!FOX NEWS FLASH....MUST READ ! !
James R. Thomson
rose...@mail.idt.net wrote in message <367854ff....@news.idt.net>...
>Right wing news source Fox news is reporting repubicans are
>"outraged".
>
>That news ranks right up there with drudge.
>
>Will journalistic excellence never cease?
>
>
>
>
>WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE DEPARTMENT
>===============================================
>On Monday, 12/14/98, 2felons@thewhithouse wrote:
>
>"That's why we
>>elect people to represent us in congress. They make up for the
>>uninformed masses who should not be trusted with the power to run the
>>country."
anonymous
<368767e1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:06:59 -0600, "James R.
Thomson"
><spm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>WHOA...really, pussy? What is the CLINTON NEWS
NETWORK (CNN) saying?
>
attack and feel that the
>President was acting in the best interest of the
country.
>
>Don't you look like an extremist fool.
>
> Jim
No, Jim, you're the fool. The majority of the
American people still think it is over sex. There
is your ignorant majority. I'll go with the
"minority" on this one any day of the week.
Who Cares?
>
>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
I hope Zepp keeps this positive attitude
when the march into Poland begins.
It's pretty amazing to watch you and
clueless pals. But America must deserve
it.
Who Cares?
>
>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
<shrug> To use your favorite phrase....
"So what?"
Clinton is gutting the country anyway. Why should I
care what happens? It's not *my* problem.
Rejoice and go in peace.
Who Cares?
>
>How long have you been a supporter of Saddam?
April 19th, 1993.
Who Cares?
>Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>Sorry loon, it's 5 6 hours later and the NEW CNN-TIME poll shows
>support NOW at 72%
>
>How's that feel?
I hear it's cold in Poland this time of year.
You sign up yet?
rose...@mail.idt.net
Michael Beck
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:51:59 GMT, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
>>Right wing news source Fox news is reporting repubicans are
>>"outraged".
>>
>>That news ranks right up there with drudge.
>>
>>Will journalistic excellence never cease?
>
>They are outraged that Bill Clinton continues to do the job we elected
>him to do.
>
>They are still clueless.
>
Wag the dog, low-volt.
You should be ashamed forever.
> Jim
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>======================================================
>"The people in this room stand for the right principles
>and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right
>direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
>
> --Senator Trent Lott, addressing the CCC, April 11, 1992
>
>"It is certainly true that in some important traits--
>intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint,
>academic performance, resistance to disease--
>whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks. At
>the same time, in exactly these same traits,
>North Asians appear to be 'superior' to whites.
>Is someone who believes that there are probably
>genetic reasons for this a 'yellow supremacist'?
>. . . American Resistance expresses an unapologetic
>preference for the culture and way of life of whites.
>It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs
>to the creators of European civilization will carry that
>civilization forward in a meaningful way."
>
> -- The CCC web site, December, 1998.
>======================================================
Field Marshal D.J.
>They (Republicans) are outraged that Bill Clinton continues to do the job
>we elected him to do.
Uh, what would that be ? Fucking the interns, breaking the law and
shredding the Constitution ? In that case, El Creepo has done a fabulous
job !
>They are still clueless.
No, not really. Look in the mirror, pal. Now that's clueless !
It's time to IMPEACH BUTTHEAD Bill & his little dog, Eegore, too.
Join The War On Left-Wing Ignorance:
Read the Constitution
Peace & Love,
D.J.
Michael Beck
snip
>>Wag the dog, low-volt.
>
>You use that cliche every time Bill Clinton does the job we elected
>him to do.
>
>Every time you get your ass kicked.
Wag the dog immoral one.
>
>>You should be ashamed forever.
>
>You are supporting Saddam and I should be ashamed?
I am supporting America. You are supporting a cult of personality.
BTW, did you support the Viet Cong when you opposed Nixon? Or were
you alive then?
Michael Beck
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:06:59 -0600, "James R. Thomson"
><spm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>WHOA...really, pussy? What is the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK (CNN) saying?
>
>That 62% of the American people support this attack and feel that the
>President was acting in the best interest of the country.
>
>Don't you look like an extremist fool.
>
> Jim
Clinton has started an attack, with no clear goals, and with no forces
in the region to back up a decisive effort.
He pulled his gun, but it was loaded with only one bullet.
The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
settles down.
>
>>
>>
>>rose...@mail.idt.net wrote in message <367854ff....@news.idt.net>...
>>>Right wing news source Fox news is reporting repubicans are
>>>"outraged".
>>>
>>>That news ranks right up there with drudge.
>>>
>>>Will journalistic excellence never cease?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE DEPARTMENT
>>>===============================================
>>>On Monday, 12/14/98, 2felons@thewhithouse wrote:
>>>
>>>"That's why we
>>>>elect people to represent us in congress. They make up for the
>>>>uninformed masses who should not be trusted with the power to run the
>>>>country."
>>
>>
>
Zepp
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>Voltai Yojimbo muttered:
>>They (Republicans) are outraged that Bill Clinton continues to do the job
>>we elected him to do.
>
>
>Uh, what would that be ? Fucking the interns, breaking the law and
>shredding the Constitution ? In that case, El Creepo has done a fabulous
>job !
Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
>
>>They are still clueless.
>
>
>No, not really. Look in the mirror, pal. Now that's clueless !
>
>It's time to IMPEACH BUTTHEAD Bill & his little dog, Eegore, too.
>
>Join The War On Left-Wing Ignorance:
>
>Read the Constitution
>
>Peace & Love,
>D.J.
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------
"That wasover a decade ago," Cwartacki said.
"His recollection isn't thatstraightforward."
--John S. Cwartacki, in an unintentionally
accurate description of Trent Lott lying about
his ties to the racist Coalition of Conservative Citizens.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
Field Marshal D.J.
>>>They (Republicans) are outraged that Bill Clinton continues to do the job
>>>we elected him to do.
D.J.
>>Uh, what would that be ? Fucking the interns, breaking the law and
>>shredding the Constitution ? In that case, El Creepo has done a fabulous
>>job !
Yojimbo
>Keeping the economy strong,
You mean the Republicans, don't you. El Creepo gave us the biggest
tax increase in human history.
>fighting dictatorships
El Creepo is El Dictator Supremo !
>and giving right wing loons like you the supreme red ass.
More like loads of laughs as he inflicts more damage onto his
already morally decadent and treasonous party...
>>>They are still clueless.
D.J.
>>No, not really. Look in the mirror, pal. Now that's clueless !
Yojimbo
>How long have you been a supporter of Saddam?
Gee, I don't know. They both are competitive in the 2-bit
dictator department. Since you profess to talk and think for
everyone else, like a typical Lib'ral, why don't you tell me ?
It's time to IMPEACH BUTTHEAD Bill & his little dog, Eegore, too.
Join The War On Left-Wing Ignorance:
Read the Constitution
Peace & Love, to all Lib'ral losers everywhere...
D.J.
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>Clinton has started an attack, with no clear goals, and with no forces
>in the region to back up a decisive effort.
>
>He pulled his gun, but it was loaded with only one bullet.
>
>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>settles down.
What would you do if you were president right now?
----------------
SemiScholar
"Don't sweat the petty things,
and don't pet the sweaty things."
karen
he been the last 18 months besides lying about getting his dick
sucked?
Oh well better late than never.
To bad however that because he did this for selfish reasons he has no
plan, therefore this effort will be for nothing, we will still be
dealing with Saddam in a month. But at least the impeachment vote will
be over by then :)
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:51:59 GMT, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> >Right wing news source Fox news is reporting repubicans are
> >"outraged".
> >
> >That news ranks right up there with drudge.
> >
> >Will journalistic excellence never cease?
>
> They are outraged that Bill Clinton continues to do the job we elected
> him to do.
>
> They are still clueless.
>
> Jim
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ======================================================
> "The people in this room stand for the right principles
> and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right
> direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
>
> --Senator Trent Lott, addressing the CCC, April 11, 1992
>
> "It is certainly true that in some important traits--
> intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint,
> academic performance, resistance to disease--
> whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks. At
> the same time, in exactly these same traits,
> North Asians appear to be 'superior' to whites.
> Is someone who believes that there are probably
> genetic reasons for this a 'yellow supremacist'?
> . . . American Resistance expresses an unapologetic
> preference for the culture and way of life of whites.
> It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs
> to the creators of European civilization will carry that
> civilization forward in a meaningful way."
>
> -- The CCC web site, December, 1998.
> ======================================================
--
An Honorable Man Would Resign
Remove MaDe from email address
Michael Beck
snip
>
>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
>>
This is surely written by a long-haired, pot-smoking, maggot infested
ex-hippie who protested the vietnam war and gave solace to the viet
cong. Did you sit on one of the anti-aircraft guns the way that Fonda
did? In 1991 did you light a candle in the street and chant "no blood
for oil!"??
Go back to your corner, hypocrite.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1998 02:45:39 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>
>>
>>Clinton has started an attack, with no clear goals, and with no forces
>>in the region to back up a decisive effort.
>>
>>He pulled his gun, but it was loaded with only one bullet.
>>
>>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>>settles down.
>
>What would you do if you were president right now?
First of all, I wouldn't be in the same mess that Clinton is in
because I wouldn't screw around with an intern and then lie under
oath.
Secondly, I wouldn't have bluffed Sadaam all year long and then
simultaneously pull back the inspection teams, resulting in the lead
inspector's resignation.
Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
Sadaam being the primary target.
That's what *I'd* do bucko.
Zepp
(Michael Beck) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:15:15 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>snip
>>>Wag the dog, low-volt.
>>
>>You use that cliche every time Bill Clinton does the job we elected
>>him to do.
>>
>>Every time you get your ass kicked.
>
>Wag the dog immoral one.
Keep screaming that. Saddam is counting on you.
>>
>>>You should be ashamed forever.
>>
>>You are supporting Saddam and I should be ashamed?
>
>I am supporting America. You are supporting a cult of personality.
>BTW, did you support the Viet Cong when you opposed Nixon? Or were
>you alive then?
>>
>>
Have you wondered at Saddam's timing? I don't like the bombing, but
Clinton is doing nothing less than what he said he would do if Saddam
reneged again. Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog"
believers would throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then
Saddam would have free rein for quite some time.
He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons. Better
get cracking, right-wing patriot.
Jim
>>
>>Ecrasons l'infame
>>
>>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>
>>======================================================
>>"The people in this room stand for the right principles
>>and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right
>>direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
>>
>> --Senator Trent Lott, addressing the CCC, April 11, 1992
>>
>>"It is certainly true that in some important traits--
>>intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint,
>>academic performance, resistance to disease--
>>whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks. At
>>the same time, in exactly these same traits,
>>North Asians appear to be 'superior' to whites.
>>Is someone who believes that there are probably
>>genetic reasons for this a 'yellow supremacist'?
>>. . . American Resistance expresses an unapologetic
>>preference for the culture and way of life of whites.
>>It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs
>>to the creators of European civilization will carry that
>>civilization forward in a meaningful way."
>>
>> -- The CCC web site, December, 1998.
>>======================================================
>
-------------------------------------------
Michael Beck
snip
>Have you wondered at Saddam's timing?
For what? He's been doing this for years now.
>I don't like the bombing, but
>Clinton is doing nothing less than what he said he would do if Saddam
>reneged again.
Clinton allowed this crises to elevate for nearly a year.
> Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog"
>believers would throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then
>Saddam would have free rein for quite some time.
I doubt that. The best thing that could happen to nail Sadaam is for
Clinton to resign. He has *no* credibility.
>
>He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons. Better
>get cracking, right-wing patriot.
No. I could never do what you idiots did during the 60's and 70's.
We're still paying the price for *your* excesses. Now, we're stuck
with an ex-hippie president from that generation. God save us.
rose...@mail.idt.net
>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>settles down.
Sorry loon, it's 5 6 hours later and the NEW CNN-TIME poll shows
rose...@mail.idt.net
>>What would you do if you were president right now?
>
>First of all, I wouldn't be in the same mess that Clinton is in
>because I wouldn't screw around with an intern and then lie under
>oath.
Well, two women screwing around together IS a bit much.
>Secondly, I wouldn't have bluffed Sadaam all year long and then
>simultaneously pull back the inspection teams, resulting in the lead
>inspector's resignation.
Ah, the old "kill em" ploy. Good thinking. Then we'd be able to call
him irresponisble or use some other right wing excuse to smear.
>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>Sadaam being the primary target.
>
>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
And that's why your a netloon.
you do well at it.
rose...@mail.idt.net
>
>No, Jim, you're the fool. The majority of the
>American people still think it is over sex. There
>is your ignorant majority. I'll go with the
>"minority" on this one any day of the week.
Can never trust the unwashed can we. Always HAVE to have "special"
people in place to make sure things are run "correct", don't we?
Guess who else use to say that?
some where
>How long have you been a supporter of Saddam?
When did you stop beating your wife?
O/Siris
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com says...
> What would you do if you were president right now?
>
junior employees in the Oval Office, and so wouldn't face
impeachment.
And THAT means I wouldn't have to rush a military
response in before Ramadan so it has an effect on
attitudes about me and my chances for acquittal at said
impeachment.
Did you notice that nowhere in there did I say these
actions are unnecessary?
Me, after so many years of this concession and violation,
I'd call it time for a final move. Bomb the hell out of
his infrastructure, and in the midst of it all, send in a
good-sized special forces unit to capture one of the
places Saddam wanted kept protected.
How strong will the Iraqi people think he is after we
hold Baath Party Headquarters for exactly, say, 36 hours
and pull out when we feel like it? And if we bring out
proof of ABC warfare research when we come out, then
that'll help us, too.
--
Build a machine even a fool could use,
and only fools would want to use it.
I mean... look at what the Democrats try to think up.
O/Siris
Ertai
Volt...@geocities.com says...
> That 62% of the American people support this attack and feel that the
> President was acting in the best interest of the country.
>
> Don't you look like an extremist fool.
Post the poll. Post the area codes they called. Post the exact
question asked you communist.
The polls always call the most liberal areas and ask the most
pointed questions.
--
"If we were in other countries, we would all right now,
all of us together, all of us together would go down to
Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death ---
stone him to death -- stone him to death! Then we would
go to their house and we'd kill the family. Kill the
children."
Alec Baldwin---typical liberal hate speech
Ertai
Volt...@geocities.com says...
> Keeping the economy strong,
What has clintoon done to help the economy? You cannot say, you
lying leftist. It is the Republican Congress that brought the
budget back in balance.
Oh! But the truth is alien to you liars on the left.
johnz
I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an ignorant
and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
See how it works?
JS
knic...@rocketmail.com
rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> Right wing news source Fox news is reporting repubicans are
> "outraged".
>
> That news ranks right up there with drudge.
>
> Will journalistic excellence never cease?
Monica Lewinsky: The Lips that launched a Thousand Ships.
(cruise missiles, that is)
Kurt Nicklas
‰
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Edward William Clayton
: In article <368767e1...@news.mindspring.com>,
: > That 62% of the American people support this attack and feel that the
: > President was acting in the best interest of the country.
: >
: > Don't you look like an extremist fool.
: Post the poll. Post the area codes they called. Post the exact
: question asked you communist.
: The polls always call the most liberal areas and ask the most
: pointed questions.
And your evidence for this is....
Ted
: --
Edward William Clayton
: In article <3689693f...@news.mindspring.com>,
: > Keeping the economy strong,
: What has clintoon done to help the economy? You cannot say, you
: lying leftist. It is the Republican Congress that brought the
: budget back in balance.
The first two Clinton budgets -- the ones the Republicans opposed, as
minority party, and predicted would wreck the economy -- lowered the
deficit substantially. Had that course continued, the budget would have
been just fine without the Republicans.
Ted
: Oh! But the truth is alien to you liars on the left.
Michael Beck
>Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>
>>>What would you do if you were president right now?
>>
>>First of all, I wouldn't be in the same mess that Clinton is in
>>because I wouldn't screw around with an intern and then lie under
>>oath.
>
>Well, two women screwing around together IS a bit much.
Your wife doesn't apparently think so.
>
>>Secondly, I wouldn't have bluffed Sadaam all year long and then
>>simultaneously pull back the inspection teams, resulting in the lead
>>inspector's resignation.
>
>Ah, the old "kill em" ploy. Good thinking. Then we'd be able to call
>him irresponisble or use some other right wing excuse to smear.
So Clinton *isn't* killing them now? Of course, he's given them all
year to create empty buildings for them to bomb.
>
>>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>>Sadaam being the primary target.
>>
>>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
>
>And that's why your a netloon.
>
>you do well at it.
>
Wag the dog.
That's *your* president.
Michael Beck
>Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>
>>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>>settles down.
>
>Sorry loon, it's 5 6 hours later and the NEW CNN-TIME poll shows
>support NOW at 72%
>
>How's that feel?
Feel?
I'll leave the "touchy feely" reactions to the democrats.
I'll think instead of "feel".
5.6 hours isn't enough time to settle down.
I'll wait two weeks.
Michael Beck
snip
>>
>>I am supporting America. You are supporting a cult of personality.
>>BTW, did you support the Viet Cong when you opposed Nixon? Or were
>>you alive then?
>
>You support America by giving support to Saddam?
>
>How so?
Why don't you answer the question, low-volt?
Ken Kinser
Who Cares? wrote:
> Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
> >
> >How long have you been a supporter of Saddam?
>
> April 19th, 1993.
This is the second time that date has been mentioned in the last 24
hours. Can someone Jog my memory about what happened then?
Ken
Rob Robertson
It's when a band of people, having chosen to store arms as a
means to defend against an overbearing, authoritarian government,
finally clashed with the military might of the ruling power.
On April 19th, 1775, that band of people was the patriots of
Lexington and Concord, and in that defiant, courageous act of
freedom and self-determination, a new nation was born.
On April 19th, 1993, that band of people was the Branch Davidians
near Waco, Texas, who were gassed, crushed, and burned to death
at the hands of the current ruling power.
Feel free to draw an parallels or implications that you see fit.
> Ken
_
Rob Robertson
Zepp
wrote:
Actually, Hitler never got a majority. In the first election, he
didn't even have a plurality.
>
>See how it works?
>
Yup. Your knowledge is based on ignorance, your wisdom on
foolishness.
>JS
rose...@mail.idt.net
>In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an ignorant
>and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
>
>See how it works?
So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
=========================================================
I also do speak 6 languages, I am A CEO, I've achieved a Net Worth
in the 8+MM bracket, I have two degrees...as will be sworn and
verified by your attorney when we get to interrogatories
And the strange part is I look down upon you like some kind of insect
or bacterium not fit to clean my boots. Your simply scum Roselle.
UltraZ
Zepp
<vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Zepp wrote in message <3678764a....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>
>>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
>
>
> I hope Zepp keeps this positive attitude
> when the march into Poland begins.
>
> It's pretty amazing to watch you and
> clueless pals. But America must deserve
> it.
I hate to piss in your Wheaties here, bub (ok, I lied--I actually
enjoy it) but you're the one who is advocating doing nothing while a
vicious dictator builds up his arsenal to use against us and our
allies.
I take it you are as ignorant of European history as you are
everything else.
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:46:50 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>On 17 Dec 1998 02:45:39 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Clinton has started an attack, with no clear goals, and with no forces
>>>in the region to back up a decisive effort.
>>>
>>>He pulled his gun, but it was loaded with only one bullet.
>>>
>>>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>>>settles down.
>>
>>What would you do if you were president right now?
>
>First of all, I wouldn't be in the same mess that Clinton is in
>because I wouldn't screw around with an intern and then lie under
>oath.
>
>Secondly, I wouldn't have bluffed Sadaam all year long and then
>simultaneously pull back the inspection teams, resulting in the lead
>inspector's resignation.
What would you have done? Bombed them right away instead of trying to
work it out in a non-violent way? I think diplomacy should always be
tried first, and only when it is proven futile should military action
be used.
>
>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>Sadaam being the primary target.
>
>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
Okay, fair enough. I might even agree - I think we should be slow to
commit acts of war, and we should take quite a bit of abuse before
doing so. And when someone pushes us far enough, I would go in all
the way - full victory.
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <36787e7e....@news.goldengate.net>,
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com says...
>> What would you do if you were president right now?
>>
>Invalid question. I wouldn't have had liaisons with
>junior employees in the Oval Office, and so wouldn't face
>impeachment.
That whole thing is just a republican partisan gambit anyway.
>
>And THAT means I wouldn't have to rush a military
>response in before Ramadan so it has an effect on
>attitudes about me and my chances for acquittal at said
>impeachment.
You would have waited for a month or more? Jeeze - _that_ would set
well with your right-wing supporters. I suspect you would have given
the go ahead right away.
>
>Did you notice that nowhere in there did I say these
>actions are unnecessary?
>
>Me, after so many years of this concession and violation,
>I'd call it time for a final move. Bomb the hell out of
>his infrastructure, and in the midst of it all, send in a
>good-sized special forces unit to capture one of the
>places Saddam wanted kept protected.
Well, I'm glad you're not in charge. Jeeze - send in troops to
capture one Iraqi presidential palace? Good idea, Beavis.
>
>How strong will the Iraqi people think he is after we
>hold Baath Party Headquarters for exactly, say, 36 hours
>and pull out when we feel like it? And if we bring out
>proof of ABC warfare research when we come out, then
>that'll help us, too.
We already have proof. You really think we should get a bunch of
American kids killed in order to seize and hold Baath Party
Headquarters for 36 hours?
You'd be impeached for sure!
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:22:17 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>> Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog"
>>believers would throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then
>>Saddam would have free rein for quite some time.
>I doubt that. The best thing that could happen to nail Sadaam is for
>Clinton to resign. He has *no* credibility.
Only amongst the ClintonHaters™, but he never had any credibility with
them anyway.
>>
>>He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons. Better
>>get cracking, right-wing patriot.
>
>No. I could never do what you idiots did during the 60's and 70's.
>We're still paying the price for *your* excesses. Now, we're stuck
>with an ex-hippie president from that generation. God save us.
Ah - here is the _real_ crux of it. You ClintonHaters™ think Clinton
was a hippie. You are projecting onto him all of your irrational
hatred of the "hippies" from the sixties. Clinton was never a hippie
- he's always been an establishment kinda guy.
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:11:19 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>snip
>>
>>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
>>>
>This is surely written by a long-haired, pot-smoking, maggot infested
>ex-hippie who protested the vietnam war and gave solace to the viet
>cong. Did you sit on one of the anti-aircraft guns the way that Fonda
>did? In 1991 did you light a candle in the street and chant "no blood
>for oil!"??
>
>Go back to your corner, hypocrite.
Funny. You accuse people of hypocrisy for having different positions
now than they did then.
But then, you have a different position now than you did then. Now
you are giving solace to Saddam Hussein.
I love the smell of irony in the morning...
Joe Schembrie
So you have 8 M&Ms, I eat more candy than that in a day. And my room
has about seventy degrees right now.
Joe Schembrie
American Parallax
http://cybooks.com/politics
Watson Aname
wrote:
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>> Have you wondered at Saddam's timing?
>
> For what? He's been doing this for years now.
George Bush, despite that he was in the middle of White House policy
which worked to shape a dangerously over-armed and poorly understood
Saddam Hussein for nine years preceding the Persian Gulf War, had no
strategic plan whatsoever to defuse the bomb Iraq had become. It is
THAT particular piece of incompetent foreign affairs management that
assured recurring problems directly attributable to Saddam should be
a Middle East security concern in perpetuity.
>> I don't like the bombing, but Clinton is doing nothing less than
>> what he said he would do if Saddam reneged again.
>
> Clinton allowed this crises to elevate for nearly a year.
He inherited a situation that would never again have the world focus
of a Desert Storm Coalition or the leverage of a huge military force
on the ground in the Iraqi theater. Once Bush chose the flash image
of The One Hundred Hour War over sustaining a serious military force
on site long enough to fashion a POLITICALLY sound closure to Saddam
as an unspiked cannon, WHOEVER was President thereafter had conflict
without good options for solution added to their leadership burdens.
>> Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog" believers would
>> throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then Saddam would
>> have free rein for quite some time.
>
> I doubt that. The best thing that could happen to nail Sadaam is for
> Clinton to resign. He has *no* credibility.
No one will have any easy or straightforward path to "nailing" Saddam
Hussein. A Clinton resignation/removal has no logically helpful role
in solving that tangle of unfinished business.
>> He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons. Better
>> get cracking, right-wing patriot.
>
> No. I could never do what you idiots did during the 60's and 70's.
> We're still paying the price for *your* excesses. Now, we're stuck
> with an ex-hippie president from that generation. God save us.
Bill Clinton, as a hippie then or an ex-hippie now, is a non-starter,
a total, freaking, conceptual absurdity, Michael. Really.
Watson
--
"Then this! - And that! - And sure enough! The man's
neck was broken, just as the book said it would be."
- Robert A. Heinlein freehold@^snip!^visi.net
johnz
> jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) wrote:
>
> >In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> >I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an ignorant
> >and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
> >
> >See how it works?
>
> So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
As to what you mean by the phrase "So, it the "thinking" is okay then?",
I prefer not to speculate. In general, roselle, your posts would be
more effective if you would always remember to write them in something
approximating English.
JS
Rob Robertson
> little girls?
Despite what the latest fax to Democratic Activists may claim,
I do not support Saddam Hussein, and I resent the implication
(that you choose to parrot relentlessly) that insistence on
impeaching the Dangerous Precendent *must* translate into support
for some *other* tyrant who kills his own countrymen.
Impeach, indict, incarcerate.
> Jim
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ==========================================================================
> "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack
> is itself a powerful argument for impeachment. After months of lies,
> the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that
> he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
>
> -- Rep. Dick Armey (Peckerhead-Tx) on delusions as grounds for impeachment
> ===========================================================================
_
Rob Robertson
some where
>Actually, Hitler never got a majority.
Neither did you-know-who, munchkin.
Rob Robertson
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:48:59 -0500, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> field while the GOP attacks the Commander in Chief from the floor of
> the House?
Conversely, do you think it's a good idea to put American troops in
the field just to hold off the inevitable impeachment of that lying
demagogue, Bill Clinton? Does the life of an American serviceman
mean so little to you that you would willingly condone placing his
life at risk so that the Dangerous Precedent will not have to take
responsibility for his reckless behaviour?
> Tell us more!
>
> But also prepare to explain to the American people why you are so
> extreme.
Because Clinton is a criminal and is destroying America.
> You loons are digging your own political graves.
You Clintonista shills are digging your own *real* graves, as
well as mine, idiot.
johnz
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:42:22 -0800, jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <36792142....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> >
> >> jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an
ignorant
> >> >and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
> >> >
> >> >See how it works?
> >>
> >> So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
> >
> >It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
>
> So you are arguing against free elections based on Germany in 1932?
If the free elections resulted in Hitler, of course I am.
The Reichwehr should have staged a coup d'etat and overthrown Hitler. They
did not, in a shameful display of opportunism, arrogance and wishful
thinking. By failing to act against the "will of the people, they
empowered Hitler's evil regime and enabled the slaughter of millions of
the innocent. By failing to overthrow Hitler when they stood a chance of
doing so, they shared in the responsibility for his murders. Their reward
was that Hitler hung the best of the old German officer class from
meathooks with piano wire when they finally, far too late, feebly turned
against him at the end of the war,
Are you arguing that the "majority" has a right to elect a Hitler,
Kennemur? Think carefully now. Don't let your tiny little brain start
rattling around
too furiously inside your big, empty skull.
JS
Who Cares?
>
>But also prepare to explain to the American people why you are so
>extreme.
>
You don't really think that we care anymore,
do you?
I expect to die.
Deal with the consequences of your actions.
Who Cares?
April 19, 1993
How many times are you going to repeat a
meaningless question?
>How can you admit you haven't seen the data and then turn around and
>explain why it is not valid?
With an illegal government and nutball president,
who cares anyway?
>That flame and smoke in the distance is your VRWC on fire.
Funny, I thought it was the Constitution. :)
If you sign up now, you can make corporal
by Y2K.
Who Cares?
>>It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I-
meant.
>
>So you are arguing against free elections based on Germany in 1932?
Which is why Clinton will win. People with principles
have our hands tied.
Clinton is evil and willing to do anything to anyone.
The saving grace in this is that no people of principle
will
be around for you and your pals.
Who Cares?
>
>I hate to piss in your Wheaties here, bub (ok, I lied--I actually
>enjoy it) but you're the one who is advocating doing nothing while a
>vicious dictator builds up his arsenal to use against us and our
>allies.
I admit this is true. But... when Clinton say
he was going to attack our allies?
I must have missed that one.
>I take it you are as ignorant of European history as you are
>everything else.
You sure say " I TAKE " a lot.
And I dare say I am as cognizant of "european
history" as you, the difference being that I paid
attention during Waco.
Michael Richmann
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:30:48 -0500, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Kinser wrote:
> >>
> >> Who Cares? wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > >How long have you been a supporter of Saddam?
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is the second time that date has been mentioned in the last 24
> >> hours. Can someone Jog my memory about what happened then?
> >
> > It's when a band of people, having chosen to store arms as a
> >means to defend against an overbearing, authoritarian government,
> >finally clashed with the military might of the ruling power.
> >
> > On April 19th, 1775, that band of people was the patriots of
> >Lexington and Concord, and in that defiant, courageous act of
> >freedom and self-determination, a new nation was born.
> >
> > On April 19th, 1993, that band of people was the Branch Davidians
> >near Waco, Texas, who were gassed, crushed, and burned to death
> >at the hands of the current ruling power.
> >
> > Feel free to draw an parallels or implications that you see fit.
>
> So you loons support Saddam because Jesus of Waco liked to screw
> little girls?
If you can't win using the truth, just trot out a lie, eh Jimbo?
If so, why bother?
--
Mike
johnz
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:54:43 -0800, jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) sez:
>
> >In article <36956cd3...@news.mindspring.com>,
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what
-I- meant.
> >>
> >> So you are arguing against free elections based on Germany in 1932?
> >
> >If the free elections resulted in Hitler, of course I am.
>
> Real nice - free elections, as long as _your_ guy gets elected.
> Sounds positively soviet.
>
> >
> >The Reichwehr
>
> Reichwehr? What's that? You mean Reichstag?
I see that your name is actually
a good description of
what you are - although in your
case you could be
even more accurate by posting
as "Ignoramus" or "Dolt".
The Reichwehr was the name
for the German military
under the Weimar Republic
(you do know what that is, don't
you?) later renamed the
"Wehrmacht" during the Third Reich.
> > should have staged a coup d'etat and overthrown Hitler. They
> >did not, in a shameful display of opportunism, arrogance and wishful
> >thinking. By failing to act against the "will of the people, they
> >empowered Hitler's evil regime and enabled the slaughter of millions of
> >the innocent. By failing to overthrow Hitler when they stood a chance of
> >doing so, they shared in the responsibility for his murders. Their reward
> >was that Hitler hung the best of the old German officer class from
> >meathooks with piano wire when they finally, far too late, feebly turned
> >against him at the end of the war,
>
> That must have been painful, turning against Hitler whilst dangling
> from a meathook and piano wore. Yowch!
Sneering at the handful of brave men
( a very tiny minority) who tried
to overthrow Hitler is disgusting,
but exactly what I'd expect from
someone like you.
> >Are you arguing that the "majority" has a right to elect a Hitler,
> >Kennemur? Think carefully now. Don't let your tiny little brain start
> >rattling around
> >too furiously inside your big, empty skull.
>
> A majority has a right to elect whoever they vote for. Of course.
> That's what freedom is all about.
They had no right to elect a Hitler:
they had no right to vote to consign
millions of innocent people to gas-chambers
and the Einsatzgruppen.
> ----------------
> SemiScholar
>
> "Don't sweat the petty things,
> and don't pet the sweaty things."
It certainly is annoying to have to teach basic historical
fact to computer nerds with "cute" sigs.
JS
SemiScholar
>In article <36792142....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
>> jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>>
>> >I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an ignorant
>> >and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
>> >
>> >See how it works?
>>
>> So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
>
>It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
"Not allow" them? How would you propose to accomplish that?
SemiScholar
>In article <36956cd3...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>> >
>> >It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
>>
>> So you are arguing against free elections based on Germany in 1932?
>
>If the free elections resulted in Hitler, of course I am.
Real nice - free elections, as long as _your_ guy gets elected.
Sounds positively soviet.
>
>The Reichwehr
Reichwehr? What's that? You mean Reichstag?
> should have staged a coup d'etat and overthrown Hitler. They
>did not, in a shameful display of opportunism, arrogance and wishful
>thinking. By failing to act against the "will of the people, they
>empowered Hitler's evil regime and enabled the slaughter of millions of
>the innocent. By failing to overthrow Hitler when they stood a chance of
>doing so, they shared in the responsibility for his murders. Their reward
>was that Hitler hung the best of the old German officer class from
>meathooks with piano wire when they finally, far too late, feebly turned
>against him at the end of the war,
That must have been painful, turning against Hitler whilst dangling
from a meathook and piano wore. Yowch!
>
>Are you arguing that the "majority" has a right to elect a Hitler,
>Kennemur? Think carefully now. Don't let your tiny little brain start
>rattling around
>too furiously inside your big, empty skull.
A majority has a right to elect whoever they vote for. Of course.
That's what freedom is all about.
----------------
SemiScholar
<vene...@earthlink.net> sez:
>Zepp wrote in message <3679208f....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>
>>I hate to piss in your Wheaties here, bub (ok, I lied--I actually
>>enjoy it) but you're the one who is advocating doing nothing while a
>>vicious dictator builds up his arsenal to use against us and our
>>allies.
>
>
> I admit this is true. But... when Clinton say
> he was going to attack our allies?
>
> I must have missed that one.
Who cares - you either take too much drugs or not enough. Either way,
none of your posts make any sense.
>
>
>>I take it you are as ignorant of European history as you are
>>everything else.
>
> You sure say " I TAKE " a lot.
>
> And I dare say I am as cognizant of "european
> history" as you, the difference being that I paid
> attention during Waco.
Ah, yes. When I studied European History, I remember paying
attention to the parts about Waco, too.
She got burned at the stake, didn't she?
johnz
> David Koresh was having sex with many of the women in the compound
> including those as young as 14.
It's reassuring to know that Janet Reno and Bill Clinton saved these girls
from this fate by burning them alive and crushing them with tanks. Pretty
difficult for Koresh to have sex with them now, right, Voltboy?
JS
PS: In light of later events, it seems obvious that one of the motives
for Clinton's ordering the FBI assault might have been jealousy of Koresh.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1998 04:02:00 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:11:19 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>>
>>>Keep screaming. Saddam is counting on you.
>>>>
>>This is surely written by a long-haired, pot-smoking, maggot infested
>>ex-hippie who protested the vietnam war and gave solace to the viet
>>cong. Did you sit on one of the anti-aircraft guns the way that Fonda
>>did? In 1991 did you light a candle in the street and chant "no blood
>>for oil!"??
>>
>>Go back to your corner, hypocrite.
>
>Funny. You accuse people of hypocrisy for having different positions
>now than they did then.
So I'm right about you?
>
>But then, you have a different position now than you did then.
No. I was not an adult then and my opinion didn't matter.
> Now
>you are giving solace to Saddam Hussein.
How do you figure?
>
>I love the smell of irony in the morning...
It smells like the cannabis odor that surrounds you.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1998 04:05:01 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:46:50 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Dec 1998 02:45:39 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Clinton has started an attack, with no clear goals, and with no forces
>>>>in the region to back up a decisive effort.
>>>>
>>>>He pulled his gun, but it was loaded with only one bullet.
>>>>
>>>>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>>>>settles down.
>>>
>>>What would you do if you were president right now?
>>
>>First of all, I wouldn't be in the same mess that Clinton is in
>>because I wouldn't screw around with an intern and then lie under
>>oath.
>>
>>Secondly, I wouldn't have bluffed Sadaam all year long and then
>>simultaneously pull back the inspection teams, resulting in the lead
>>inspector's resignation.
>
>What would you have done? Bombed them right away instead of trying to
>work it out in a non-violent way? I think diplomacy should always be
>tried first, and only when it is proven futile should military action
>be used.
There was no diplomatic action. That's the problem. Albright is a
disaster.
>
>>
>>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>>Sadaam being the primary target.
>>
>>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
>
>Okay, fair enough. I might even agree - I think we should be slow to
>commit acts of war, and we should take quite a bit of abuse before
>doing so. And when someone pushes us far enough, I would go in all
>the way - full victory.
Yes. That's not what Clinton has done.
Michael Beck
Aname) wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1998, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck)
>wrote:
>
>> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>> Have you wondered at Saddam's timing?
>>
>> For what? He's been doing this for years now.
>
> George Bush, despite that he was in the middle of White House policy
> which worked to shape a dangerously over-armed and poorly understood
> Saddam Hussein for nine years preceding the Persian Gulf War, had no
> strategic plan whatsoever to defuse the bomb Iraq had become. It is
> THAT particular piece of incompetent foreign affairs management that
> assured recurring problems directly attributable to Saddam should be
> a Middle East security concern in perpetuity.
When in doubt, blame the GOP eh?
You people are so predictable.
>
>>> I don't like the bombing, but Clinton is doing nothing less than
>>> what he said he would do if Saddam reneged again.
>>
>> Clinton allowed this crises to elevate for nearly a year.
>
> He inherited a situation that would never again have the world focus
> of a Desert Storm Coalition or the leverage of a huge military force
> on the ground in the Iraqi theater. Once Bush chose the flash image
> of The One Hundred Hour War over sustaining a serious military force
> on site long enough to fashion a POLITICALLY sound closure to Saddam
> as an unspiked cannon, WHOEVER was President thereafter had conflict
> without good options for solution added to their leadership burdens.
Right. Like I said, you are so predictable.
>
>>> Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog" believers would
>>> throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then Saddam would
>>> have free rein for quite some time.
>>
>> I doubt that. The best thing that could happen to nail Sadaam is for
>> Clinton to resign. He has *no* credibility.
>
> No one will have any easy or straightforward path to "nailing" Saddam
> Hussein. A Clinton resignation/removal has no logically helpful role
> in solving that tangle of unfinished business.
Sure it does. It could restore the president's moral authority.
>
>>> He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons. Better
>>> get cracking, right-wing patriot.
>>
>> No. I could never do what you idiots did during the 60's and 70's.
>> We're still paying the price for *your* excesses. Now, we're stuck
>> with an ex-hippie president from that generation. God save us.
>
> Bill Clinton, as a hippie then or an ex-hippie now, is a non-starter,
> a total, freaking, conceptual absurdity, Michael. Really.
It is an explanation for his behavior. It's very relevant.
Michael Beck
>On 17 Dec 1998 13:34:32 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:43:55 GMT, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>>
>>>Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The 62% is an emotional reaction that will change when the country
>>>>settles down.
>>>
>>>Sorry loon, it's 5 6 hours later and the NEW CNN-TIME poll shows
>>>support NOW at 72%
>>>
>>>How's that feel?
>>
>>Feel?
>>
>>I'll leave the "touchy feely" reactions to the democrats.
>>I'll think instead of "feel".
>>5.6 hours isn't enough time to settle down.
>>
>>I'll wait two weeks.
>
>You won't be any less extreme or any damn smarter.
Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
Michael Beck
>On 17 Dec 1998 13:35:52 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:31:48 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>>>>I am supporting America. You are supporting a cult of personality.
>>>>BTW, did you support the Viet Cong when you opposed Nixon? Or were
>>>>you alive then?
>>>
>>>You support America by giving support to Saddam?
>>>
>>>How so?
>
>>Why don't you answer the question, low-volt?
>
>I was alive. I worked hard to convince my representatives in Congress
>to bring American troops home form Vietnam.
Did you participate in any protests?
>
>I was wondering if you hypocrites were going to try that dodge.
>
>Why do you support Saddam just to attack Bill Clinton?
You can state a lie until infinity and it won't make it true,
low-volt.
It will, however, make you a candidate for Clinton's administration.
Zepp
<vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Zepp wrote in message <3679208f....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>
>>I hate to piss in your Wheaties here, bub (ok, I lied--I actually
>>enjoy it) but you're the one who is advocating doing nothing while a
>>vicious dictator builds up his arsenal to use against us and our
>>allies.
>
>
> I admit this is true. But... when Clinton say
> he was going to attack our allies?
>
> I must have missed that one.
What are you? Fifth grade? Sixth, maybe?
BTW, nice job of ducking the question. Coward.
>
>
>>I take it you are as ignorant of European history as you are
>>everything else.
>
> You sure say " I TAKE " a lot.
>
> And I dare say I am as cognizant of "european
> history" as you, the difference being that I paid
> attention during Waco.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------
"That wasover a decade ago," Cwartacki said.
"His recollection isn't thatstraightforward."
--John S. Cwartacki, in an unintentionally
accurate description of Trent Lott lying about
his ties to the racist Coalition of Conservative Citizens.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>>What would you have done? Bombed them right away instead of trying to
>>work it out in a non-violent way? I think diplomacy should always be
>>tried first, and only when it is proven futile should military action
>>be used.
>
>There was no diplomatic action. That's the problem. Albright is a
>disaster.
Hmmm... most ClintonHaters™ complain that Clinton should have bombed
Iraq long ago. They decry his attempts to solve the problem
diplomatically.
>>
>>>
>>>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>>>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>>>Sadaam being the primary target.
>>>
>>>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
>>
>>Okay, fair enough. I might even agree - I think we should be slow to
>>commit acts of war, and we should take quite a bit of abuse before
>>doing so. And when someone pushes us far enough, I would go in all
>>the way - full victory.
>Yes. That's not what Clinton has done.
I agree. I oppose the handling of the Iraq thing. But not on the
basis of timing. If he was going to pursue that course of action, it
was the correct timing.
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:52:44 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>This is surely written by a long-haired, pot-smoking, maggot infested
>>>ex-hippie who protested the vietnam war and gave solace to the viet
>>>cong. Did you sit on one of the anti-aircraft guns the way that Fonda
>>>did? In 1991 did you light a candle in the street and chant "no blood
>>>for oil!"??
>>>
>>>Go back to your corner, hypocrite.
>>
>>Funny. You accuse people of hypocrisy for having different positions
>>now than they did then.
>
>So I'm right about you?
No - you're right about yourself. My positions have been consistent.
I was against the war in 1991, and I am against the bombing now.
>
>>
>>But then, you have a different position now than you did then.
>No. I was not an adult then and my opinion didn't matter.
I got news for you. Your opinion doesn't matter now, either.
(neither does mine, but...) I _was_ an adult then, and my position
has been consistent.
>
>> Now
>>you are giving solace to Saddam Hussein.
>How do you figure?
>>
>>I love the smell of irony in the morning...
>It smells like the cannabis odor that surrounds you.
No - that's more pungent. The irony is more... oh, I don't know...
let's say - sickly sweet.
SemiScholar
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:11:17 -0700, "Who Cares?"
><vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Zepp wrote in message <3679208f....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>
>>>I hate to piss in your Wheaties here, bub (ok, I lied--I actually
>>>enjoy it) but you're the one who is advocating doing nothing while a
>>>vicious dictator builds up his arsenal to use against us and our
>>>allies.
>>
>>
>> I admit this is true. But... when Clinton say
>> he was going to attack our allies?
>>
>> I must have missed that one.
>
>What are you? Fifth grade? Sixth, maybe?
>
>BTW, nice job of ducking the question. Coward.
Shame on you Zepp, it's not nice to make fun of the mentally
handicapped. We should be _helping_ our friend venetian - because
he's good enough, he's smart enough and doggone it, people like him.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 14:43:28 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>
>>>What would you have done? Bombed them right away instead of trying to
>>>work it out in a non-violent way? I think diplomacy should always be
>>>tried first, and only when it is proven futile should military action
>>>be used.
>>
>>There was no diplomatic action. That's the problem. Albright is a
>>disaster.
>
>Hmmm... most ClintonHaters? complain that Clinton should have bombed
>Iraq long ago. They decry his attempts to solve the problem
>diplomatically.
>
I can only speak for myself. Clinton and Albright tried to avoid
confrontation with Iraq for years. When you cry wolf too many
times....
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Third, if military force became absolutely necessary, I'd load for
>>>>effing bear and blast Iraq with a decisive and massive attack with
>>>>Sadaam being the primary target.
>>>>
>>>>That's what *I'd* do bucko.
>>>
>>>Okay, fair enough. I might even agree - I think we should be slow to
>>>commit acts of war, and we should take quite a bit of abuse before
>>>doing so. And when someone pushes us far enough, I would go in all
>>>the way - full victory.
>>Yes. That's not what Clinton has done.
>
>I agree. I oppose the handling of the Iraq thing. But not on the
>basis of timing. If he was going to pursue that course of action, it
>was the correct timing.
I disagree. They need more time. They will be bombing during Ramadan
and that will be a p.r. disaster.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>
>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>
>Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>
Sure it is.
What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
seems to be very many.
What about pro-abortion extremists? Clinton vetoed a measure that was
overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
Watson Aname
wrote:
> freehold@^snip!^visi.net (Watson Aname) wrote:
>> Michael Beck wrote:
>>> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you wondered at Saddam's timing?
>>>
>>> For what? He's been doing this for years now.
>>
>> George Bush, despite that he was in the middle of White House policy
>> which worked to shape a dangerously over-armed and poorly understood
>> Saddam Hussein for nine years preceding the Persian Gulf War, had no
>> strategic plan whatsoever to defuse the bomb Iraq had become. It is
>> THAT particular piece of incompetent foreign affairs management that
>> assured recurring problems directly attributable to Saddam should be
>> a Middle East security concern in perpetuity.
>
> When in doubt, blame the GOP eh?
> You people are so predictable.
Who controlled every aspect of the United States' foreign policy where
a 'balance of power in the Middle East' and selective involvement with
regards the Iran/Iraq war was concerned? Ronald Reagan. George Bush.
Who controlled every aspect of the United States' foreign policy where
a definitive, effectual, internationally workable stop to "The Butcher
of Baghdad" was concerned, at the END of the Persian Gulf War? George
Bush.
What political party produced Ronald Reagan and George Bush? The GOP.
>>>> I don't like the bombing, but Clinton is doing nothing less than
>>>> what he said he would do if Saddam reneged again.
>>>
>>> Clinton allowed this crises to elevate for nearly a year.
>>
>> He inherited a situation that would never again have the world focus
>> of a Desert Storm Coalition or the leverage of a huge military force
>> on the ground in the Iraqi theater. Once Bush chose the flash image
>> of The One Hundred Hour War over sustaining a serious military force
>> on site long enough to fashion a POLITICALLY sound closure to Saddam
>> as an unspiked cannon, WHOEVER was President thereafter had conflict
>> without good options for solution added to their leadership burdens.
>
> Right. Like I said, you are so predictable.
"Right. Like I said, you are so predictable." -- Michael Beck
I could not love thee so, Michael, loved I not irony more.
>>>> Saddam knew that, but was hoping the "Wag the Dog" believers would
>>>> throw Clinton out of office or tie him up, and then Saddam would
>>>> have free rein for quite some time.
>>>
>>> I doubt that. The best thing that could happen to nail Sadaam is for
>>> Clinton to resign. He has *no* credibility.
>>
>> No one will have any easy or straightforward path to "nailing" Saddam
>> Hussein. A Clinton resignation/removal has no logically helpful role
>> in solving that tangle of unfinished business.
>
> Sure it does. It could restore the president's moral authority.
What effect could the "restored moral authority," of a President who
would no longer be our Commander-in-Chief, have on "nailing" Saddam?
>>>> He's counting on you to fuck up America for partisan reasons.
>>>> Better get cracking, right-wing patriot.
>>>
>>> No. I could never do what you idiots did during the 60's and 70's.
>>> We're still paying the price for *your* excesses. Now, we're stuck
>>> with an ex-hippie president from that generation. God save us.
>>
>> Bill Clinton, as a hippie then or an ex-hippie now, is a non-starter,
>> a total, freaking, conceptual absurdity, Michael. Really.
>
> It is an explanation for his behavior. It's very relevant.
The stork is an explanation for babies. IT'S very relevant?
Ken Kinser
Watson Aname wrote:
You are so right. It is widely agreed that Bush made a mistake when he
stopped at the edge of the UN and coalition mandates rather than press on
into Baghdad and be labeled an imperialist by the democrats and others.
ken
Michael Beck
snip
>>>
>>>You won't be any less extreme or any damn smarter.
>>
>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>
>That's now what Goldwater said.
I never said it was.
>
>But he did say this, " "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of
>these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others
>who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican
>Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever
>happens, kiss politics goodbye."
I agree with Goldwater. Of course, that's not what is happening any
more than the communists have taken over the democrats.
>
>I guess you learned something today didn't you, Beck.
I learn something *every* day. However, today's lesson didn't come
from you.
>
>Always glad to school an ignorant, conservative.
Your hate is limiting your.
It's sad.
Michael Beck
>On 18 Dec 1998 14:49:09 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:59:13 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Dec 1998 13:35:52 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:31:48 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>I am supporting America. You are supporting a cult of personality.
>>>>>>BTW, did you support the Viet Cong when you opposed Nixon? Or were
>>>>>>you alive then?
>>>>>
>>>>>You support America by giving support to Saddam?
>>>>>
>>>>>How so?
>
>>>>Why don't you answer the question, low-volt?
>>>
>>>I was alive. I worked hard to convince my representatives in Congress
>>>to bring American troops home from Vietnam.
>
>>Did you participate in any protests?
>
>As in the right to peacefully assemble?
>
>You bet?
Are you stating a fact or asking a question?
>
>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>people while threatening his neighbors?
I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business. As
to threatening his neighbors, the threat is much greater in December
than it was in January when Clinton was not interested. He's had a
year to hide his stuff. Clinton is spending hundreds of millions to
blow up empty buildings.
>
>>>I was wondering if you hypocrites were going to try that dodge.
>>>
>>>Why do you support Saddam just to attack Bill Clinton?
>>
>>You can state a lie until infinity and it won't make it true,
>>low-volt.
>
>So you support Bill Clinton's actions in Iraq?
No.
>
>>It will, however, make you a candidate for Clinton's administration.
>
>And all it leaves you is another right wing loser.
A loser? Not by *any* stretch of the imagination. Have the bigger
kids given you a swirly recently, pencil neck?
>
>Ain't life grand?
Michael Beck
>On 18 Dec 1998 21:50:38 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:10:32 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>>>>
>>>>>You won't be any less extreme or any damn smarter.
>>>>
>>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>>
>>>That's now what Goldwater said.
>>
>>I never said it was.
>
>So you just misquote him in an attempt to make people on here think
>you have something behind your hateful rants besides your obsession
>with Bill Clinton?
You are an idiot, low-volt. I never mentioned his name or quoted
Goldwater. The quote was *mine*, dillweed.
BTW, the one "obsessed" with Clinton is you. This is proven by your
unlimited capacity for rationalization.
>
>Ain't gonna happen!
Impeachment will occur on Saturday.
>
>>>But he did say this, " "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of
>>>these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others
>>>who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican
>>>Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever
>>>happens, kiss politics goodbye."
>>
>>I agree with Goldwater. Of course, that's not what is happening any
>>more than the communists have taken over the democrats.
>
>So Dick Armey and Tom DeLay don't have Control of the House?
They aren't trying to make the GOP into a religious organization any
more than Gephardt and Bonier are. You *are* quite a delusional man.
Where did you get this from? Did some radical left-wing professor
influence you at a young age?
>
>Please explain!
>
>>>I guess you learned something today didn't you, Beck.
>>
>>I learn something *every* day. However, today's lesson didn't come
>>from you.
>
>Are you going to misquote me and try to pass it off as your intellect
>in action?
Your tangential way of thinking doesn't make sense. I *really* don't
know what you're talking about now.
>
>>>Always glad to school an ignorant, conservative.
>>
>>Your hate is limiting your.
>
>Care to diagram that last sentence?
No. But I'll complete it....
Your hate is limiting your perspective.
>
>>It's sad.
>
>Your lack of intellect?
I know enough to know when a person is a liar. That's more than most
clinton supporters know.
>
>Indeed!
Indeed what? Why do you keep talking to yourself? That *is* a sign
of mental illness you know.
>
> Jim
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>===========================================================================
>"GOP used to stand for 'Grand Old Party'. Now it stands for'Get Our President'."
>
> --Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.)
>===========================================================================
Michael Beck
>On 18 Dec 1998 21:56:33 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
snip
>>>>Did you participate in any protests?
>>>
>>>As in the right to peacefully assemble?
>>>
>>>You bet?
>
>>Are you stating a fact or asking a question?
>
>I'm laughing at you as you go to great lengths avoid answering my
>direct question.
I'm the one asking the questions. You are delusional. Are you drunk
or something?
>
>>>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>>>people while threatening his neighbors?
>
>>I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business. As
>>to threatening his neighbors, the threat is much greater in December
>>than it was in January when Clinton was not interested. He's had a
>>year to hide his stuff. Clinton is spending hundreds of millions to
>>blow up empty buildings.
>
>So you admit that you don't care if Saddam kills innocent people.
>
>I guess that makes it easier for you to support him, then.
>
snip.
>>>So you support Bill Clinton's actions in Iraq?
>
>>No.
>
>So you do support Saddam?
Of course not.
But, lets apply your logic and state that you supported Ho Chi Minh.
>
>>>>It will, however, make you a candidate for Clinton's administration.
>>>
>>>And all it leaves you is another right wing loser.
>>
>>A loser? Not by *any* stretch of the imagination. Have the bigger
>>kids given you a swirly recently, pencil neck?
>
>I was one of the big kids. I stuffed snotty bullies like you in trash
>cans when they tried to pick on the smaller kids.
I'll bet you were one of the "fat" kids, not the "big" kids. Do you
stuff your face while you type at your keypad, lardass?
>
>Unlike you I do not support standing by and watching assholes like
>Saddam bully and attack others.
Right. But you were willing to stand by and watch him invade in 1991?
Your hypocrisy is sickening.
>
>But we already know where you stand on that, Beck.
>
>>>Ain't life grand?
>
>Ever see the inside of a trash can close up, Beck?
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:25 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>Hmmm... most ClintonHaters? complain that Clinton should have bombed
>>Iraq long ago. They decry his attempts to solve the problem
>>diplomatically.
>>
>I can only speak for myself. Clinton and Albright tried to avoid
>confrontation with Iraq for years. When you cry wolf too many
>times....
That's why they _had_ to act this time. See - you're accusing him of
crying wolf before - you woulda done it again. To satisfy _you_, he
had to bomb now. I hope you're satisfied.
But noooooooo...... you're STILL complaining...
>>
>>I agree. I oppose the handling of the Iraq thing. But not on the
>>basis of timing. If he was going to pursue that course of action, it
>>was the correct timing.
>
>I disagree. They need more time. They will be bombing during Ramadan
>and that will be a p.r. disaster.
Yes, if that happens, that will be a PR disaster. Let's watch...
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>
>>
>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>
>>Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>>
>Sure it is.
>What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>seems to be very many.
They're morons. They're as bad as the repugs. Except they don't seem
to be so _mean_. And they seem more like morons and idiots than
_assholes_.
Let me ask you - if you had to hang out with one group or the other -
the repubs on the HJC or the democrats - and I mean go out drinking,
watch the game on TV, have 'em over for dinner, etc. - which would you
hang out with? The democrats seem to me to be often misguided, but
their faults run mostly to caring too much about trying to prevent bad
things from happening to the lowly and helpless. But the republicans
strikt me as a bunch of "I got mine - you go get your own, but get
outa my face you worthles scumbag",:if they can't keep up, fuck 'em",
social darwinist, every-man-for-himself assholes.
But maybe that's just me.
>What about pro-abortion extremists?
I've never heard of one. Like who do you mean? I've never heard
anybody actually advocate abortion.
> Clinton vetoed a measure that was
>overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
>abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
Not in my book. I don't think it's extreme at all to keep the
government out of a priivate medical decision.
Watson Aname
wrote:
So, by implication, it "is widely agreed that Bush," a former Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency, eight years Vice President and one
and a half years President at the time of Saddam Hussein's invasion of
Kuwait, was so juvenile in his self-touted insights into global policy
that he thought a military incursion into Baghdad was required to pull
the teeth of the tyrant his policy input and support had helped create
in the first place? Either grab Saddam or give him endless free rein?
Watson, his mind boggling at how low is the GOP bar for leadership...
Gary Lantz
Michael Beck <Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<367c882a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
: On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
: (SemiScholar) wrote:
:
: >On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
: >(Michael Beck) sez:
: >
: >
: >>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
Only dittoheads, loons and far right extremists would think that because
someone once said something that might have applied in one situation, it
must apply in all situations.
: >
: >Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
: >dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
: >
: Sure it is.
: What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
: seems to be very many.
: What about pro-abortion extremists? Clinton vetoed a measure that was
: overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
: abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
Just like loons, dittoheads, and extremists, that feel having some of
the facts are acceptable.
: >
: >----------------
:
:
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>>people while threatening his neighbors?
>I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business.
See? This is just the point I was making in another thread about the
conservative vs liberals. Liberals are often goofy and misguided, but
their motivation is to make things better for all people.
Convervatives, however, tend to be mean.
Given that - here's a conservative joke I think you'll enjoy:
A conservative goes to a psychiatrist and complains that he has no
friends. Nobody likes him. It's because he doesn't care about
anybody else, and so to help, the shrink tells him to get a pet to
start off with. Not a dog or cat - that's too big a step, so the doc
tells the conservative to get some pet fruit flies, figuring that the
experience of caring for the fruit flies will make the conservative
more compassionate.
The next week the doc asks how it's going/ "Great", says the
conservative. " I got a jar and put a banana in it with some fruit
flies." The shrink says "Did you put some holes and a screen in the
top so they can breathe?" "No" says the conservative. "You have to
do that - otherwise they'll die". The conservative thinks about it
for a couple seconds, then says, "Fuck 'em"
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 21:56:33 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>
>>>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>>>people while threatening his neighbors?
>
>>I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business.
>
>See? This is just the point I was making in another thread about the
>conservative vs liberals. Liberals are often goofy and misguided, but
>their motivation is to make things better for all people.
Are conservatives and republicans covered by "all people". I guess
not.
>Convervatives, however, tend to be mean.
Really? The conservatives that I know are very nice people. However,
the ultra-liberals that I've met have tended to be real snotty.
>
>Given that - here's a conservative joke I think you'll enjoy:
>
>A conservative goes to a psychiatrist and complains that he has no
>friends. Nobody likes him. It's because he doesn't care about
>anybody else, and so to help, the shrink tells him to get a pet to
>start off with. Not a dog or cat - that's too big a step, so the doc
>tells the conservative to get some pet fruit flies, figuring that the
>experience of caring for the fruit flies will make the conservative
>more compassionate.
>
>The next week the doc asks how it's going/ "Great", says the
>conservative. " I got a jar and put a banana in it with some fruit
>flies." The shrink says "Did you put some holes and a screen in the
>top so they can breathe?" "No" says the conservative. "You have to
>do that - otherwise they'll die". The conservative thinks about it
>for a couple seconds, then says, "Fuck 'em"
Yes. Clinton is so nice. Especially to his good friends who've been
saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal fees.
Also to the ones who he made look like fools when they spread his
lies. Especially to the ones who were investigated by his private
eyes in order to keep them quiet. He's such a *nice* guy.
Michael Beck
>On 18 Dec 1998 22:31:23 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 22:11:20 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Dec 1998 21:50:38 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:10:32 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You won't be any less extreme or any damn smarter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's now what Goldwater said.
>>>>
>>>>I never said it was.
>>>
>>>So you just misquote him in an attempt to make people on here think
>>>you have something behind your hateful rants besides your obsession
>>>with Bill Clinton?
>>
>>You are an idiot, low-volt. I never mentioned his name or quoted
>>Goldwater. The quote was *mine*, dillweed.
>
>You just made it up?
Yes.
>
>Those of us who have seen your work on here (still life in feces) find
>that very hard to believe, Beck.
You are speaking in plural again low-volt. Do you have multiple
personalities?
>
>>BTW, the one "obsessed" with Clinton is you. This is proven by your
>>unlimited capacity for rationalization.
>
>Based on?
Your endless support.
>
>>>Ain't gonna happen!
>>
>>Impeachment will occur on Saturday.
>
>How many votes to convict and remove do you have in the Senate, Beck?
>I have been asking you that question for days.
I know. It's still very funny. You are acting like a crazy person
(and one with multiple personalities).
>
>>>>>But he did say this, " "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of
>>>>>these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others
>>>>>who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican
>>>>>Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever
>>>>>happens, kiss politics goodbye."
>>>>
>>>>I agree with Goldwater. Of course, that's not what is happening any
>>>>more than the communists have taken over the democrats.
>
>>>So Dick Armey and Tom DeLay don't have Control of the House?
>
>>They aren't trying to make the GOP into a religious organization any
>>more than Gephardt and Bonier are. You *are* quite a delusional man.
>>Where did you get this from? Did some radical left-wing professor
>>influence you at a young age?
>
>Armey and DeLay are not the hand maidens of the Religious Reich?
>Tell us again how you are not a right winger, Beck?
I'm not. Post some evidence that I am, you wacko.
>
>>>Please explain!
>
>Still no explanation? I guess he just made that up too.
Made up what? You are coming across like a psycho.
>
>>>>>I guess you learned something today didn't you, Beck.
>>>>
>>>>I learn something *every* day. However, today's lesson didn't come
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>Are you going to misquote me and try to pass it off as your intellect
>>>in action?
>>
>>Your tangential way of thinking doesn't make sense. I *really* don't
>>know what you're talking about now.
>
>That's why we call it right wing ignorance, Beck. See my web site for
>details.
I'm not a shrink so I can't help you. Sorry.
>
>>>>>Always glad to school an ignorant, conservative.
>>>>
>>>>Your hate is limiting your.
>>>
>>>Care to diagram that last sentence?
>
>>No. But I'll complete it....
>>
>>Your hate is limiting your perspective.
>
>Why the period in the middle of a thought?
wrong keystroke.
>
>Are you getting that sick feeling coming up in your gut?
Uh, no. However, I didn't see Hillary Clinton on TV today.
>
>Can you count to 67, Beck?
No. After I take of my shoes and socks I can get to 20! And if I
were from Arkansas, I'd likely drop my pants and get all the way up to
23!
>
>>>>It's sad.
>>>
>>>Your lack of intellect?
>
>>I know enough to know when a person is a liar. That's more than most
>>clinton supporters know.
>
>So lets see your prove it. All you do is make charges and then declare
>victory.
His impeachment is imminent. Keep ranting while they put the
straightjacket on you, low-volt.
>
>A sure sign of either a loon or a coward.
>
>Which one is it?
I vote that you are a loon. All the signs are there.
>
>>>Indeed!
>>
>>Indeed what? Why do you keep talking to yourself? That *is* a sign
>>of mental illness you know.
>
>I am addressing you but apparently I type too quickly.
Indeed.
>
>Shall I slow down for you?
Uh, no. But *do* try to stop rambling. I used to see guys like you
in Detroit when I was waiting for the bus to return home after class.
They would mumble to themselves and then start yelling. I couldn't
understand what they were talking about either.
Were you the guy who I used to see in front of McDonalds on Warren
Ave?
>
> Jim
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"I don"t take my marching orders from the White House. I did this on my own
>to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If they"re going to be passing judgment
>on the president, they shouldn"t have any skeletons in their closet."
>
> -- Larry Flynt
>========================================================================
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 16:49:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:25 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>Hmmm... most ClintonHaters? complain that Clinton should have bombed
>>>Iraq long ago. They decry his attempts to solve the problem
>>>diplomatically.
>>>
>>I can only speak for myself. Clinton and Albright tried to avoid
>>confrontation with Iraq for years. When you cry wolf too many
>>times....
>
>That's why they _had_ to act this time. See - you're accusing him of
>crying wolf before - you woulda done it again. To satisfy _you_, he
>had to bomb now. I hope you're satisfied.
I'm not. I think that Sadaam is playing rope-a-dope with those two
dopes.
>
>But noooooooo...... you're STILL complaining...
>
>>>
>>>I agree. I oppose the handling of the Iraq thing. But not on the
>>>basis of timing. If he was going to pursue that course of action, it
>>>was the correct timing.
>>
>>I disagree. They need more time. They will be bombing during Ramadan
>>and that will be a p.r. disaster.
>
>Yes, if that happens, that will be a PR disaster. Let's watch...
The bombs are going off tonight.
Michael Beck
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 16:51:17 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>>>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>>>
>>Sure it is.
>>What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>>seems to be very many.
>
>They're morons. They're as bad as the repugs. Except they don't seem
>to be so _mean_. And they seem more like morons and idiots than
>_assholes_.
Not mean? You *must* be kidding.
>
>Let me ask you - if you had to hang out with one group or the other -
>the repubs on the HJC or the democrats - and I mean go out drinking,
>watch the game on TV, have 'em over for dinner, etc. - which would you
>hang out with? The democrats seem to me to be often misguided, but
>their faults run mostly to caring too much about trying to prevent bad
>things from happening to the lowly and helpless. But the republicans
>strikt me as a bunch of "I got mine - you go get your own, but get
>outa my face you worthles scumbag",:if they can't keep up, fuck 'em",
>social darwinist, every-man-for-himself assholes.
That's quite a characterization. I know many people from both
political sides. Most of the professionals who I "hang out with" are
republicans and they don't like Clinton. They're mostly a group of
fine people who show as much compassion as anyone. On the other hand,
many of the liberals who I've met have demonstrated total hypocrisy by
spouting "compassionate" ideas, but acting like totally petty and
vindictive pricks in their private lives.
That's an irony that I've found over and over. The people with
conservative views seem to treat ordinary people very fine. However,
the one's who espouse liberal "caring" views treat the little people
in their lives like crap.
>
>But maybe that's just me.
You should expand your circle of friends.
>
>>What about pro-abortion extremists?
>
>I've never heard of one. Like who do you mean? I've never heard
>anybody actually advocate abortion.
The N.O.W. and planned parenthood are just filled with such types.
>
>> Clinton vetoed a measure that was
>>overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
>>abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
>
>Not in my book. I don't think it's extreme at all to keep the
>government out of a priivate medical decision.
But he went against the will of the "American people". How do you
rationalize that?
Michael Beck
Your cliches are soo booooring.....
>
>
>Michael Beck <Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><367c882a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>: On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>: (SemiScholar) wrote:
>:
>: >On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>: >(Michael Beck) sez:
>: >
>: >
>: >>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>
>Only dittoheads, loons and far right extremists would think that because
>someone once said something that might have applied in one situation, it
>must apply in all situations.
>
>
>: >
>: >Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>: >dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>: >
>: Sure it is.
>: What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>: seems to be very many.
>: What about pro-abortion extremists? Clinton vetoed a measure that was
>: overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
>: abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
>
>Just like loons, dittoheads, and extremists, that feel having some of
>the facts are acceptable.
>
>: >
>: >----------------
>:
>:
ABrighterFuture!
> That's quite a characterization. I know many people from both
> political sides. Most of the professionals who I "hang out with" are
> republicans and they don't like Clinton. They're mostly a group of
> fine people who show as much compassion as anyone. On the other hand,
> many of the liberals who I've met have demonstrated total hypocrisy by
> spouting "compassionate" ideas, but acting like totally petty and
> vindictive pricks in their private lives.
>
> That's an irony that I've found over and over. The people with
> conservative views seem to treat ordinary people very fine. However,
> the one's who espouse liberal "caring" views treat the little people
> in their lives like crap.
Good observation. The whole liberal stance is BS. Totally PHONEY
Send a check to me, me, me, me = liberals
Phil Weingart
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
> Let me ask you - if you had to hang out with one group or the other -
> the repubs on the HJC or the democrats - and I mean go out drinking,
> watch the game on TV, have 'em over for dinner, etc. - which would you
> hang out with? The democrats seem to me to be often misguided, but
> their faults run mostly to caring too much about trying to prevent bad
> things from happening to the lowly and helpless. But the republicans
> strikt me as a bunch of "I got mine - you go get your own, but get
> outa my face you worthles scumbag",:if they can't keep up, fuck 'em",
> social darwinist, every-man-for-himself assholes.
>
It is just you.
I used to be a leftist, when I was younger. There's some of that
"trying to prevent bad things from happening" which is sincere and
honorable; but there's a WHOLE LOT of it which is self-congratulatory
posturing, politics chosen to make fundamentally evil people feel good
about being alive. It's really, really easy to be "compassionate" with
your mouth and other peoples' money, and then to act holier than the
next guy because he's not as socially conscious as you. Many of them
are truly sickening human beings when you get to know them; Clinton is
a prime example, a charming veneer over a cesspool. When he talks about
compassion, I spit; the man cares less for people than does my guinea
pig, and wouldn't know true compassion if it came up and fed him a hot
meal.
By contrast, many on the more conservative side stand for decency,
courage, honor, and virtue in a way which is endearing and inspiring.
Yes, there are plenty on the right who use their politics as a cover
for genuine greed; but more often than not, the complaining is about
people who take honor very seriously, and comes from people to whom
honor is a foreign concept.
See, there's two sides to this coin, ain't there?
>>What about pro-abortion extremists?
>
> I've never heard of one. Like who do you mean? I've never heard
> anybody actually advocate abortion.
More liberal disingenuity. Why can't you guys EVER tell the truth
about what you stand for?
--
Phil Weingart | "Of course. I have lunch with arms dealers
pwei...@dazel.com | all the time. Don't you?"
| Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when asked
| whether the campaign finance activities
| of the White House weren't just "politics
| as usual."
johnz
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:42:22 -0800, jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) sez:
>
> >In article <36792142....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> >
> >> jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an
ignorant
> >> >and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
> >> >
> >> >See how it works?
> >>
> >> So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
> >
> >It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
>
> "Not allow" them? How would you propose to accomplish that?
The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is supposed to place
limits on what a majority may and may not elect - laws can be
unconstitutional, no matter how many gaping fools want them passed,
elected officials are restrained
in their powers no matter how popular they are or how many votes they received,
and the individual has rights no majority can vote away. That, at any
rate, is how it was supposed to work. As of now, it is plainly failing,
and won't hold
together - when it has collapsed completely, other answers will have to be found
to the question of how the rights of the individual or the minority may be
secured against the majority, and I have no idea what will happen then.
JS
Wulffie
Michael Beck wrote in message
<367c882a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>
>>
>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>
>>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>>
>Sure it is.
>What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>seems to be very many.
>What about pro-abortion extremists?
Glad you brought that up. how many churches have been bombed, and anti
abortion leaders shot through windows, or while going to work??
Wulffie
Michael Beck
wrote:
I don't know.
They take their anger out on third trimester innocent babies instead,
I guess.
O/Siris
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com says...
> You would have waited for a month or more? Jeeze - _that_ would set
> well with your right-wing supporters. I suspect you would have given
> the go ahead right away.
>
You ignore that Clinton already HAS waited as much as a
month. Calling back planes almost a month earlier, when
there was support from *many* nations, only to pull this
"surprise" attack now, with much less support.
--
Build a machine even a fool could use,
and only fools would want to use it.
I mean... look at what the Democrats try to think up.
O/Siris
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <36799a5a...@news.goldengate.net>,
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:42:22 -0800, jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) sez:
>>
>> >In article <36792142....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> jo...@nospam.aa.lung (johnz) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <36789a24....@news.idt.net>, rose...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I suppose you mean Adolf Hitler, who, of course, was elected by an
>ignorant
>> >> >and morally bankrupt majority. The "unwashed", if you will.
>> >> >
>> >> >See how it works?
>> >>
>> >> So, it the "thinking" is okay then?
>> >
>> >It's better not to allow the "masses" to elect an Hitler, is what -I- meant.
>>
>> "Not allow" them? How would you propose to accomplish that?
>
>The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is supposed
Exactly right: "supposed". But no so supposed by all.
> to place
>limits on what a majority may and may not elect - laws can be
>unconstitutional, no matter how many gaping fools want them passed,
>elected officials are restrained
>in their powers no matter how popular they are or how many votes they received,
>and the individual has rights no majority can vote away. That, at any
>rate, is how it was supposed to work. As of now, it is plainly failing,
>and won't hold
>together - when it has collapsed completely, other answers will have to be found
>to the question of how the rights of the individual or the minority may be
>secured against the majority, and I have no idea what will happen then.
We can be sure that these won't be the answers: That they can be
secured by scraps of paper, that they can be secured by laws, or that
they can be secured by *imposing* the will of the majority.
The American experimant demonstrates these supposed answers to be
false.
>
>JS
John Kennedy
Michael Richmann
contents of private e-mail. However, since Jimbo's aluminum foil hat
leaks and he's made unfounded accusations such as my having sent him
unsolicited e-mail and then even got the posted groups wrong to boot,
I'm putting his material back out into the public domain where it
belongs and where the "discussion" started...
Enclosed text of e-mail below:
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 22:14:21 -0600, you wrote:
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>> >> So you loons support Saddam because Jesus of Waco liked to screw
>> >> little girls?
>> >
>> >If you can't win using the truth, just trot out a lie, eh Jimbo?
>> >
>> >If so, why bother?
>>
>> David Koresh was having sex with many of the women in the compound
>> including those as young as 14.
>
>Cite?
Glad you asked.
You will notice that this is not from some militia mag or NRA rag.
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/waco.html
That is from my web site. I put it up with folks like you in mind.
Now that I have educated your right wing ass do me a favor, OK?
Stay out of my personal mailbox.
The next time I see your BS in my box your ISP gets an unsolicited
e-mail complaint.
That was your warning.
Jim
Ecrasons l'infame
Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
========================================================================
"I don’t take my marching orders from the White House. I did this on my
own
to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If they’re going to be passing
judgment
on the president, they shouldn’t have any skeletons in their closet."
-- Larry Flynt
========================================================================
End e-mail.
Jim,
Go ahead and post a complaint to my provider. It would give me no
greater pleasure than to get your sorry ass TOS'ed for making false
accusations and complaints. Concentric knows harrassment when they see
it. As for cites, the mere fact that you refuse to consider all sources
with merit torpedoes any argument you could possibly make.
Good say, sir.
--
Mike
SemiScholar
(Michael Beck) sez:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:07:00 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>On 18 Dec 1998 21:56:33 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>
>>
>>>>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>>>>people while threatening his neighbors?
>>
>>>I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business.
>>
>>See? This is just the point I was making in another thread about the
>>conservative vs liberals. Liberals are often goofy and misguided, but
>>their motivation is to make things better for all people.
>
>Are conservatives and republicans covered by "all people". I guess
>not.
Let's put it this way - look at life as a Bell Curve. Liberals want
to bring up the low parts of the curve, and that results in bringing
down the high part - a flatter curve. Less possibility of failure,
but you also can't climb as high. They like that sorta society.
Conservatives want to let the high part get as high as it can, and
that results in the low parts getting lower. Freedom to succeed
implies freedom to fail. Allowing a small group of people to succeed
wildly produces a wide gulf between the haves and have nots. But the
rich and powerful can get _really_ rich and powerful. They like that
sorta society.
Me, I'm in between. They both have advantages and disadvantages -
good points and bad.
>Yes. Clinton is so nice. Especially to his good friends who've been
>saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal fees.
>Also to the ones who he made look like fools when they spread his
>lies. Especially to the ones who were investigated by his private
>eyes in order to keep them quiet. He's such a *nice* guy.
Except Bill Clinton.
But he's no "Liberal" anyway.
some where
wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 16:51:17 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:34:27 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>>>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>>>
>>Sure it is.
>>What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>>seems to be very many.
>
>They're morons. They're as bad as the repugs. Except they don't seem
>to be so _mean_. And they seem more like morons and idiots than
>_assholes_.
>
>Let me ask you - if you had to hang out with one group or the other -
>the repubs on the HJC or the democrats - and I mean go out drinking,
>watch the game on TV, have 'em over for dinner, etc. - which would you
>hang out with? The democrats seem to me to be often misguided, but
>their faults run mostly to caring too much about trying to prevent bad
>things from happening to the lowly and helpless. But the republicans
>strikt me as a bunch of "I got mine - you go get your own, but get
>outa my face you worthles scumbag",:if they can't keep up, fuck 'em",
>social darwinist, every-man-for-himself assholes.
Believe it or not, there are *some* folks whose lives don't revolve around going
out drinking and watching costumed boys prancing about a field.
>But maybe that's just me.
No, it's *every* slackjawed meathead dem-puppy who's bought the line (with
mandatory hook and sinker). You're far from the only fool in your sinking ship.
>>What about pro-abortion extremists?
>
>I've never heard of one. Like who do you mean? I've never heard
>anybody actually advocate abortion.
Try going to an abortion mill for "pregnancy counseling" and then ask about
whether or not you should consider adoption as an alternative to abortion.
>> Clinton vetoed a measure that was
>>overwhelmingly supported by the "American People" (partial birth
>>abortion ban). Was he an extremist then?
>
>Not in my book. I don't think it's extreme at all to keep the
>government out of a priivate medical decision.
So do I.
My problem is, I can't for the life of me figure out how to have *my* political
agenda items redefined as "private medical decisions" so that I may impose them
on the nation as political policy.
some where
wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1998 21:56:33 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) sez:
>
>
>>>Are you calling for us to allow Saddam to continue killing his own
>>>people while threatening his neighbors?
>
>>I don't care if he kills his own people. That's not our business.
>
>See? This is just the point I was making in another thread about the
>conservative vs liberals. Liberals are often goofy and misguided, but
>their motivation is to make things better for all people.
Karing Libspeak: "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you. And
make no mistake, motherfucker, I *will* help you, and you will *not* resist.
Understand? Good. Now here, take a number, fill out these forms, get in line,
and shut your fucking mouth. And have a nice day."
Wulffie
Michael Beck wrote in message
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 07:31:18 -0500, "Wulffie" <srgr...@sssnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Michael Beck wrote in message
>><367c882a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 18 Dec 1998 14:46:51 GMT, Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net
>>>>(Michael Beck) sez:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Extremism in the pursuit of truth and liberty is not a vice.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, Mr Goldwater, but I disagree, Extremism by its very nature is
>>>>dangerous, no matter the cause. A just cause is not "extreme".
>>>>
>>>Sure it is.
>>>What do you think about the extremists on the democratic side? There
>>>seems to be very many.
>>
>>Glad you brought that up. how many churches have been bombed, and anti
>>abortion leaders shot through windows, or while going to work??
>>
>>
>>Wulffie
>>
>I don't know.
>They take their anger out on third trimester innocent babies instead,
>I guess.
For patriots who trumpet a respect for the rule of law, your group of
hypocrites surely show their true stripes when the issue is a law you don't
like, don't you??
If a medical procedure is legal, according to the law of the land as decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no anger involved with
actions undertaken within that law. YOu don't like the law? change it...
Ooops I forgot... that's one of the reasons your extremeist right wing group
is conducting this coup d'etat... coz you can't change the law.. sorry about
that.
go pray about it... if your god had any power, I guess the law would be
changed, wouldn't it?
I guess.
Merry Christmas
Wulffie
Michael Beck
wrote:
Go back to watching your impeached president.
>