.... :-)
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
bet...@earthlink.net wrote:
> LePheaux wrote:
> >
> > OK I'll rephrase it for you.
> > lets squash all, the bad little men and boyz, with there evil twisted.
> > chemically enhanced, toyz. and to a day when we don.t have to worry about
> > some sick zelot, or his terroristic butt, buddy,killing more americans.
>
> (rephrasing slashed)
>
> Look, if you want Hussein's head on a platter, I'll bring the apple to
> stuff in his mouth. If you want to throw in his military advisors, I'll
> bring a bushel of apples. Toss in a few hard-line religous clerics, and
> I'll make that two bushels.
>
> Because *those* folx have done actions deserving of wanting their heads
> on platters.
>
> feed their families? What the hell do they care whose leading their
> country? Life is still hard for them, regardless of who holds the
> Sceptre of Power. And I'll betcha dinars to dollars they have as much
> loyalty and love for Hussein as some folx here do for Clinton.
>
> rotten-ass luck to live in a piece of real-estate owned by a bad
> person. All they want is to live their lives without having the roof of
> their house blown off -- and it's not as though it matters to them
> whether it was an Iraqi or a US bomb that done the deal.
>
> responsible for their leader's actions? If so, the FBI has a helluva
> job here in the US rounding up all of those Americans who aren't 100%
> behind Clinton.
>
> BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
Again I owe you a drink, lady. Even if Achmet and Abdul are wearing uniforms
(anything below the equivalent rank of, say, captain), the poor bastards
haven't had any say in the shit that's been flying. There were an awful lot
of corpses in Kuwait that would have preferred to be at home with the wife
and kids.
Did anybody ever come up with a body count for that one? A hundred thousand?
Two? And how many have died since, just because the man at the top is a
bastard?
Sorry about the mini-rant. I tend to get touchy about people blaming the
grunts. Most of them would be someplace else if they were allowed the choice.
Frank Ney
russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) to write:
>}I almost snipped the above and dismissed it as paranoiac ravings
I'm really glad I bit my tongue on this little item. This person would wear
his chains proudly -- even help them put them on his body.
>The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for saying
>"Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
Yes, that's the one. So much for the First Amendment.
>As for the regulation, I would guess that he's referring to
>31 CFR 103.21 (iii), concerning suspicious transactions:
>"the transaction has no business or apparent lawful purpose _OR_
>[emphasis mine] is not the sort in which the particular customer would
>normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable
>explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts,
>including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
>
>BTW, 31 CFR 103.21 (ii) is pretty damn scary as well. It means that
>a transaction deliberately structured so that it does not have to be
>reported must be reported for that reason.
BTW, the comment period for these regulations has yet to expire, so you can
still object to this little fascist idea. Not that it will do much good to
object.
Congressman Ron Paul is also submitting a bill to revoke the regulation.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
--
John Palmer
T. Russotto) wrote:
>But I don't think the wag-the-dog scenario requires evil. Just
>Machiavellianism. Particularly when it isn't as if Hussein didn't
>have it coming -- distraction certainly wasn't the only reason for the
>attack.
Just note, though: had he waited until after the vote, he'd be
starting during Ramadan (the Muslim holy month). Had he done it
earlier that week, he'd be looking at a lot more undeclared
Republicans. He knew that the vote could be rescheduled.
If it was a "wag the dog" scenario, it was a very badly done one,
IMHO, and I think he's good enough that he'd have been able to time it
better if he'd been doing it for that reason.
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kindergarten. Like: morality must exist beyond the
purview of a deity if morality is to have a meaning
beyond tyranny.
John Palmer
(Janice Munday) wrote:
>
> Me, I'm afraid of (meaning "scared silly by") what could happen
>*if* a bomb hits on (or near) one of the alleged chemical-warfare
>factories, and the stuff gets loose.
> He'd likely(!) start claiming that *we* were using chemical weapons
>on *him*, and he was innocent of the (obvious) charges that it was his
>own stuff that got loose from his factories.
But when he wouldn't let any inspectors in to see the site, he'd
probably not be believed. The inspectors are *SHARP*. . . they'd be
able to prove it was stored there.
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
"When once you pay the Danegeld,
"You can never get rid of the Dane."
Kipling, probably misquoted (late on a Saturday night and too self-medicated
to bother going downstairs to look it up).
Yeah.
But the cost-effectiveness of this whole pile of shit escapes me. We're
making a lot of very expensive holes in the sand without coming anywhere
close to the real problem. And now we've called off the dogs for Ramadan.
Playing arbitrary craps with people's lives....
--
Jim
Adjourning to the smooching thread...nobody's getting killed there. A few
heart attacks, yes. But they're all volunteers.
Kate Collins
Ney) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:57:03 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused
>russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) to write:
>
>>}I almost snipped the above and dismissed it as paranoiac ravings
>
>I'm really glad I bit my tongue on this little item. This person would wear
>his chains proudly -- even help them put them on his body.
>
>>The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for saying
>>"Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
>
Interesting. I thought that was what his little problem was . . .hmmm
*sigh* Isn't there also some law about "Truth in advertising"?
<<snip>>>
>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
>Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
KC (who thinks that politics are the funniest games on earth.)
michae...@worldnet.att.net
> <michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> }croake...@barkingmad.org (Frank Ney) writes: > On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:54:22 -0500, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> }> Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> to write:
> }>
> }> >Would people rather he *vacationed* for
> }> >four months out of the year like Reagan did?
> }>
> }> Quite frankly, yes.
> }>
> }> It would have severely lessened the chances of little incidents of
> }> government-sponsored terrorism like Waco and Ruby Ridge happening. Not to
> }> mention IRS audits of every conservative and/or libertarian organization in
> }> the DC area that started immediately after the 1996 election. Hell, he's
> }> even re-established the crime of lese majesty, as one Chicago couple found
> }> out the hard way in the spring of 1997.
> }>
> }> Then there's this little "Know Your Customer" regulation that the FDIC
> }> sneaked onto the Federal Register where banks and credit unions are now
> }> under orders to scrutinize your financial history and call the FBI if you do
> }> something "unusual." Like sell your house and bank the money for a few
> }> weeks while waiting for the title search on your new home to get done. Or
> }> buy a new car with cash.
> }>
> }because I hope to be fair in my own rantings here. I'd just like to
> }see some cites on these because in one case, the Attorney General
> }should have been fired for incompetence if she had to call Clinton to
> }approve a job within her authority, and the others I'd need more info
> }to comment on. It does seem that the *concept* of lese majesty has
> }had a number of laws based upon it. As for Clinton re-instituting it,
> }my Webster's Dictionary was published in 1989 and lists lese majesty
> }as a concept of law. Unless Clinton has a time machine, I don't think
> }he re-instituted it as a point of law. I'm sure someone here with a
> }law degree can clear that up. I might be wrong. It happens.
>
> "Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
>
was arrested, I'd suspect it was more than a comment, or some police
were being hotshots. If the latter, I'd hazard a guess that a lawsuit
was, or should be, filed. Again, I don't have enough knowledge of the
incident to do more than offer opinion on what's been *said,* not what
happened.
> As for the regulation, I would guess that he's referring to
> 31 CFR 103.21 (iii), concerning suspicious transactions:
> "the transaction has no business or apparent lawful purpose _OR_
> [emphasis mine] is not the sort in which the particular customer would
> normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable
> explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts,
> including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
>
> Now, I don't know about you, but IMO it's really none of the bank's
> business what I do with my money -- the idea that they should figure
> out what's "suspicious" for me and if I don't explain any unusual
> transactions to their satisfaction they should report me to the feds
> is repugnant and Orwellian.
>
Nice turn of phrase, Matthew, and I agree with you. I thought it funny
that Citibank started airing ads about how pleased they were when the
bank called to find out about the usage of thier credit card. As spin,
it's damn near classic.
> BTW, 31 CFR 103.21 (ii) is pretty damn scary as well. It means that
> a transaction deliberately structured so that it does not have to be
> reported must be reported for that reason.
>
Once again, security taken to extremes. Once again, big bad government
in our business. That is *not* sarcasm; I agree that it's scary, even
though I could postulate a semi-cogent reason why they think they need
it. Doesn't make it right.
> Ruby Ridge was done under Bush, but Clinton assisted in its coverup
> and it is his adminstration which successfully protected the assassin
> through a "just following orders" defense.
>
Okay, let's just agree to disagree on this one. I think assassin is too
strong a charge, but feel *both* sides contributed to the regrettable
incident.
> Waco was in the national news following the initial bungled raid. If
> Clinton didn't give it personal oversight for that reason alone, he's grossly
> incompetent.
>
I disagree, Matthew. I think that, under the circumstances, any general
would not be held accountable for the actions of a subordinate exceeding
his/her authority. That superior officer likely was briefed on a daily
basis for self-protection. Me Lai (SP?) comes to mind.
Thanks for the info. I still don't necessarily see how Frank (or anyone
else) could blame Clinton for the acts of subordinates acting within
their authority. The exception to this would be proof that Clinton
personally had the woman (or couple or whatever) arrested. That he
personally ordered banks to take these actions, or that he personally
directed the operations of either Ruby Ridge or Waco and ordered a
subsequent cover up. It seems many are grasping for *anything* or
*everything* they can throw at him. We have enough; we don't have to
look *that* hard. Despite what it may look like, I'm not defending
Clinton. I just think this is all an exercise in futility. Say he gets
impeached (likely). Then he is convicted (lesser chance). He is removed
from office and the new president simply *pardons* him in return for
political considerations. They did it for Nixon, why not Clinton?
Scribe
michae...@worldnet.att.net
Scribe:
> >}I almost snipped the above and dismissed it as paranoiac ravings
>
> I'm really glad I bit my tongue on this little item. This person would wear
> his chains proudly -- even help them put them on his body.
>
That would be me you're talking about. Your snip of attribution makes it
look like Matthew. He speaks for himself, as do I. Anyone who knows me
would tell you I don't react well to anyones chains. Not the governments,
not the survivalists, not the religionists and certainly not yours. I
say what I believe to be true and am man enough to admit when I'm proven
wrong. *Try* to put chains on me and you'll find out how "helpful" I am.
Here's where Matthew kicks in with some requested cites:
> >The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for saying
> >"Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
>
Frank:
> Yes, that's the one. So much for the First Amendment.
>
Me:
Really? Would you have me believe Clinton jumped into the crowd to
arrest her? Or personally ordered the arrest? I find it more likely
that her "attack" was more than verbal or some official over-reacted.
I don't have the information I need to talk facts. This sort of
reminds me of McCarthy waving papers and announcing he had the names of
communists "right here." We didn't see the names, we didn't get the
facts. He simply played to the fears of his audience. If you take that
as an unwarranted comparison, well....
Matthew:
> >As for the regulation, I would guess that he's referring to
> >31 CFR 103.21 (iii), concerning suspicious transactions:
> >"the transaction has no business or apparent lawful purpose _OR_
> >[emphasis mine] is not the sort in which the particular customer would
> >normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable
> >explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts,
> >including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
> >
> >BTW, 31 CFR 103.21 (ii) is pretty damn scary as well. It means that
> >a transaction deliberately structured so that it does not have to be
> >reported must be reported for that reason.
>
Me:
I've already discussed this in a response to Matthew's post. I agree
with him.
Frank:
> BTW, the comment period for these regulations has yet to expire, so you can
> still object to this little fascist idea. Not that it will do much good to
> object.
>
Me:
Finally, something concrete! I'll ignore the negative. That's your
opinion and welcome to it. As for the word fascist, you evidently
haven't done that reading I suggested. IMO (and that of the dictionary),
you are misusing the word. I hope you do so because you really don't
know what it means. If you're doing it to scare people, few, if any, in
the Place would fall for such tactics. I hope you never live under a
*real* fascist. Nixon was as close as I care to come.
Frank:
> Congressman Ron Paul is also submitting a bill to revoke the regulation.
>
Me:
Now here's some info we can use! How do we contact him? Or is that too
much to ask? Matthew? Do *you* have any info on how we can protest this?
Scribe
michae...@worldnet.att.net
>
> > The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for
> > saying "Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/freespch.html for more details.
> (A general overview of Clinton's wretched civil liberties record can be
> found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271es.html.)
>
Steve, let me get you a BOYC. The article states that 15 minutes after
Clinton left, she was arrested. Her husband was arrested for informing
her she might need a lawyer. IMO, given the court findings cited in the
article, they shouldn't have too many problems suing the hell out of
*someone* for false arrest.
(snip)
Scribe
Bill Gawne
>: Actually, we deploy troops into Africa all the time, but I posted that
>: in haste. I *meant* Somalia, and the sustained deployment we had
>: there a few years ago in response to General Aideed.
Joe:
>Now that that's been sorted out, though, I admit to some perplexity about
>your earlier use of the word "brutal" in reference to our intervention in
>Somalia.
I was using it in the sense of the kind of actions American forces
found themselves involved in there. Very brutal, chilling, combat of
the most primitive and horrific sort. It's not so much that our
forces started things that way, but that after a while it got that
way. Consider the Army Rangers who won the Medal of Honor, and what
they experienced while engaged in that action.
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu>
Astronomer at Large - Retired Master Sergeant USMCR - Nothing I
post represents an official position of any organization.
On the web: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne
Leonard Erickson
> Me, I'm afraid of (meaning "scared silly by") what could happen
> *if* a bomb hits on (or near) one of the alleged chemical-warfare
> factories, and the stuff gets loose.
> He'd likely(!) start claiming that *we* were using chemical weapons
> on *him*, and he was innocent of the (obvious) charges that it was his
> own stuff that got loose from his factories.
> And there are all too many fanatical USA-haters who'd believe it --
> or at least *use* it.
>
> For the experts: *Could* that happen? Or am I worrying needlessly?
> Seems to me that a *direct* hit might vaporize the stuff, but what about
> a "near miss"? One that just broke the containment systems, whatever
> they might be?
> Is this scenario/nightmare *possible*? The PTB *must've* considered
> the possibility -- mustn't they?
For this to happen, he has to already have the stuff made and
stockpiled. We are pretty sure that he *hasn't*. It's hard to hide the
required gear and chemical stocks (you *can* claim they are for
something else, such as pharmecuticals or insecticides, but on-site
examination will tell the tale).
What is being looked for are *plans*, and *components* that might be
used for making things he shouldn't have.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
1,802,617,500,000 furlongs per fortnight.
Leonard Erickson
> In article <981219.012448...@krypton.rain.com>,
> kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>>
>> No. Iraq never surrendered. What happened was that a *ceasefire* was
>> negotiated. And Iraq *has* violated the terms. So... the war resumes.
>>
>> --
>> Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
>
> Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
> cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just bought
> the bastard off and shown a profit?
*If* he'd take the money, how do we know that he'd *stay* bought?
Bill Longley
>
>Austin Ziegler wrote in message ...
>>
>>On 19 Dec 1998 michae...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
>>>> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
>>>> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
>>>> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
>>
>>see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
>>
>couldn't decipher your shorthand. To me, APO means Army Post Office and I'm
>not even going to *try* the other. :)
Similar on a.p.o, but my mind automatically put O, E, I and another I
over the dots in the second.
--
Bill Longley
Too many crosswords during his misspent youth (which hasn't ended yet, BTW)
Bill Longley
>Congressman Ron Paul is also submitting a bill to revoke the regulation.
I must admit I had to reread the above very carefully before I realised
our favourite South African Honorary Goodwench _hasn't_ entered US
politics...
--
Bill Longley
... although it would make things more entertaining if he did!
Rev. Dr. Elocutus, first of the Borg Cardinals
jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
>In article <981219.012448...@krypton.rain.com>,
> kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>>
>> No. Iraq never surrendered. What happened was that a *ceasefire* was
>> negotiated. And Iraq *has* violated the terms. So... the war resumes.
>>
>> --
>> Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
>
>Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
>cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just bought
>the bastard off and shown a profit?
We tried that with Mbutu Sese Seko in Zaire. It just turned his
regime into more of a kleptocracy. (Similarly, we spent US$4 billion
dollars on drug enforcement in a year where the cartels made US$3
billion.
--Elocutus
===
"If I could work my will, every idiot who goes
about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should
be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a
stake of holly through his heart." --E. Scrooge
Rev. Dr. Elocutus, first of the Borg Cardinals
jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
>Did anybody ever come up with a body count for that one? A hundred thousand?
>Two? And how many have died since, just because the man at the top is a
>bastard?
Last time I checked, the official count was 250,000 Iraqis and 191
Americans (more than half lost to friendly fire.)
Austin Ziegler
On 19 Dec 1998, Michael Hugen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote in message ...
>>> Anyone who reads Ayn Rand can't be all bad, can he? :)
>> Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o sometime to
>> see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
> No thanks, I have enough headaches just trying to keep up here! Besides, I
> couldn't decipher your shorthand. To me, APO means Army Post Office and I'm
> not even going to *try* the other. :)
a.p.o == alt.philosophy.*bj*ct*v*sm -- and .bj.ct.v.sts is using sort of a
regexp-like shorthand to hide the actual name of the "philosophers" who
follow Randian "teachings".
> >-f, no respect for Randians.
> Well, I was trying to temper my comments, but at least they read, right?
Maybe. I think half of them are told what Rand meant and believe it
whole cloth. I'm not sure that literate people can be as unthinking,
vile, and regressive as .bj.ct.v.sts tend to be.
Jimmy M. Pierce
Rev. Dr. Elocutus, first of the Borg Cardinals wrote:
: In the footnotes of the Starr Report covering alt.callahans,
: jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
: >Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
: >cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just bought
: >the bastard off and shown a profit?
: We tried that with Mbutu Sese Seko in Zaire. It just turned his
: regime into more of a kleptocracy. (Similarly, we spent US$4 billion
: dollars on drug enforcement in a year where the cartels made US$3
: billion.
Dane Geld and Paying off the Huns is only temporary.
It doesn't work.
DJ.
--
Jim Pierce jmpi...@DESPAMMEDocean.otr.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
Video: Smash Mouth 'Walking on the Sun'
updated Nov. 24, 1998 My Web page: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~jmpierce
Coast Con 22. March 19-21, 1999. http://www.coastcon.org/
Austin Ziegler
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Steve Brinich wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o
> > sometime to see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
> No can do. My brain melted when I tried to wrap it around a bunch of
> Taxes=Investment twaddle.... :-)
But I see Taxes=Necessity (as in you live in society: part of that
obligation is taxes; don't like it? move where there's no taxes or change
your society so that there aren't...)
Austin Ziegler
[p&e]
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Leonard Erickson wrote:
> jhe...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for
>> each cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we
>> have just bought the bastard off and shown a profit?
> *If* he'd take the money, how do we know that he'd *stay* bought?
We know he wouldn't. He was bought off during the Iran/Iraq conflict. We
provided much of the capabilities for his ability to fight in the Gulf
war.
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
Elocutu...@hotmail.com (Rev. Dr. Elocutus, first of the Borg Cardinals)
wrote:
> In the footnotes of the Starr Report covering alt.callahans,
> jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
>
> >Two? And how many have died since, just because the man at the top is a
> >bastard?
>
> Last time I checked, the official count was 250,000 Iraqis and 191
> Americans (more than half lost to friendly fire.)
>
> --Elocutus
Thank you. Kinda puts Saddam's attitude towards popular government in
perspective, don't it?
--
Jim
"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." The Red Queen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rev. Dr. Elocutus, first of the Borg Cardinals
Ziegler <azie...@the-wire.com> was rumored to have said:
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:39:23 PDT
>
>On 19 Dec 1998 michae...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
>>> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
>>> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
>>> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
>>> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
>
>see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
>
Or anyone else for that matter, Zeigler. Why should we Randians be
exempted?
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
> : In the footnotes of the Starr Report covering alt.callahans,
> : jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
>
> : >Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
> : >cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just
bought
> : >the bastard off and shown a profit?
>
> : regime into more of a kleptocracy. (Similarly, we spent US$4 billion
> : dollars on drug enforcement in a year where the cartels made US$3
> : billion.
>
> Dane Geld and Paying off the Huns is only temporary.
> It doesn't work.
>
> DJ.
> --
I made a follow-up post quoting Kipling on the subject of Danegeld, but it
doesn't seem to have made it out of DejaNews. I _don't_ actually think we
would have been better off bribing Saddam. As others have pointed out, for
that to work, we'd have to assume he would be an honest politician and stay
bought.
But is this a cost-effective way to go after the bastard? It seems rather
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Noah Singman
>But I see Taxes=Necessity (as in you live in society: part of that
>obligation is taxes; don't like it? move where there's no taxes or
>change your society so that there aren't...)
"I respectfully disagree. The government can raise money for general funds
using lotteries (and they have the additional advantage of separating fools
from their money). And for services provided by the government (roads,
schools, etc.), the government can charge tolls, tuition, etc. - usage
fees."
Noah
Noah Singman
>Maybe. I think half of them are told what Rand meant and believe it
>whole cloth. I'm not sure that literate people can be as unthinking,
>vile, and regressive as .bj.ct.v.sts tend to be.
"What a tempered, balanced comment - 'unthinking, vile and regressive'. We
objectivists believe in a few simple things, with which you are free to
disagree."
"1) The world around us actually exists, and we do not believe in other
realms for which we have no evidence. In other words, we're not mystics."
"2) The only way to acquire knowledge is via observation and integration of
those observations. We don't believe in intuition, or faith - only reason."
"3) We act in our own self-interest, and recognize no a priori obligation to
others (excepting our children). When we act generously toward friends and
acquaintances, as I often do, it is because I value their company and
pleasure - not because I have any obligation."
"4) Politically, we are laissez-faire capitalists. We believe that when
people interact, it should be on a strictly voluntary basis, and free of
compulsion and external interference."
"Goodness, but that was SO unthinking, vile and regressive! My apologies to
one and all."
Noah
Randolph Fritz
wrote:
>
> Me, I'm afraid of (meaning "scared silly by") what could happen
>*if* a bomb hits on (or near) one of the alleged chemical-warfare
>factories, and the stuff gets loose.
> He'd likely(!) start claiming that *we* were using chemical weapons
>on *him*, and he was innocent of the (obvious) charges that it was his
>own stuff that got loose from his factories.
> And there are all too many fanatical USA-haters who'd believe it --
>or at least *use* it.
>
"Our military has said that they are specifically avoiding known
chemical-weapons facilities. But, of course, they do not know all of
them so I'd have to say that, while it is unlikely, yes it could
happen."
R.
DMFideas
posted:
>In the footnotes of the Starr Report covering alt.callahans,
>jhe...@my-dejanews.com was rumored to have said:
>
>>Did anybody ever come up with a body count for that one? A hundred
>thousand?
>>Two? And how many have died since, just because the man at the top is a
>>bastard?
>
>Last time I checked, the official count was 250,000 Iraqis and 191
>Americans (more than half lost to friendly fire.)
>
I wasn't aware that there was ever an official countfor the Iraqi dead . I
have read estimates all over the board . The 250,000 was usually quoted in the
popular press , However I read a paper in either Foreign Affairs or Foreign
Policy Where the estimate was way lower around 10,000 or so . One of his
main arguments he used to base his argument was the lack of wounded . He
claimed that the standard wounded to killed was 3 to 1 there were not that
many wounded. For those who would say use of mo9dern fire arms made the kill
rate higher he used the example of the friendly fire where the number of
killed to wounded was known and he said it was 1 for every 3 wounded.
Dale
Dale
Matthew T. Russotto
John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:43:33 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew
}T. Russotto) wrote:
}
}>But I don't think the wag-the-dog scenario requires evil. Just
}>Machiavellianism. Particularly when it isn't as if Hussein didn't
}>have it coming -- distraction certainly wasn't the only reason for the
}>attack.
} Just note, though: had he waited until after the vote, he'd be
}starting during Ramadan (the Muslim holy month). Had he done it
}earlier that week, he'd be looking at a lot more undeclared
}Republicans. He knew that the vote could be rescheduled.
He continued bombing during Ramadan, which makes that justification a
little thin IMO.
} If it was a "wag the dog" scenario, it was a very badly done one,
}IMHO, and I think he's good enough that he'd have been able to time it
}better if he'd been doing it for that reason.
Best case scenario for Clinton was that they delay the vote until
after the bombing, during which time he either obtained votes by
beating up on Saddam and declaring victory, or pushed it off until it
was too late for this Congress, putting it into the next Congress
where there's more Democrats. If that was the plan, the timing was
perfect for it.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
<michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > In article <75flne$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
}> "Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
}>
}Simply stating her opinion that Clinton sucks? That's free speech. If she
}was arrested, I'd suspect it was more than a comment, or some police
}were being hotshots.
*sigh* -- this is one way authorities get away with all that they do.
People simply refuse to believe bad things about them. If she was
arrested, she MUST have done wrong.
}> Ruby Ridge was done under Bush, but Clinton assisted in its coverup
}> and it is his adminstration which successfully protected the assassin
}> through a "just following orders" defense.
}>
}Okay, let's just agree to disagree on this one. I think assassin is too
}strong a charge, but feel *both* sides contributed to the regrettable
}incident.
Besides the point. Weaver was punished for his alleged parts in the
incident. The Feds recieved no punishment for their alleged parts.
}> Waco was in the national news following the initial bungled raid. If
}> Clinton didn't give it personal oversight for that reason alone, he's grossly
}> incompetent.
}>
}I disagree, Matthew. I think that, under the circumstances, any general
}would not be held accountable for the actions of a subordinate exceeding
}his/her authority. That superior officer likely was briefed on a daily
}basis for self-protection. Me Lai (SP?) comes to mind.
The subordinate was not held accountable EITHER. If Reno did wrong, it
was Clinton's job to discipline or dismiss her. If he did not, he
obviously felt she did no wrong. And, as Truman said, "The buck stops here"
}Clinton. I just think this is all an exercise in futility. Say he gets
}impeached (likely). Then he is convicted (lesser chance). He is removed
}from office and the new president simply *pardons* him in return for
}political considerations. They did it for Nixon, why not Clinton?
Then he's out of office. A lot better than nothing, which is the
other alternative.
Matthew T. Russotto
<michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}croake...@barkingmad.org (Frank Ney) writes: > On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:57:03 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused
}
}> >"Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
}>
}> Yes, that's the one. So much for the First Amendment.
}>
}Me:
}Really? Would you have me believe Clinton jumped into the crowd to
}arrest her? Or personally ordered the arrest? I find it more likely
}that her "attack" was more than verbal or some official over-reacted.
}I don't have the information I need to talk facts. This sort of
}reminds me of McCarthy waving papers and announcing he had the names of
}communists "right here." We didn't see the names, we didn't get the
}facts. He simply played to the fears of his audience. If you take that
}as an unwarranted comparison, well....
We've given the names. In one case, I literally quoted you chapter
and verse from the Code of Federal Regulations.
}Frank:
}> BTW, the comment period for these regulations has yet to expire, so you can
}> still object to this little fascist idea. Not that it will do much good to
}> object.
}>
}Me:
}Finally, something concrete! I'll ignore the negative. That's your
}opinion and welcome to it. As for the word fascist, you evidently
}haven't done that reading I suggested. IMO (and that of the dictionary),
}you are misusing the word.
The co-option of nominally private organizations as de-facto organs of the
state is characteristic of fascism.
}Now here's some info we can use! How do we contact him? Or is that too
}much to ask? Matthew? Do *you* have any info on how we can protest this?
Not effectively.
Matthew T. Russotto
DMFideas <dmfi...@aol.comdespam> wrote:
}I wasn't aware that there was ever an official countfor the Iraqi dead . I
}have read estimates all over the board . The 250,000 was usually quoted in the
}popular press , However I read a paper in either Foreign Affairs or Foreign
}Policy Where the estimate was way lower around 10,000 or so . One of his
}main arguments he used to base his argument was the lack of wounded . He
}claimed that the standard wounded to killed was 3 to 1 there were not that
}many wounded. For those who would say use of mo9dern fire arms made the kill
}rate higher he used the example of the friendly fire where the number of
}killed to wounded was known and he said it was 1 for every 3 wounded.
IIRC the overestimates were largely attributed to assuming that the people in
the units bombed on the "highway of death" or whatever it was called
were killed, when in fact they had fled before the bombing.
Steve Brinich
>Steve Brinich <ste...@radix.net> writes: > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> > The case referred to is probably one where a woman was arrested for
>> > saying "Mr. Clinton, you suck" or some similar thing.
>>
>> That would be the case of Patricia and Glenn Mendoza -- see
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/freespch.html for more details.
>> (A general overview of Clinton's wretched civil liberties record
>> can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271es.html.)
>
> The first one worked and was informative. I couldn't link to the
> second.
I tried it again, and it worked; try it again and see if the Internet
gremlins have gone away.
(You can also try http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html, which goes
directly to the full document rather than the summary; note that the
document is about 175K.)
> Steve, let me get you a BOYC. The article states that 15 minutes after
> Clinton left, she was arrested. Her husband was arrested for informing
> her she might need a lawyer. IMO, given the court findings cited in
> the article, they shouldn't have too many problems suing the hell out
> of *someone* for false arrest.
Thanks for the BOYC. As for the lawsuit, I don't know if the case was
followed up.
"How much justice can you afford?"
-- Londo Mollari, "Believers"
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Austin Ziegler
Both of which hit poorer people harder than they do richer people.
Nice and equitable.
Austin Ziegler
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Noah Singman wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >Maybe. I think half of them are told what Rand meant and believe it
> >whole cloth. I'm not sure that literate people can be as unthinking,
> >vile, and regressive as .bj.ct.v.sts tend to be.
> "What a tempered, balanced comment - 'unthinking, vile and
> regressive'. We objectivists believe in a few simple things, with
> which you are free to disagree."
I have found objectivists to be unthinking, vile, and regressive. They
pretend that user fees are fair (ignoring the fact that the wealthy pay
less in user fees than the poor do, meaning that the wealthy live like the
JP Morgans of old: on the backs of everyone else, getting benefit from
everyone else's work). They pretend that people who are out of work are so
because of their own devices. They are not people I have an ounce of
respect for. If that includes you, I make no apologies: you're the one who
chose that vile philosophy.
> "1) The world around us actually exists, and we do not believe in other
> realms for which we have no evidence. In other words, we're not mystics."
Which is shorthand for "I believe what my own two eyes can see." Incredibly
short-sighted. I suppose you don't believe in emotion, either.
> "2) The only way to acquire knowledge is via observation and integration of
> those observations. We don't believe in intuition, or faith - only reason."
Which only makes you fools. There are things which cannot yet be
explained rationally, but are undoubtedly true -- intuition is one of
the most valuable tools there is. Without it, there would be little
science. (Science usually starts from the intuition that something
might work some way; it then goes and proves it.) Without it, there
would be no art. That's right, *bj*ct*v*sts don't *like* art, either.
> "3) We act in our own self-interest, and recognize no a priori obligation to
> others (excepting our children). When we act generously toward friends and
> acquaintances, as I often do, it is because I value their company and
> pleasure - not because I have any obligation."
Which merely shows you don't recognize that society has in part placed you
where you are. I don't think you can get more unthinking than that.
> "4) Politically, we are laissez-faire capitalists. We believe that when
> people interact, it should be on a strictly voluntary basis, and free of
> compulsion and external interference."
*cough* Except that it has been continually shown that laissez-faire
capitalism does not work. Capitalism works only when regulated to
protect the interests of the people; look at JP Morgan for a perfect
example of the evil done in the name of capitalism.
Steve Brinich
> Capitalism works only when regulated to protect the interests
> of the people
Which people? In actual practice, the universal answer is "the people
in political power".
Once there was The People -- Terror gave it birth
Once there was The People, and it made a Hell on Earth.
-- Rudyard Kipling
Susan Cohen
BetNoir wrote:
> Look, if you want Hussein's head on a platter, I'll bring the apple to
> stuff in his mouth. If you want to throw in his military advisors, I'll
> bring a bushel of apples. Toss in a few hard-line religous clerics, and
> I'll make that two bushels.
>
> Because *those* folx have done actions deserving of wanting their heads
> on platters.
>
> But Achmet and Abdul out on the street, just trying to buy groceries to
> feed their families? What the hell do they care whose leading their
> country? Life is still hard for them, regardless of who holds the
> Sceptre of Power. And I'll betcha dinars to dollars they have as much
> loyalty and love for Hussein as some folx here do for Clinton.
And less power to do anything about it.
And no power at all *not* to live over the military installations their
government
builds under their houses (or is it "over which the gov't moves their houses?).
They only know what they are told by their government.
As annoying as journalists can be, our free press *is* a godsend.
I really hate Saddam Hussein. Really.
If he died tomorrow, I would throw a party.
Go ahead & tell me how inhuman/e I am; I don't care.
He is *evil.*
Susan
Susan Cohen
jhe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Idle question for the world at large: at a million dollars plus for each
> cruise missle, plus associated operating costs, couldn't we have just bought
> the bastard off and shown a profit?
You mean, "pay off a blackmailer...."?
Susan
michae...@worldnet.att.net
> >
> >Austin Ziegler wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>On 19 Dec 1998 michae...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>>> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
> >>>> is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
> >>>> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
> >>>> that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
> >>>> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
> >>> Anyone who reads Ayn Rand can't be all bad, can he? :)
> >>
> >>Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o sometime to
> >>see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
> >>
> >couldn't decipher your shorthand. To me, APO means Army Post Office and I'm
> >not even going to *try* the other. :)
>
> over the dots in the second.
>
> --
> Bill Longley
> Too many crosswords during his misspent youth (which hasn't ended yet, BTW)
>
Scribe
michae...@worldnet.att.net
>
> On 19 Dec 1998, Michael Hugen wrote:
> >> Sure they can. Go listen to the Taxes=Theft jackasses on a.p.o sometime to
> >> see just how bad .bj.ct.v.sts can be.
> > No thanks, I have enough headaches just trying to keep up here! Besides, I
> > couldn't decipher your shorthand. To me, APO means Army Post Office and I'm
> > not even going to *try* the other. :)
>
> regexp-like shorthand to hide the actual name of the "philosophers" who
> follow Randian "teachings".
>
>
> whole cloth. I'm not sure that literate people can be as unthinking,
> vile, and regressive as .bj.ct.v.sts tend to be.
>
Sure they can! I could name a few, but I don't wanna start a flamewar.
For one thing, being able to read doesn't mean one is able to *think.*
Scribe
Sandy Dolan
Rivka wrote:
> "I thought things were bad enough this morning. God! This is making me
> sick... I don't see how American politics can possibly recover from this. I
> really don't. I... oh hell. What's the use."
>
> She raises the glass to her lips and drains it off, wincing, then hurls it
> *hard* against the back wall of the fireplace.
>
> "To peace," she says bitterly. "To peace, and to a day in which being the
> winner is seen as less important than preserving what is good for the
> country."
>
> She stalks into the Danger Room and closes the door.
To Peace!! oooooCRASHooooooo
Sandygypsy
--
I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me. - Charlene
Noah Singman
>Both of which hit poorer people harder than they do richer people.
>Nice and equitable.
"Tough rocks. Life isn't equitable. If you're brighter than Student X, and
finish your studies in half the time she does, you have more free time.
Shockingly unfair! Shall we attempt to cripple you mentally to make things
even?"
"That's EXACTLY what you egalitarians recommend in the realm of economics,
and it's just as ludicrous."
Noah
Noah Singman
> Noah wrote:
>> "1) The world around us actually exists, and we do not believe in
>> other realms for which we have no evidence. In other words, we're
>> not mystics."
>Which is shorthand for "I believe what my own two eyes can see."
"Wrong. Evidence is evidence - it need not be directly sensory - it can be
transmitted via equipment. But it must be directly or indirectly
experienced. I believe in mitochondria, though I've never seen them
directly, and never will."
>> "2) The only way to acquire knowledge is via observation and
>> integration of those observations. We don't believe in intuition, or
>> faith - only reason."
>Which only makes you fools. There are things which cannot yet be
>explained rationally, but are undoubtedly true -- intuition is one of
>the most valuable tools there is. Without it, there would be little
>science. (Science usually starts from the intuition that something
>might work some way; it then goes and proves it.)
"Wrong again. Which is interesting, because your second sentence is
well-phrased: 'cannot yet be explained rationally.' We can explain far more
natural phenomena than we could only a few decades, let alone centuries,
ago. And yet there are phenomena which remain mysterious to us. Experience
teaches us that the scientific method is the ONLY way of uncovering these
mysteries, and science has nothing - NOTHING - to do with intuition.
Science starts from careful, meticulous observation, and then attempts to
formulate theories which might explain these things. The theories are
continually revised in the face of newer, better observations - these are
called experiments, and the process is known as trial and error."
>> "3) We act in our own self-interest, and recognize no a priori
>> obligation to others (excepting our children). When we act
>> generously toward friends and acquaintances, as I often do, it is
>> because I value their company and pleasure - not because I have
>> any obligation."
> Which merely shows you don't recognize that society has in part
> placed you where you are. I don't think you can get more unthinking
> than that.
"Of course we recognize the benefits of society. And we also recognize that
the optimum societies are those in which we are the most free. And frankly,
I contribute far more to society than the average person (not voluntarily, I
admit), and more than I receive in return. Admittedly, there are folks who
are unable to earn their keep. In your ideal world, we'd all be forced to
help them. In my ideal world, YOU wouldn't be stopped from helping them;
you just couldn't force the rest of us to join you."
>> "4) Politically, we are laissez-faire capitalists. We believe that
>> when people interact, it should be on a strictly voluntary basis, and
>> free of compulsion and external interference."
>*cough* Except that it has been continually shown that laissez-faire
>capitalism does not work. Capitalism works only when regulated to
>protect the interests of the people; look at JP Morgan for a perfect
>example of the evil done in the name of capitalism.
"There has never been laissez-faire capitalism in this country - or, to
anyone's knowledge, anywhere. Thus, it has NEVER been shown that it doesn't
work. Even in our most free days, the late 19th century, there was
significant government intervention in many areas of the economy. It is
certainly true that some wealthy folks got their riches because of political
connections - only a fool would argue otherwise, since the same thing
happens even today. It is also true that some wealthy used criminal means
to prevent competitors from entering their markets - again, only a fool
would argue otherwise."
"But the mere fact that someone gets wealthy doesn't mean, ipso facto, that
the wealth was not earned. In the industrial age, if someone came up with a
new process which gained them a competitive advantage, or cornered the
market on raw materials, they would have a leg up on competitors for quite a
while - longer than in this, the information age. Until their competitors
caught up (as competitors always have, unless the government intervened to
protect a monopoly - the only way a monopoly has ever lasted), the innovator
would have a price advantage."
"As for the interests of the people, who cares? If I start a business, I do
it to sell goods or services for money. If I hire someone, it's because I
am willing to invest in salary dollars to increase my output. But you must
understand that you don't run a business so you can create jobs; you create
jobs, as a last measure, so you can expand your business."
Noah
Susan Cohen
LePheaux wrote:
> Janice Munday wrote in message
> <366-367B...@newsd-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Jacob said :
>
> <snipped> -- go read it. I'm *lazy*!
>
> Much as I dislike Clinton, I don't like the accusation that he's
> using Desert Fox as a means to distract us from his "problems" here at
> home.
> The idea that *anyone* -- even Clinton -- could be that... well,
> "evil" is the only word that fits, makes me feel ill. If things really
> are *that* bad, the only answer is Revolution, IMO.
> I don't like the guy, but this... No. Or at least, I *hope* not. He
> may be worthless, and (at best) an embarrassment, but I don't think he's
> truly evil.
>
> JEM
>
> <<<>>>>
> Open your eyes sweety,
> it realy is the awfull truth.
Sorry you see it that way, because it is not.
Susan Cohen
Susan Cohen
John Palmer wrote:
> Just note, though: had he waited until after the vote, he'd be
> starting during Ramadan (the Muslim holy month).
I know from people who know that he did intend to start *before*
Ramadan (not wanting to look like the Egyptians in the Yom Kippur
War).
Susan
Randolph Fritz
>
>Janice Munday wrote in message
><366-367B...@newsd-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>
><snipped> -- go read it. I'm *lazy*!
>
> Much as I dislike Clinton, I don't like the accusation that he's
>using Desert Fox as a means to distract us from his "problems" here at
>home.
>
><<<>>>>
>Open your eyes sweety,
>it realy is the awfull truth.
>
"And somehow he got the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go along with it.
Sure, right--NOT! Damnit, however much you dislike Bill Clinton, he
is *not* the devil.'
R.
Austin Ziegler
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Noah Singman wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >Both of which hit poorer people harder than they do richer people.
> >Nice and equitable.
> "Tough rocks. Life isn't equitable. If you're brighter than Student
> X, and your studies in half the time she does, you have more free
> time. Shockingly unfair! Shall we attempt to cripple you mentally
> to make things even?"
> "That's EXACTLY what you egalitarians recommend in the realm of
> economics, and it's just as ludicrous."
What amazes me is that objectivists think this sort of bullshit comparison
is valid. And thank you *very* much for proving my point about the general
nature of objectivists, Noah. You've made it very clear that you like
walking on the backs of others.
Austin Ziegler
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Noah Singman wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > Noah wrote:
> >> "1) The world around us actually exists, and we do not believe in
> >> other realms for which we have no evidence. In other words, we're
> >> not mystics."
>> Which is shorthand for "I believe what my own two eyes can see."
> "Wrong. Evidence is evidence - it need not be directly sensory - it
> can be transmitted via equipment. But it must be directly or
> indirectly experienced. I believe in mitochondria, though I've never
> seen them directly, and never will."
Do you believe in emotions? There's no reliable evidence for them outside
of being figments of each person's imagination. Oh, that's right, Randians
think that people are robots, or should be.
> >> "2) The only way to acquire knowledge is via observation and
> >> integration of those observations. We don't believe in intuition, or
> >> faith - only reason."
>> Which only makes you fools. There are things which cannot yet be
>> explained rationally, but are undoubtedly true -- intuition is one of
>> the most valuable tools there is. Without it, there would be little
>> science. (Science usually starts from the intuition that something
>> might work some way; it then goes and proves it.)
> mysteries, and science has nothing - NOTHING - to do with intuition.
*laugh* Keep believing that lie, if you wish. You wave away all of the
accidental discoveries through the years. You're as bad as fundamentalist
christians, you randian objectivists -- "My way is the only right way, and
if you're not following my way, you're a damned fool."
>> Which merely shows you don't recognize that society has in part
>> placed you where you are. I don't think you can get more unthinking
>> than that.
> "Of course we recognize the benefits of society.
Yes. Like the greedy bastards that randian objectivists tend to be, you
recognize the benefits, but you don't recognize that you also have
obligations for those benefits. I *like* your way of thinking, Noah.
Selfish, self-serving, and altogether unrepentant in those beliefs.
By the way, Noah: don't you *dare* suggest what "my" ideal world looks
like, because you have no fucking clue what it is. Except that it would not
include the selfishness demanded by your beliefs.
-f, nothing more to say on this matter
LePheaux
>I really hate Saddam Hussein. Really.
>If he died tomorrow, I would throw a party.
>Go ahead & tell me how inhuman/e I am; I don't care.
>He is *evil.*
>
>Susan
><<<>>>>
LePheaux
Randolph Fritz wrote in message ...
not evan a good pawn,
but he is a very . bad guy thats gotten away with too much shit, and it is
now time for him to go.
Jacob Sommer
"Mommy, Mommy! Why is Reagan selling guns to Iran and Iraq?"
"Shut up and move that crate of M-16s, Ollie!"
"Mommy, Mommy! Who's that lady with Clinton and what's she doing
with him?"
"Shut up and impeach the bastard, Newt!"
Jacob
<sigh>