Another Warmonger Liberal Tries to Seize Power with Violence
KAZ Vorpal
yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
as the "warmongers".
(George Bush, the only Republican to get the US into a war, was so
Liberal that /he/ is the one who created the term "voodoo economics"
in reference to Reagan's policies...)
And Clinton is taking up that banner...as his relevence to the
presidency is more or less eliminated, he tries to re-create it
with acts of war against two different countries.
Does anyone here actually believe the crap about this being
for any reason other than politics?
Of course, being a relative coward, he attacked two virtually
helpless countries, Sudan and Afghanistan. Hopefully this will
keep the US from another prolonged pseudo-war like Kennedy/Johnson
and Truman started in Vietnam and Korea to help their
presidencies...but I wouldn't bet on it.
It is no coincidence, surely, that Clinton said in his speech
yesterday that it will be a LONG battle...
--
Words of the Sentient:
They have rights who dare maintain them -- James Rusell Lowell
--------------------
http://www.smart.net/~kaz/ mailto:k...@freedom.usa.com
AOL Instant Message Name: KAZVorpal
(I don't have AOL <ick>, but now AIM comes with Netscape
and it works better than ICQ)
--
This has been a Sentient Moment, brought to you by the makers of
/True Democracy/, /The Words of the Sentient/, and various other
Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
say we do repeatedly in our infomercial. Any actions taken by the
proletariat based on the content of this Sentient Moment are the
sole responsibility of the consumer, and are not proposed or
endorsed by UltraMegaLimitless or the employees of KAZ Vorpal.
Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent of ESPN
is highly likely.
KAZ Vorpal:
OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline
Rick H
>
> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
> as the "warmongers".
It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
-Rick
Edward William Clayton
It's interesting that you all think Eisenhower (Vietnam) and Bush (Desert
Storm, Panama) and Reagan (Grenada, proxy wars in El Salvador and
Nicaragua) were liberals.
Ted
: -Rick
Mitchell Holman
}
}Of course, being a relative coward, he attacked two virtually
}helpless countries, Sudan and Afghanistan. Hopefully this will
}keep the US from another prolonged pseudo-war like Kennedy/Johnson
}and Truman started in Vietnam and Korea to help their
}presidencies...but I wouldn't bet on it.
}
Truman started the Korean War? Do tell.......
Wyatt
JFK - Vietnam. And don't go on with that old line the Ike started it
by sending in advisors because that is BS. We have sent advisors into
dozens of places without following up with tens of thousands of dead
Americans. You point out two of them below, El Salvador and
Nicaragua, advisors only.
Desert Storm, Panama and Granada were hardly wars.
>Ted
>: -Rick
-ooo-0^0-ooo-
Wyatt Wright
----------------------
The heights by great men reached and kept,
were not attained by sudden flight.
No.they, while their companions slept,
were toiling upward through the night.
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward William Clayton
: tcla...@umich.edu (Edward William Clayton) wrote:
: >Rick H (rick....@aopala.org) wrote:
: >: KAZ Vorpal wrote:
: >: >
: >: > It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: >: > yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
: >: > as the "warmongers".
: >: It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: >: yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
: >It's interesting that you all think Eisenhower (Vietnam) and Bush (Desert
: >Storm, Panama) and Reagan (Grenada, proxy wars in El Salvador and
: >Nicaragua) were liberals.
: JFK - Vietnam. And don't go on with that old line the Ike started it
: by sending in advisors because that is BS. We have sent advisors into
: dozens of places without following up with tens of thousands of dead
: Americans. You point out two of them below, El Salvador and
: Nicaragua, advisors only.
I guess we differ about what it means to get the United States into a war.
: Desert Storm, Panama and Granada were hardly wars.
Technically true, since the US hasn't been a declared war since World War
II, but they involved American troops and American casualties.
And incidentally, I'm glad FDR "got us into" World War II.
Ted
: >Ted
Johnny Rhyne
KAZ Vorpal <k...@smart.net> wrote in article
<6rjp5r$298$4...@news.smart.net>...
> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
> as the "warmongers".
>
> (George Bush, the only Republican to get the US into a war, was so
> Liberal that /he/ is the one who created the term "voodoo economics"
> in reference to Reagan's policies...)
>
> And Clinton is taking up that banner...as his relevence to the
> presidency is more or less eliminated, he tries to re-create it
> with acts of war against two different countries.
>
> Does anyone here actually believe the crap about this being
> for any reason other than politics?
>
> Of course, being a relative coward, he attacked two virtually
> helpless countries, Sudan and Afghanistan. Hopefully this will
> keep the US from another prolonged pseudo-war like Kennedy/Johnson
> and Truman started in Vietnam and Korea to help their
> presidencies...but I wouldn't bet on it.
IF anyone started this war, it was that ***hole Bin Laden and his cronies.
They commited an Act of War by Bombing our Embassies. We just responded in
kind.
KAZ Vorpal
RH])KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
>> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
>> as the "warmongers".
RH])It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
RH])yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
No, that makes perfect sense.
It takes a coward to force OTHER people into fighting.
Clinton, like the other Liberals before him, is perfectly willing
to have OTHER people go to war and die...he just wouldn't do it
HIMSELF.
A whimp, a coward, and in a sense a murderer.
--
Words of the Sentient:
A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise
the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness,
enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and
others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on
the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
-- Thomas Jefferson
KAZ Vorpal
EWC])Rick H (rick....@aopala.org) wrote:
EWC]): KAZ Vorpal wrote:
EWC]): >
EWC]): > It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
EWC]): > yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
EWC]): > as the "warmongers".
EWC]): It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
EWC]): yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
EWC])It's interesting that you all think Eisenhower (Vietnam) and Bush (Desert
EWC])Storm, Panama) and Reagan (Grenada, proxy wars in El Salvador and
EWC])Nicaragua) were liberals.
Kennedy got the US into Vietnam.
Before Kennedy, the US had perhaps a hundred "advisors" in Vietnam...non-combat.
This is much the same as the US had in dozens of other countries where the
US never got into a war, despite local conflicts.
Then Kennedy sent TWENTY THOUSAND COMBAT TROOPS to Vietnam, including
armor and weapons.
That was when it became different from the many, many other places
where the had a few people to represent the US' bias in local issues.
As I noted originally, Bush /is/ a Liberal. Bush is the man who CREATED
the term "voodoo economics" to attack Reagan's wish to cut taxes and
reduce regulation.
"proxy wars" do not use US troops, though it's wrong for even a
penny of taxpayers' money to be spent on foreign entanglements.
And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
--
Words of the Sentient:
The First Amendment forbids any law "abridging the freedom of speech". It
doesn't say, "except for commercials on children's television" or "unless
somebody says `cunt' in a rap song or `chick' on a college campus.
-- P.J.O'Rourke
KAZ Vorpal
MH])In article <6rjp5r$298$4...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
MH])}
MH])}Of course, being a relative coward, he attacked two virtually
MH])}helpless countries, Sudan and Afghanistan. Hopefully this will
MH])}keep the US from another prolonged pseudo-war like Kennedy/Johnson
MH])}and Truman started in Vietnam and Korea to help their
MH])}presidencies...but I wouldn't bet on it.
MH])}
MH]) Truman started the Korean War? Do tell.......
Well, in THIS reality, wherein most of us reside, he did.
Who got the US into it in /your/ little universe?
--
Words of the Sentient:
Do you agree with Sonny, or Cher?
-- Rep. Sam Brownback[R] on the difference between Liberals and Conservatives
KAZ Vorpal
JR]) IF anyone started this war, it was that ***hole Bin Laden and his cronies.
JR])They commited an Act of War by Bombing our Embassies. We just responded in
JR])kind.
While their actions are worse than those they are responding to,
the terrorists most obviously did not start this.
The US has constantly violated the sovreignty of the nations
of the Middle East for generations. The US' inexcusable bully-boy
behavior is the sole reason the US is targetted by these psychos.
If the corrupt leaders of the US would spend less time
intruding in the lives of the Arab states and more focus
on actual US issues (not that I want them looking here much,
either), there would be NO terrorism directed specifically
against the US.
They didn't just draw "Terrorize the US" out of a hat which
had 150 different nations' names in it. They don't complain
that the US must be terrorized because its citizens have lots
of money. They complain that the US won't leave them the hell
alone. Though their response to this (terrorism) is idiotic,
their motivation is perfectly reasonable.
Imagine if some aliens came down to the US, and started
forcing /us/ to do what they wanted, using military and economic
means.
Not to mention just how much you'd love those aliens
if they also decided to take YOUR home state away from
you and give it back to the Indians, leaving you to
either flee or be a second-class citizen, and forcing
the US government to submit to the action by military
threat. Technically, the Indians deserve much of the
US back in the same sense (and more recently) as the
Jews deserved Israel back...but how would you feel
when they came and took your home?
I'll bet there would be a rash of terrorist bombings
of the Martian embassy in the US, eh? And even those of
us who understood the terrorism to be wrong would nonetheless
hate the Martians.
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
In comparative terms, there's no poverty in America by a long shot.
Heritage Foundation political scientist Robert Rector has worked up
figures showing that when the official U.S. measure of poverty was
developed in 1963, a poor American family had an income twenty-nine times
greater than the average per capita income in the rest of the world. An
individual American could make more money than 93 percent of the other
people on the planet and still be considered poor.
-- P.J. O'Rourke
KAZ Vorpal
EWC])And incidentally, I'm glad FDR "got us into" World War II.
I guess a half million US citizens dead in a war that need not
have involved them is just an example of the end justifying the
means, eh?
Despite the fact that almost ALL of the US, outside of FDR
and a few other socialists, wanted the US to stay out of the war?
--
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
The Nazis became preoccupied with environmental concerns, using this as
justification for government intervention. The government aggressively
interfered with the private means of production, finally determining the
course of industry from a central platform of mixed private and public
authorities.
Edward William Clayton
: In alt.politics.libertarian Edward William Clayton <tcla...@umich.edu> wrote:
: EWC])Rick H (rick....@aopala.org) wrote:
: EWC]): KAZ Vorpal wrote:
: EWC]): >
: EWC]): > It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: EWC]): > yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
: EWC]): > as the "warmongers".
: EWC]): It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: EWC]): yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
: EWC])It's interesting that you all think Eisenhower (Vietnam) and Bush (Desert
: EWC])Storm, Panama) and Reagan (Grenada, proxy wars in El Salvador and
: EWC])Nicaragua) were liberals.
: Kennedy got the US into Vietnam.
: Before Kennedy, the US had perhaps a hundred "advisors" in Vietnam...non-combat.
: This is much the same as the US had in dozens of other countries where the
: US never got into a war, despite local conflicts.
: Then Kennedy sent TWENTY THOUSAND COMBAT TROOPS to Vietnam, including
: armor and weapons.
: That was when it became different from the many, many other places
: where the had a few people to represent the US' bias in local issues.
Under Eisenhower the United States was also providing Vietnam with money
and weapons, and it was under Eisenhower that the United States backed
Diem's refusal to hold the elections that were supposed to be held
throughout Vietnam in 1956. This, to me, counts as "getting us into" the
situation in Vietnam.
Where do you get your 20,000 combat troops number? According to George
Moss, in _Vietnam: An American Ordeal_, "At the time of Kennedy's death,
there were 16,500" advisers and support personnel in Vietnam. The real
involvement of American troops in combat happened after the Gulf of
Tonkin resolutions, passed in 1964 (LBJ, not JFK) by votes of 88-2 in the
Senate and 416-0 in the House (Moss, p. 149). There was plenty of
bipartisan blame to go around there.
: As I noted originally, Bush /is/ a Liberal. Bush is the man who CREATED
: the term "voodoo economics" to attack Reagan's wish to cut taxes and
: reduce regulation.
And IMO was right, but I don't get involved in Republican infighting.
: "proxy wars" do not use US troops, though it's wrong for even a
: penny of taxpayers' money to be spent on foreign entanglements.
But still count as involvement, IMO.
: And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
: landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
: for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
Difference of opinion.
Ted
: --
: Words of the Sentient:
: The First Amendment forbids any law "abridging the freedom of speech". It
: doesn't say, "except for commercials on children's television" or "unless
: somebody says `cunt' in a rap song or `chick' on a college campus.
: -- P.J.O'Rourke
: --------------------
Edward William Clayton
: In alt.politics.libertarian Edward William Clayton <tcla...@umich.edu> wrote:
: EWC])And incidentally, I'm glad FDR "got us into" World War II.
: I guess a half million US citizens dead in a war that need not
: have involved them is just an example of the end justifying the
: means, eh?
: Despite the fact that almost ALL of the US, outside of FDR
: and a few other socialists, wanted the US to stay out of the war?
I'm glad to see you promoting this opinion, and I encourage you to do so
often and vigorously.
: --
: Secrets of the Sentient
: Did You Know:
: The Nazis became preoccupied with environmental concerns, using this as
: justification for government intervention. The government aggressively
: interfered with the private means of production, finally determining the
: course of industry from a central platform of mixed private and public
: authorities.
Gee, so Al Gore is a Nazi, and so is Greenpeace. That's what we're
supposed to infer here, right? Thanks for opening my eyes.
Ted
Mader Afac
KAZ Vorpal wrote in message <6rp0v6$fd1$4...@news.smart.net>...
educators
>
>RH])It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
>RH])yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
>
>
>No, that makes perfect sense.
>
>It takes a coward to force OTHER people into fighting.
>
>Clinton, like the other Liberals before him, is perfectly willing
>to have OTHER people go to war and die...he just wouldn't do it
>HIMSELF.
>
>A whimp, a coward, and in a sense a murderer.
Right on. This is a perfect example of a liar, cheat and coward making an
attempt at rebuilding an exposed weakness.
If these terroists camps were sitting in Russia (with all those warheads)
would Billy have sent the missiles in?
How about they now move their headquarters to London, then blow up another
embassy in say Spain. They violated no laws in London, is Billy going to
send the missiles in.
This administration is the one that during the first presidential campaign
said "foreign policy does not matter, it's the economy stupid". No, it's the
stupid administration, that has no foreign policy and no idea of how to
propose, prepare or carry out one.
Deadbeat Dads, Morphine Moms,
Rapists, Murderers, Sex Perverts
and other Democrats. All working
for your future!
Mader Afac RPE BSE
Executive Director LETA
kim overstreet
>
>And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
>landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
>for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
>
War is usually defined as to sides engaging in armed conflict.
As I was there,and was shot,I have to dispute the notions of the draft
dodging libertoonians.
StephenJ
>
> If these terroists camps were sitting in Russia (with all those warheads)
> would Billy have sent the missiles in?
Of course not. The US bullies small countries. The USSR used to run all
kinds of terrorist camps, and we never bombed them. Wonder why? China
has "facilities" that build and sell bombs and missiles to "outlaw"
terrorist-supporting nations like Iran, and do we bomb them? No, we give
them MFN and lick their boots!
***********************
"I can state unequivocally that, as my husband has said, these
are false allegations!" -Hillary Rodham Clinton, in January, commenting
on the charges that Bill Clinton had had a sexual relationship with
Monica Lewinsky
"The President will tell the grand jury the truth and the WHOLE TRUTH" -
White House Spokesman Mike McCurry on Monday, minutes before Clinton
REFUSED
to answer several questions posed by the Grand Jury
"I WANT YOU TO LISTEN TO ME! I'm going to say this again: I did not have
sexual relations with that woman - Miss Lewinsky". - Bill CLinton,
January
***********************
Spirit Explorer
>In alt.politics.libertarian Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
>MH])In article <6rjp5r$298$4...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
>
>MH])}
>MH])}Of course, being a relative coward, he attacked two virtually
>MH])}helpless countries, Sudan and Afghanistan. Hopefully this will
>MH])}keep the US from another prolonged pseudo-war like Kennedy/Johnson
>MH])}and Truman started in Vietnam and Korea to help their
>MH])}presidencies...but I wouldn't bet on it.
>MH])}
>
>MH]) Truman started the Korean War? Do tell.......
Of course this shows us his real intelligent level. Anyone that can
read history at all knows that Ike got us involved in Vietnam. But, so
many of these right-wing lunatics have to change history around to
prove their moronic points that make no sense at all.
War or any political involvment is wrong when we end up with so many
of our citizens killed and/or maimed because our government gets mad
at another government. It is like kids in elementary school and all.
It is sickening.
Spirit Explorer
Spirit Explorer
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
War has to be declared by the Congress of the United States,
otherwise, it is considered a political conflict, police action, ect.
You can take your choice of names. The point being is that the "Gulf
War" was the only other war we have been involved in since World War
II. Vietnam...Korea...ect....all were political conflicts. The
unfortunate side of all this is that men and women were still killed.
Now about your statement concerning draft dodgers. If our country is
not involved in a legally declared war, then why should people have to
be involved in the draft? All because o bunch of political bufoons say
so?! I don't think so. And, apparantly, the majority of the people of
this country also believe that way. It is actually illegal for our
country to use the draft on anyone unless there has been a legally
declared war by the Congress!!!
Spirit Explorer
Gregorio Morales de los Gringos
>>
>> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
>> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
>> as the "warmongers".
Conservatives are too gutless to take on tough foes the way FDR did in WWII.
They prefer attacking people who live in huts and are no threat to the
national security as in Reagan's invasion of Grenada and Bush's invasion of
Panama.
Another example of the gutlessness of modern conservatives is their war
records. Reagan spent WWII in Hollywood. Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, and Pat
Buchanan successfully avoided service in Vietnam, yet they are hypocritical
enought to criticize the president. At least Mr. Clinton had the courage to
oppose the war, and his draft number was too high anyway.
Gregorio Morales de los Gringos
======================================================
"I see things the way they are, you see things the way you are"
Gregorio Morales de los Gringos
>In alt.politics.libertarian Edward William Clayton <tcla...@umich.edu>
wrote:
>
>EWC])And incidentally, I'm glad FDR "got us into" World War II.
>
>I guess a half million US citizens dead in a war that need not
>have involved them is just an example of the end justifying the
>means, eh?
>
>Despite the fact that almost ALL of the US, outside of FDR
>and a few other socialists, wanted the US to stay out of the war?
Yeah, and if the US stayed out of WWII, all of Europe would be communist.
Russia was the first country to enter Berlin. They would have kept marching
right through Paris if the U.S. and her allies didn't open up a western
front.
You also fail to mention that most of the people wanted to enter the war
after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But being the conservative you are, I am
sure you are much more comfortable fighting a weaker foe like welfare
mothers.
Gregorio Morales de los Gringos
=====================================================
John Wayne was a real hero. He made movies and had Mexican women while my
father fought in the war and had Chinese.
kim overstreet
>>
>>War is usually defined as to sides engaging in armed conflict.
>>As I was there,and was shot,I have to dispute the notions of the draft
>>dodging libertoonians.
>
>War has to be declared by the Congress of the United States,
>otherwise, it is considered a political conflict, police action, ect.
>You can take your choice of names. The point being is that the "Gulf
>War" was the only other war we have been involved in since World War
>II. Vietnam...Korea...ect....all were political conflicts. The
>unfortunate side of all this is that men and women were still killed.
The bottom line is when the bullets fly and people die it's war,
Whatever or however slippery the semantics may be.
>
>Now about your statement concerning draft dodgers. If our country is
>not involved in a legally declared war, then why should people have to
>be involved in the draft?
To preserve the interests of the country as a whole.To provide stabillity
for the US and other democracies to flourish.
Cowardice and slippery semantics are no excuse!
All because o bunch of political bufoons say
>so?! I don't think so. And, apparantly, the majority of the people of
>this country also believe that way. It is actually illegal for our
>country to use the draft on anyone unless there has been a legally
>declared war by the Congress!!!
Another future Canadian immigrant.
>
>Spirit Explorer
>
Spirit Explorer
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>.
>>
>>And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
>>landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
>>for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
>>
>
>War is usually defined as to sides engaging in armed conflict.
>As I was there,and was shot,I have to dispute the notions of the draft
>dodging libertoonians.
War has to be declared by the Congress of the United States,
otherwise, it is considered a political conflict, police action, ect.
You can take your choice of names. The point being is that the "Gulf
War" was the only other war we have been involved in since World War
II. Vietnam...Korea...ect....all were political conflicts. The
unfortunate side of all this is that men and women were still killed.
Now about your statement concerning draft dodgers. If our country is
not involved in a legally declared war, then why should people have to
be involved in the draft? All because o bunch of political bufoons say
so?! I don't think so. And, apparantly, the majority of the people of
this country also believe that way. It is actually illegal for our
country to use the draft on anyone unless there has been a legally
declared war by the Congress!!!
Spirit Explorer
Spirit Explorer
Hey there....it takes more guts to fight the establishment than to
give in and have no idea why you are fighting except that some
political bufoon said so. These are not semantics.
Kind of like all of you keep saying..."It's is perjury...not the sex."
That could be called semantics also. Tit for Tat!!!
>Another future Canadian immigrant.
I would never run from something I believe in, like fighting for what
I believe. BTW, I am much too old to be considered for the
draft.....and I am female. Oh well...so sorry!
>>
>>Spirit Explorer
>>
>
>
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}
}FDR was a spineless dolt who didn't take on tough foes until they
}attacked the U.S.
All suspicions that T. Mark Gibson failed 6th grade
history have now been confirmed.
dgenius
-dgenius
The Shoe wrote in message <01bdcfcc$87d1e600$452a56d1@default>...
>If she was truly out to "get" the president it was because she is a good
>American trying to save the country.
>
>>
>>
>> What interests me, is that Linda Tripp is not just "an ordinary citizen",
>> as she said recently.....but rather, a high-paid Pentagon functionary,
>who
>> was deeply involved in trying to "Get" the president, even in earlier
>> White Water inquiries.
>>
>>
Mark Metzler
: RH])KAZ Vorpal wrote:
: >>
: >> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: >> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
: >> as the "warmongers".
: RH])It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
: RH])yet the Liberals are the ones painted by the conservatives as "wimps."
What interests me, is that Linda Tripp is not just "an ordinary citizen",
as she said recently.....but rather, a high-paid Pentagon functionary, who
was deeply involved in trying to "Get" the president, even in earlier
White Water inquiries.
Bill Clinton has done more than any other president in US history to
resolve conflicts all over the world: the peaceful transition to DEmocracy
in Haiti, at a time of immanent revolution, de-escalation of a potential
nuclear conflcit in Korea, major peace accord in Middle East, with
opposing leaders holding hands, peace process initiated in Ireland, with
leaders still working hard for its success, and the cessation of the
hideous genocide in Bosnia.
Yet right at the time that Clinton is being crucified for sins that
were the same as Martin Luther Kings extra-marital sex life (documented by
J. Edgar Hoover), Linda Tripp's Pentagon cronies pulll out a plan that will
in all likelyhood, result in long term military strikes....a role for the
Pentagon, that they have not had yet under Clinton.
So, in a real sense....Linda Tripp, and her pentagon cronies, are holding
a gun at Clinton's head, and forcing him to take the only option which
will allow the Pentagon to justify the sales of weopons.
Since the end of the cold war, the military industrial complex has been
working without any visible justification. You can bet there are a lot
of high-ranking military types, with $million homes that are half paid for,
and they need a reason for their funding.
Mitchell Holman
}someday you'll learn to do more than post childish insults,
}but I doubt it.
OK, back up your claim. Tell us what a sitting
president could have done with public committed
to isolationism to "take on tough foes". Besides
what he *did* do, that is, like push thru the Draft
Act (passed by one vote), pushed thru Lend Lease,
emposed economic sanctions on Japan, and sending
all the military aid he could to the Allies.
Go ahead, T. Mark - post some proof of "spineless
FDR" bilge.
The Shoe
home ranting all day about Reagan. While the attendant changes his diaper,
he will really get to ranting. The attendants will ask one another: "How
did that guy get so wrapped up on a president who died so many years ago".
They will never know the truth, namely, that his hatred for the American
voters cracked him up long before they had to insititutionalize him.
The Shoe
found out the president and his goons were out to get her. She outsmarted
them.
The Shoe
American trying to save the country.
>
>
kim overstreet
>>War is usually defined as to sides engaging in armed conflict.
>>As I was there,and was shot,I have to dispute the notions of the draft
>>dodging libertoonians.
>
>War has to be declared by the Congress of the United States,
>otherwise, it is considered a political conflict, police action, ect.
>You can take your choice of names. The point being is that the "Gulf
>War" was the only other war we have been involved in since World War
>II. Vietnam...Korea...ect....all were political conflicts. The
>unfortunate side of all this is that men and women were still killed.
I thought I posted the fallacy of your statement,but it didn't make it here
apparently....So...
The Congressional Meadal of Honor is awarded to individuals going above and
beyond the call of duty in times of WAR!!
I can't name any Korean era vets with the CMH,and the recent " conflicts"
have had no one put up for it, but CM2 Marvin Sheilds and
1SG Morales both got one....CM2 Sheilds got his "posthumusly".
For a conflict,it sure seems odd that they'd hand out these awards like
that?
>
>Now about your statement concerning draft dodgers. If our country is
>not involved in a legally declared war, then why should people have to
>be involved in the draft? All because o bunch of political bufoons say
>so?!
Who elected them?
Typical loonytarian thinking!
I don't think so. And, apparantly, the majority of the people of
>this country also believe that way.
Believed WHAT?????
It is actually illegal for our
>country to use the draft on anyone unless there has been a legally
>declared war by the Congress!!!
I suppose you want to go back in time and imprison all of congress and
execute LBJ?
Of course your Ideas are a little extreme even by repug and loonytarian
standards.
>
>Spirit Explorer
Future Canadian immigrant
>
kim overstreet
The Shoe wrote in message <01bdcfcc$57f51740$452a56d1@default>...
>She never had any plans to "get" the president. She woke up one day and
>found out the president and his goons were out to get her. She outsmarted
>them.
Aw come off it Shoe....The broad's a sleezeball. A troubled and "disturbed"
young woman confided in her and she blabbed her confidence all over.I can't
imagine you support betrayal and breaking confidence Sp5.
Matthew Devney
>
> How can you save the country from oral sex?
>
--
=============================================================================
Matthew Devney
** Pilot Network Services, Inc. (800)
811-5222 **
** 1080 Marina Village Parkway FAX (510)
433-7807 **
** Alameda, CA 94501
USA **
=============================================================================
Spirit Explorer
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I thought I posted the fallacy of your statement,but it didn't make it here
>apparently....So...
>The Congressional Meadal of Honor is awarded to individuals going above and
>beyond the call of duty in times of WAR!!
>I can't name any Korean era vets with the CMH,and the recent " conflicts"
>have had no one put up for it, but CM2 Marvin Sheilds and
>1SG Morales both got one....CM2 Sheilds got his "posthumusly".
>For a conflict,it sure seems odd that they'd hand out these awards like
>that?
>>
Well guess what kind sir or mam?!! Our government gave the medals to
be sure but neither one was a declared war. All you have to do is read
a history book. I and everyone knows that our government gave out
medals, as they should have. I mean they did tell our men and women to
go over and fight in these conflicts.
So big deal!!! Now what did you prove here. I never once said that the
men and/or women didn't get any medals. That has nothing to do with
what each conflict was called legally. World War II was declared a war
by our Congress. The Gulf War was declared a war by our Congress.
Korea and Vietnam were both conflicts and were never declared a war.
Men and women still got medals, but that has nothing to do with the
fact they were never declared a war by Congress.
It matters not a whit what you want to call them because according to
our own Constitution, they are not wars!!
Spirit Explorer
dgenius
country. She betrayed a friend, and put the country into considering
impeachment because the president lied about sex. Clinton is a very good
president, he will not hesitate to defend the US because some fools who
protest everything (remember Cassini) will protest necessary missile strikes
as well.
-dgenius
KAZ Vorpal wrote in message <6s01en$fhc$3...@news.smart.net>...
>In alt.politics.usa.republican dgenius <dge...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
>d])How can you save the country from oral sex?
>
>It stuns me when people are so obtuse as to cling blindly to
>the oral sex part, and seem unable to understand the CRIMES
>surrounding it.
>
>Funny, the exact same people were perfectly able to see how
>saying "there's a pube on my Pepsi" and "call me Long Dong Silver"
>(that is the WORST that Clarence Thomas was ever accused of doing)
>was grounds for keeping a man off of the Supreme Court...
>
>...but:
>
>having an
>
> - almost under-age
> - subordinate
> - public-employee
> - service your penis
> - in a public building,
> - in the Oval Office,
> - lie about it in court
> - and then have her lie about it IN COURT,
> - to lie to the Executive Cabinet and Staff of the President
> (and thus)
> - have the Secretary of State lie to the public
> - have the Secretary of Defense lie to the public
> - have the First Lady lie to the public
> - have much of the rest of the top of the executive branch lie
> - and commit a long laundry list of other abuses of power to cover up,
>
>...is perfectly acceptable.
>
>
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>Mothers born on relief have their babies on relief. Nothingness, truly,
seems
>to be the condition of these New York people...They are nomads going from
one
>rooming house to another, looking for a toilet that functions.
> -- Elizabeth Hardwick
KAZ Vorpal
ko])The Shoe wrote in message <01bdcfcc$57f51740$452a56d1@default>...
>>She never had any plans to "get" the president. She woke up one day and
>>found out the president and his goons were out to get her. She outsmarted
>>them.
ko])Aw come off it Shoe....The broad's a sleezeball. A troubled and "disturbed"
ko])young woman confided in her and she blabbed her confidence all over.I can't
ko])imagine you support betrayal and breaking confidence Sp5.
Yeah...it's nice to know that, from now on, the Liberals, feminists,
and other kinds of socialists will be willing to admit that women
who level accusations of sexual assault or harassment are quite often
lying sluts who should be mocked and dismissed.
I remember back then the socialist stance had been "Any woman who
accuses a man of sexual harassment must be assumed to be telling
the truth, and must not be put on trial herself"
But those days are over.
If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
--
Words of the Sentient:
There is nothing more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people should be free --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
KAZ Vorpal
...but:
having an
...is perfectly acceptable.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Mothers born on relief have their babies on relief. Nothingness, truly, seems
to be the condition of these New York people...They are nomads going from one
rooming house to another, looking for a toilet that functions.
-- Elizabeth Hardwick
--------------------
kim overstreet
>It matters not a whit what you want to call them because according to
>our own Constitution, they are not wars!!
>
>Spirit Explorer
>
kim overstreet
>ko])Aw come off it Shoe....The broad's a sleezeball. A troubled and
"disturbed"
>ko])young woman confided in her and she blabbed her confidence all over.I
can't
>ko])imagine you support betrayal and breaking confidence Sp5.
>
>
>Yeah...it's nice to know that, from now on, the Liberals, feminists,
>and other kinds of socialists will be willing to admit that women
>who level accusations of sexual assault or harassment are quite often
>lying sluts who should be mocked and dismissed.
A: Who's a liberal,socialist,or feminist?
B:Define "liberal".
C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
D:When Supreme court justice Thomas was accused,where was your outrage then?
>
>I remember back then the socialist stance had been "Any woman who
>accuses a man of sexual harassment must be assumed to be telling
>the truth, and must not be put on trial herself"
See "A" above.
>
>
>But those days are over.
>
>If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
>corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
>blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
And repugnicans!
>
>--
>
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>There is nothing more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
>people should be free --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
"A little revolution now and then is good for the soul"-Thomas Jefferson (A
renowned radical and "liberal")
Tony Veca
Hash: SHA1
Kim,
Over 100 years ago slavery was outlawed.
The Military Draft is nothing more than Federally Sanctioned Slavery.
Wars have never been won by conscripted troops. Before you even
mention WWII, the draft was started because of the heavy influx of men
who rushed to join the military after Pearl Harbor who wanted to kick
Japan in the teeth.
If you take a look at both Korea and Vietnam, the US relied heavily on
conscripted troops, and we didn't win either of those.
If I was a general I would want men and women in the military because
they choose to be there, not because they are suffering from
conscription syndrome. Conscripted troops create an unprecedented
moral problem in the whole military.
As Robert Hienlien wrote; "Roman mothers use to say 'Come home with
your shield or on it, when that custom declined, so did Rome."
==========
Time is infinite. You are finite, Zathrus is finite...This is wrong
tool!"
-- Zathrus
Babylon 5 "War Without End" (Episodes 315-316)
==========
Tony Veca
tv...@gte.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNeRPNJSv5OCaPmHsEQJGxwCg4j5qEnsmyifXdOSLm/yLzzaG0e8Anibc
4jPYy1A08A1AeAns8AKISvDY
=W+ea
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gundobad
kim overstreet wrote in message <6s1dnp$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
Oh really? The president's attorney damn sure branded her a liar on national
tv, and they booted her down to the Pentagon, after she testified before
Congress about Willey. _That's_ why she taped Monica: she was tired of
Clinton and cronies calling her a liar.
Spirit Explorer
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
OK since there is no legitimacy....you provide me with PROOF that they
are wars!!! No big deal because legally you can't. Yes we call them
wars...but according to our own Constitution...they arn't. It is just
the way it is and you are just pissed.
Look...all I was trying to do and say is to get it across to all of
the people on here that seem to think they are better than someone
else because they or someone in their family served in the armed
forces during the conflicts. I hate the fact that men and women died
in these conflicts and they should never have happened, but they did.
It is not semantics at all. IUt is the LAW and the Constitution!!!
Read it and you might learn something.
Because of that...as far as I am concerned every damn person that
served in the military overseas in one of the conflicts should sue the
hell out of our country for sending them to an illegal "war".
Spirit Explorer
KAZ Vorpal
TV])As Robert Hienlien wrote; "Roman mothers use to say 'Come home with
TV])your shield or on it, when that custom declined, so did Rome."
He also said:
Words of the Sentient:
There is an old picture of a people travelling by sleigh through
deep woods -- pursued by wolves. Every now and then they grab one of
their members and toss him to the wolves. That's conscription.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
--
Words of the Sentient:
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. --Nietzsche
KAZ Vorpal
>>KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>>>
>>> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
>>> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
>>> as the "warmongers".
GMdlG])Conservatives are too gutless to take on tough foes the way FDR did in WWII.
GMdlG])They prefer attacking people who live in huts and are no threat to the
GMdlG])national security as in Reagan's invasion of Grenada and Bush's invasion of
GMdlG])Panama.
GMdlG])Another example of the gutlessness of modern conservatives is their war
GMdlG])records. Reagan spent WWII in Hollywood. Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, and Pat
GMdlG])Buchanan successfully avoided service in Vietnam, yet they are hypocritical
GMdlG])enought to criticize the president. At least Mr. Clinton had the courage to
GMdlG])oppose the war, and his draft number was too high anyway.
So what you're saying is that you are PROUD that your Liberal idols got
the US into wars which killed more Americans than ANY other form of
unnatural death this century...
And you're proud that, in all four cases, your lying idols
FORCED the people of the US into those mass deaths, though in all
four cases the people of the US were TOTALLY OPPOSED to involvement.
Gee, no wonder your kind preferred Stalin's 60,000,000 murders to
Hitler's 12,000,000.
--
--
Words of the Socialists:
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of
rhetoric than to any other force. -- Adolf Hitler
KAZ Vorpal
>>ko])young woman confided in her and she blabbed her confidence all over.I
>>ko])imagine you support betrayal and breaking confidence Sp5.
>>
>>
>>Yeah...it's nice to know that, from now on, the Liberals, feminists,
>>and other kinds of socialists will be willing to admit that women
>>who level accusations of sexual assault or harassment are quite often
>>lying sluts who should be mocked and dismissed.
ko])A: Who's a liberal,socialist,or feminist?
ko])B:Define "liberal".
ko])C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
ko])D:When Supreme court justice Thomas was accused,where was your outrage then?
A> The people attempting to defend Clinton by attacking his
accusers, especially the women involved.
B> I use Liberal in the pejorative sense, with the definition that has
been used by socialists in the US since Woodrow Wilson. Essentially it is
"The same policial stance as any other country's Democratic Socialist Party,
but without the honesty to use the term".
C> No, but she is the accuser, who says someone was harassed
and, by Feminazi standards, assaulted. And notice that not only Tripp,
but also Lewinski, Paula Jones, and all of the many other women
who say Clinton's a sexual harasser deluxe have gotten exactly
the treatment to which I refer.
D> When Clarence Thomas was accused, I said that the feminists, Liberals,
and other socialists were lying...that they didn't care about the
IDIOTIC accusations against Thomas, but just didn't want their LIE
about how all blacks must be Liberal to be revealed by this Conservative
black gaining one of the highest positions in the land.
And the Feminists/Liberals and other socialists have proven me right.
The WORST thing Thomas was accused of doing was saying things like
"Hey, there's a pube on my pepsi" and "Call me Long Dong Silver",
whereas Clinton is accused of having sex with a teenage subordinate
(Lewinskey) on public property, having a state police officer bring
an unwilling woman (Paula Jones) to his room where he
"exposed his erect member and said 'Kiss it'", and
SEXUALLY ASSULTED (not just harassed) a woman who was begging
him for financial help (Wiley).
And yet you're so slimey that you are trying to dodge that
point, defending this kind of monstrous abuse of power.
>>I remember back then the socialist stance had been "Any woman who
>>accuses a man of sexual harassment must be assumed to be telling
>>the truth, and must not be put on trial herself"
ko])See "A" above.
I challenge you to claim you don't know precisely to what I refer,
regardless of your desire to play semantic games. Thus you would
prove you are not competent to do anything during a political
discussion except listen.
>>But those days are over.
>>
>>If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
>>corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
>>blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
ko])And repugnicans!
Hey, the non-Liberals (such as Republicans and Libertarians) always
/were/ against this kind of "sexual harassment" witch-hunt. The
disgusting part is the hypocricy of the Liberals/socialists/feminists
who have turned around and abandoned all of their feigned principles.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Words of the Sentient:
>>
>>There is nothing more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
>>people should be free --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
ko])"A little revolution now and then is good for the soul"-Thomas Jefferson (A
ko])renowned radical and "liberal")
Jefferson was a liberal, but he was the EXACT opposite of a "Liberal" in the
modern sense.
Are you one of the few gullible sheep who doesn't understand that the
modern "Liberal" usage is just a lame propoganda attempt by people who
are as anti-liberal as any major group in the US?
Jefferson was almost /exactly/ libertarian, in the modern sense.
I shudder to imagine his horror upon seeing the policies and
abuses of power by Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Clinton.
--
Words of the Sentient:
What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which
has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares
and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or
France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. -- Thomas Jefferson
Matthew Devney
>
> If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
> corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
> blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
Won't you love interviewing.
KAZ Vorpal
MG])Gregorio Morales de los Gringos (mexican...@webtv.net) wrote:
>>>KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting that a Liberal got the US into every war this century,
>>>> yet the Conservatives are the ones painted by corrupt media and educators
>>>> as the "warmongers".
>>
>>
MG])FDR was a spineless dolt who didn't take on tough foes until they
MG])attacked the U.S. FDR did more harm to the U.S. than any other
MG])President of this century. (Clinton still has the dishonor of
MG])being the most corrupt excuse for a President the U.S. has ever
MG])had to suffer.)
No, you're wrong...he was a coward, all right, because he sent
a half million OTHER people to their deaths...but FDR /forced/
the US into the war. Are you aware that he committed at least
three acts of war against Japan, and that Japan did NOT want
to go to war against the US, but felt that it would end up
getting wiped out by FDR if it did not?
--
Words of the Sentient:
One important reason we have a Defense Department is that when we
give it money, it spends it, which creates jobs, whereas if we
left the money in the hands of civilians, we don't know what they'd
do with it. Probably put it in open trenches and set it on fire.
-- Dave Barry, /At Last, the Ultimate Deterrent Against Political Fallout/
Mader Afac
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e46698....@news.zianet.com>...
We did. Ever hear of the GI Bill, the VA loan, the VA hospital, the GI 10
point system for Federal Jobs? Some things you learn by serving in the
military overseas in any kind of war. You learn that:
1. Most of those that didn't don't give a shit.
2. Most of those that didn't never understand what is at stake.
3. Most of those that didn't think it was a game like, say, football.
4. Most of those that didn't are very quick to want to get us into a war.
5. Most of those that didn't, won't take their hats off when the National
Anthem is played.
6. Most of those that didn't won't stand when the National Anthem is played.
7. Most of those that didn't think Memorial Day is when they have a big car
race.
8. Most of those that didn't think that Veterans Day is a day to take your
dog to the Vet.
9. Most of those that didn't think the 4th of July is to honor Party Animals
and Drunks.
10. Most of those that didn't think that those that came very close to death
are absolutely stupid to think there just might be a God after all.
11. Most of those that didn't can't understand why those that did wouldn't
just lay down their weapons because the war was politically incorrect.
12. Most of those that didn't think that those that did actually started the
damn war.
13. Most of those that didn't think that those that did actually had a
choice as to whether they would go or not.
14. Most of those that didn't by means of some phony ailment or deferement
or other such crap are not very well liked by those that did.
15. And probably most important, most of those that did, if given the
choice, wouldn't now, and as most of you wouldn't, where does that leave us?
There are lots more we could post for you but for the reason we won't,
please refer to number 1.
Deadbeat Dads, Morphine Moms,
Rapists, Murderers, Sex Perverts
and other Democrats. All working
for your future!
Mader Afac RPE BSE
Executive Director LETA
kim overstreet
>>
>>
>OK since there is no legitimacy....you provide me with PROOF that they
>are wars!!! No big deal because legally you can't. Yes we call them
>wars...but according to our own Constitution...they arn't. It is just
>the way it is and you are just pissed.
I'm not pissed.I'm just pointing out you slippery semantics.No matter what
the polits say,no matter what you choose to construe or skew the law into
saying,when guy's in green suits start bullets flying and people start dying
....IT"S WAR!
>
>Look...all I was trying to do and say is to get it across to all of
>the people on here that seem to think they are better than someone
>else because they or someone in their family served in the armed
>forces during the conflicts.
At the cost of sounding like one of these conservative
extremists,loonytarians and militia members.......Those who have seved in
uniform ARE better than the rest of the population.They are better for
having served.Facts like these are usually wasted on the aging ex-hippies
(the ones who support all manner of liberal causes
only if it doesn't inconvienience them at the time) hypocrites who feel it
was their god given right to sit in AA guns in the VN war and to spit on,and
call "baby killer" the men responsible for upholding the right of those ex
hippies to spew forth their inane hypocritical bullshit.
I hate the fact that men and women died
I find that difficult to believe!
>in these conflicts and they should never have happened, but they did.
>
>It is not semantics at all. IUt is the LAW and the Constitution!!!
>Read it and you might learn something.
I've read it extensively.....Filled with loopholes and vaugaries it is....
>
>Because of that...as far as I am concerned every damn person that
>served in the military overseas in one of the conflicts should sue the
>hell out of our country for sending them to an illegal "war".
And sue the hell out of these beatnik/pseudo peacenik hippie hypocrites
aswell,no doubt?
>
>Spirit Explorer
>
Walt Horning
>
>kim overstreet wrote in message <6s1dnp$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
>
>Oh really? The president's attorney damn sure branded her a liar on national
>tv, and they booted her down to the Pentagon, after she testified before
>Congress about Willey. _That's_ why she taped Monica: she was tired of
>Clinton and cronies calling her a liar.
>
And making threats through Monica Lewinsky, or so its alleged. Have to
wait for Ken Starr's report.
kim overstreet
>
>ko])A: Who's a liberal,socialist,or feminist?
>ko])B:Define "liberal".
>ko])C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
>ko])D:When Supreme court justice Thomas was accused,where was your outrage
then?
>
>A> The people attempting to defend Clinton by attacking his
>accusers, especially the women involved.
That's rather a vauge and illogical definition.
>
>B> I use Liberal in the pejorative sense, with the definition that has
>been used by socialists in the US since Woodrow Wilson. Essentially it is
>"The same policial stance as any other country's Democratic Socialist
Party,
>but without the honesty to use the term".
But what of the "liberal" who supports the NRA? Tax relief? is anti
abortion?Is pro capital punishment?Drives an American car?Is pro business?
As with the aging ex hippie\pseudo peacenik goofball broad,you semantics
seem awfull slippery.
>
>C> No, but she is the accuser, who says someone was harassed
>and, by Feminazi standards, assaulted.
Who gives a shit about the national millitant lesbian movement and what they
define as "harassment,I'm reffering to what common everyday folk think is
"harassment" inasmuch as the same vein as Lewinsky et all. The point that I
was making,wich seems to be lost to you is that the ugly fat bitch betrayed
a "friend",which to me,no matter the reason is damnable,vile,and
repugnant.To do this to a "friend" shows her to be the shallowest of
humanity to sell out someone for the sake of some bitter politcal gain.
And notice that not only Tripp,
>but also Lewinski, Paula Jones, and all of the many other women
>who say Clinton's a sexual harasser deluxe have gotten exactly
>the treatment to which I refer.
But you seem to lump "harassment" and "sexual harassment" into the same
category?
>
>D> When Clarence Thomas was accused, I said that the feminists, Liberals,
>and other socialists were lying.
So if the party being accused is conservative,then the accusers are lying?
..that they didn't care about the
>IDIOTIC accusations against Thomas, but just didn't want their LIE
>about how all blacks must be Liberal to be revealed by this Conservative
>black gaining one of the highest positions in the land
Your rabidity is causing you to foam at the mouth...
>
>And the Feminists/Liberals and other socialists have proven me right.
Maybe too far right?
>
>
>The WORST thing Thomas was accused of doing was saying things like
>"Hey, there's a pube on my pepsi" and "Call me Long Dong Silver",
>whereas Clinton is accused of having sex with a teenage subordinate
Acutally the goofball (Anita Hill),accused Justice Thomas of trying to
proposition her as well as tying it in with her job,notwithstanding that it
took several years for her to bring the accusations to bear (at a most
inconvienient time).
>(Lewinskey) on public property, having a state police officer bring
>an unwilling woman (Paula Jones) to his room where he
>"exposed his erect member and said 'Kiss it'", and
>SEXUALLY ASSULTED (not just harassed) a woman who was begging
>him for financial help (Wiley).
The whole problem with your current argument is that wheather or not slick
wormed out of it or he's telling the truth,none of these allegations has
been proven either in a court of law or public opinion.
>
>And yet you're so slimey that you are trying to dodge that
>point, defending this kind of monstrous abuse of power.
Up until this point,no one has stooped as low as to start with the name
calling flames,so let me "retalliate in kind".
As for being slimey, You are the one covered in shit.To support a
spineless,cowardly,backstabbing,fat,ugly whore in her pursuit,no matter how
noble you may find that pursuit, proves you to be a sleezy,
low class creep,that has no limits as to how low you'll stoop to persue your
own narrowminded agenda.
>
>>>I remember back then the socialist stance had been "Any woman who
>>>accuses a man of sexual harassment must be assumed to be telling
>>>the truth, and must not be put on trial herself"
>
>ko])See "A" above.
>
>I challenge you to claim you don't know precisely to what I refer,
>regardless of your desire to play semantic games. Thus you would
>prove you are not competent to do anything during a political
>discussion except listen.
And this neophyte would call me incompetent?
>
>>>But those days are over.
>>>
>>>If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
>>>corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
>>>blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
>
>ko])And repugnicans!
>
>Hey, the non-Liberals (such as Republicans and Libertarians) always
>/were/ against this kind of "sexual harassment" witch-hunt.
Then why do they persue it with so much vigor now?
The
>disgusting part is the hypocricy of the Liberals/socialists/feminists
>who have turned around and abandoned all of their feigned principles.
That's how they are....You must really be a neophyte if this comes as a
suprise to you...
>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Words of the Sentient:
>>>
>>>There is nothing more certainly written in the book of fate than that
these
>>>people should be free --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
>
>ko])"A little revolution now and then is good for the soul"-Thomas
Jefferson (A
>ko])renowned radical and "liberal")
>
>
>Jefferson was a liberal, but he was the EXACT opposite of a "Liberal" in
the
>modern sense.
>
>
>Are you one of the few gullible sheep who doesn't understand that the
>modern "Liberal" usage is just a lame propoganda attempt by people who
>are as anti-liberal as any major group in the US?
>
>Jefferson was almost /exactly/ libertarian, in the modern sense.
Jefferson was the truest of FEDERALISTS ever!
I think he'd find the "loonytarians" as repugnant as the rest of us....
At least judging by election results anyway!
>
>I shudder to imagine his horror upon seeing the policies and
>abuses of power by Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Clinton.
Not to mention Eisenhower, Nixon et all!
Bob Tiernan
> It matters not a whit what you want to call them because
> according to our own Constitution, they are not wars!!
Nope! The Constitution does not provide for a *definition*
of war, but for *declaring* war.
Bob T.
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
>We did. Ever hear of the GI Bill, the VA loan, the VA hospital, the GI 10
>point system for Federal Jobs? Some things you learn by serving in the
>military overseas in any kind of war. You learn that:
These below prove not a whit!!!! I have always been against war and/or
conflicts. You are an idiot again. Nothing more to say to you except
that because you cannot and will not debate.
<snipped for brevity>
Your sig line says it all....I think you are a deadbeat dad and all.
Spirit Explorer
KAZ Vorpal
MA])1. Most of those that didn't don't give a shit.
Most of those who didn't were opposed to the war (as the entire populace
of the US has been opposed to every of the four major wars before the
Liberal president got us into them)
MA])2. Most of those that didn't never understand what is at stake.
That's because EVERY war the US has been in this century was NOT
a defense of the US borders, but a bullshit involvement caused
by a warmongering Liberal forcing the US populace into it
(including WWII, where FDR committed three or more acts of war against
Japan, forcing them into responding).
MA])3. Most of those that didn't think it was a game like, say, football.
No, if they thought it was a game, they wouldn't have opposed it.
They simply haven't gone through the brainwashing you did in boot camp.
MA])4. Most of those that didn't are very quick to want to get us into a war.
Again, almost all of the US populace has opposed all four major wars.
MA])5. Most of those that didn't, won't take their hats off when the National
MA])Anthem is played.
Bullshit. Since most people take off their hats (at one time, the US
government was not considered a religion), and most people opposed those wars,
that's nonsense.
MA])6. Most of those that didn't won't stand when the National Anthem is played.
See above.
MA])7. Most of those that didn't think Memorial Day is when they have a big car
MA])race.
MA])8. Most of those that didn't think that Veterans Day is a day to take your
MA])dog to the Vet.
Apparently YOU don't realize it's the same day as Memorial day...
MA])9. Most of those that didn't think the 4th of July is to honor Party Animals
MA])and Drunks.
seven through nine are examples of really stupid assertions, by the way,
more obviously false and with silly emotional appeal than the rest.
MA])10. Most of those that didn't think that those that came very close to death
MA])are absolutely stupid to think there just might be a God after all.
If your believe in a god was reinforced by fear of death, then your belief
is purely selfish and irrational.
It would makes sense for fear of death to make you HOPE that there's a nice
afterlife, but your DESIRE for one does not magically make one more likely,
so that changing how MUCH you believe is silly.
MA])11. Most of those that didn't can't understand why those that did wouldn't
MA])just lay down their weapons because the war was politically incorrect.
Politically incorrect? How about WRONG?
The US military is only supposed to defend the US borders, not go off
and have its members murdered in foreign wars.
Which is why the standing army is unconstitutional, and is only supposed
to be assembled in times of war directly...and this is how things worked
until this century.
MA])12. Most of those that didn't think that those that did actually started the
MA])damn war.
They think that the corrupt leaders (Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman,
FDR, and Wilson...ONLY Liberals...in fact EVERY Liberal President this
century except Carter...got the US into the war, and are right.
MA])13. Most of those that didn't think that those that did actually had a
MA])choice as to whether they would go or not.
No, they're aware of the draft, though they might think more people
should have refused.
Remember, to obey an unjust law is to comply with injustice...or should
Schindler of complied with the law and turned over those Jews?
MA])14. Most of those that didn't by means of some phony ailment or deferement
MA])or other such crap are not very well liked by those that did.
Making those who did the very kind of bigot that you're claiming those
who did not are.
MA])15. And probably most important, most of those that did, if given the
MA])choice, wouldn't now, and as most of you wouldn't, where does that leave us?
Unwilling to get into another unjust war...but we were unwilling
in all of the others, too.
--
Words of the Sentient:
The extraordinary thing is that the same socialism that was not only early
recognised as the gravest threat to freedom, but openly began as a reaction
against the [classic]liberalism of the French Revolution, gained acceptance
under the flag of liberty. --Freidrich Hayek, /The Road To Serfdom/
KAZ Vorpal
BT])Spirit Explorer said:
>> It matters not a whit what you want to call them because
>> according to our own Constitution, they are not wars!!
BT])Nope! The Constitution does not provide for a *definition*
BT])of war, but for *declaring* war.
Exactly...and Congress did not declare a war in either
Vietnam or Korea, making the drafts illegal.
--
Words of the Sentient:
To silence criticism is to silence freedom. --Sidney Hook
KAZ Vorpal
>>
>>ko])A: Who's a liberal,socialist,or feminist?
>>ko])B:Define "liberal".
>>ko])C:Tripp was never harrased or assaulted.
>>ko])D:When Supreme court justice Thomas was accused,where was your outrage
ko])then?
>>
>>A> The people attempting to defend Clinton by attacking his
>>accusers, especially the women involved.
ko])That's rather a vauge and illogical definition.
No, it's answering the question "in context", a concept which I
do understand is unknown to you socialists.
>>B> I use Liberal in the pejorative sense, with the definition that has
>>been used by socialists in the US since Woodrow Wilson. Essentially it is
>>"The same policial stance as any other country's Democratic Socialist
ko])Party,
>>but without the honesty to use the term".
ko])But what of the "liberal" who supports the NRA? Tax relief? is anti
ko])abortion?Is pro capital punishment?Drives an American car?Is pro business?
ko])As with the aging ex hippie\pseudo peacenik goofball broad,you semantics
ko])seem awfull slippery.
First, all Liberals are pro-business...THEY are the ones who get the biggest
campaign contributions from the wealthiest people (even now, the Republicans
get more of theirs from donors giving under $100)...the "anti-business" laws
the Liberals pass simply help BIG business by making their industries too
expensive for new competitors to enter.
Second, one does not need to be 100% to be in a given category. That would
be silly. Back when you socialists were PROUD of being Liberal, as you still
had people fooled into thinking it had the classic meaning, you certainly
wouldn't have played this kind of semantic game.
But now you're trying to hide from both the points I make and the now-accurate
reputation of Liberals.
>>C> No, but she is the accuser, who says someone was harassed
>>and, by Feminazi standards, assaulted.
ko])Who gives a shit about the national millitant lesbian movement and what they
ko])define as "harassment,I'm reffering to what common everyday folk think is
ko])"harassment" inasmuch as the same vein as Lewinsky et all. The point that I
ko])was making,wich seems to be lost to you is that the ugly fat bitch betrayed
ko])a "friend",which to me,no matter the reason is damnable,vile,and
ko])repugnant.To do this to a "friend" shows her to be the shallowest of
ko])humanity to sell out someone for the sake of some bitter politcal gain.
ko]) And notice that not only Tripp,
Political gain? If Lewinsky was planning on KILLING the guy, THEN would
you consider it worth her going to the authorities? Let's be real; the
difference is not just one of degree, but that you don't LIKE the
results, because you're defending Clinton's corruption.
>>but also Lewinski, Paula Jones, and all of the many other women
>>who say Clinton's a sexual harasser deluxe have gotten exactly
>>the treatment to which I refer.
ko])But you seem to lump "harassment" and "sexual harassment" into the same
ko])category?
Of course. The idea of sexual harassment as a separate category is idiotic.
You should get in the same trouble (or lack thereof) for ANY sudden demand
that your employee do things not in the job description, or ANY sudden
harassment of someone else. Sexual context is irrelevent. This is just
another example of the socialists using incrementalism to increase their
tyranny...they focus on an area with more emotional appeal to start
the expansion.
>>D> When Clarence Thomas was accused, I said that the feminists, Liberals,
>>and other socialists were lying.
ko])So if the party being accused is conservative,then the accusers are lying?
No, they were lying because of the reason I gave thereafter.
Taking things out of context is a sign that you don't have any
HONEST rebuttal...
ko])..that they didn't care about the
>>IDIOTIC accusations against Thomas, but just didn't want their LIE
>>about how all blacks must be Liberal to be revealed by this Conservative
>>black gaining one of the highest positions in the land
ko])Your rabidity is causing you to foam at the mouth...
Again, you have no valid response. Trying to distract from the
actual point makes you a liar, too, you know.
>>And the Feminists/Liberals and other socialists have proven me right.
ko])Maybe too far right?
See above. All of my points stand unaddressed.
>>The WORST thing Thomas was accused of doing was saying things like
>>"Hey, there's a pube on my pepsi" and "Call me Long Dong Silver",
>>whereas Clinton is accused of having sex with a teenage subordinate
ko])Acutally the goofball (Anita Hill),accused Justice Thomas of trying to
ko])proposition her as well as tying it in with her job,notwithstanding that it
ko])took several years for her to bring the accusations to bear (at a most
ko])inconvienient time).
No, she never presented any reasoning that actually linked
it to her job. He simply asked her out more than once.
He didn't expose his erect penis and demand that she kiss it
after she already had fended off advances...
That was Clinton.
>>(Lewinskey) on public property, having a state police officer bring
>>an unwilling woman (Paula Jones) to his room where he
>>"exposed his erect member and said 'Kiss it'", and
>>SEXUALLY ASSULTED (not just harassed) a woman who was begging
>>him for financial help (Wiley).
ko])The whole problem with your current argument is that wheather or not slick
ko])wormed out of it or he's telling the truth,none of these allegations has
ko])been proven either in a court of law or public opinion.
They've come closer than they did with Thomas, who never even got
an actual court hearing.
And it is technically impossible to "prove" these things in a
context that socialists would accept. They would have to have
been videotaped with a special encryption key which proved they
were not edited...
>>And yet you're so slimey that you are trying to dodge that
>>point, defending this kind of monstrous abuse of power.
ko])Up until this point,no one has stooped as low as to start with the name
ko])calling flames,so let me "retalliate in kind".
ko])As for being slimey, You are the one covered in shit.To support a
ko])spineless,cowardly,backstabbing,fat,ugly whore in her pursuit,no matter how
ko])noble you may find that pursuit, proves you to be a sleezy,
ko])low class creep,that has no limits as to how low you'll stoop to persue your
ko])own narrowminded agenda.
Ah, but the big difference is that, when I describe you, I do so
after having presented actual assertions and refutations, whereas
you have done nothing but tried to obfusticate the issue.
Insults aren't quite as pathetic when they're backed with logic.
>>>>I remember back then the socialist stance had been "Any woman who
>>>>accuses a man of sexual harassment must be assumed to be telling
>>>>the truth, and must not be put on trial herself"
>>
>>ko])See "A" above.
>>
>>I challenge you to claim you don't know precisely to what I refer,
>>regardless of your desire to play semantic games. Thus you would
>>prove you are not competent to do anything during a political
>>discussion except listen.
ko])And this neophyte would call me incompetent?
Well, so far you have not actually responded to the challenge, but
again dodged the point. Making you dishonest more than incompetent,
except that trying to dishonestly avoid every point offered most
likely stems from your incompetence in debate.
>>>>But those days are over.
>>>>
>>>>If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
>>>>corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
>>>>blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
>>
>>ko])And repugnicans!
>>
>>Hey, the non-Liberals (such as Republicans and Libertarians) always
>>/were/ against this kind of "sexual harassment" witch-hunt.
ko])Then why do they persue it with so much vigor now?
Ultimately, most of the Republicans have asserted that it is the
lying, and the attempted sexual assault, which concerns them, and
made it clear that the actual blowjob by some power-horny chick
is between her and Slick (with saliva) Willy.
ko]) The
>>disgusting part is the hypocricy of the Liberals/socialists/feminists
>>who have turned around and abandoned all of their feigned principles.
ko])That's how they are....You must really be a neophyte if this comes as a
ko])suprise to you...
No, it's not a surprise to me, but it's still unacceptable.
Especially when they were being presented as the opposite,
and will be again as soon as the media and educational system
can put some distance between this and people's memories.
>>>>Words of the Sentient:
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing more certainly written in the book of fate than that
ko])these
>>>>people should be free --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
>>
>>ko])"A little revolution now and then is good for the soul"-Thomas
ko])Jefferson (A
>>ko])renowned radical and "liberal")
>>
>>
>>Jefferson was a liberal, but he was the EXACT opposite of a "Liberal" in
ko])the
>>modern sense.
>>
>>
>>Are you one of the few gullible sheep who doesn't understand that the
>>modern "Liberal" usage is just a lame propoganda attempt by people who
>>are as anti-liberal as any major group in the US?
>>
>>Jefferson was almost /exactly/ libertarian, in the modern sense.
ko])Jefferson was the truest of FEDERALISTS ever!
ko])I think he'd find the "loonytarians" as repugnant as the rest of us....
ko])At least judging by election results anyway!
He had an election?
Proof you are 100% wrong, in Jefferson's own words, for libertarianism and
AGAINST modern Liberalism and Federalism...you will undoubtedly try to
nit-pick a FEW of these, ignore the rest, and make arguments which do
nothing but distract...but the simple fact is that, taken as a whole,
these are the words of a libertarian:
This is the pure foundation of Libertarianism, and again opposed to almost
every single modern Liberal stance...oh, and opposition to ALL income taxes,
much moreso the "progressive" tax demanded by Marx and Clinton:
Words of the Sentient:
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
--Thomas Jefferson
"Right Wing Extremist Gun Nut Anti-Government Militia Freak":
Words of the Sentient:
A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with
the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and
stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant
companion of your walks.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Words of the Sentient:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Words of the Sentient:
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be watered periodically
with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure.
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in Jefferson,
On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939)
Against Liberal style Federalism (the centralization of powers with the
Federal Government:
Words of the Sentient:
What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government
which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating
all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats
of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Words of the Sentient:
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things,
shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
--Thomas Jefferson to C. Hammond, 1821.
Words of the Sentient:
I wish...to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers
established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State
and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to
Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they
may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.
-- Thomas Jefferson to W. Johnson, 1823.
Words of the Sentient:
What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering,
office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of
all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!
--Thomas Jefferson to G. Granger, 1800.
Words of the Sentient:
Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road
it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then
corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will
be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and
corrupted instruments. --Thomas Jefferson to N. Macon, 1821.
Words of the Sentient:
Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact
(casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions
of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would
be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might
exercise this right of judgment for them.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
Words of the Sentient:
I see... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which
the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation
of all the rights reserved to the States and the consolidation in itself
of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions
which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too
evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are
in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the
powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions
foreign and domestic. --Thomas Jefferson to W. Giles, 1825.
Against soaking the rich or regulating business:
Words of the Sentient:
The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of
consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular
one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the
health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.
Against the welfare state, national health care, and almost all other
modern Liberalism:
Words of the Sentient:
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free,
neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. --Thomas Jefferson
Words of the Sentient:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. --Thomas Jefferson
Words of the Sentient:
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
-- Thomas Jefferson to F. Gilmer, 1816.
Against Welfare, Safety regulation, the FDA, et cetera:
Words of the Sentient:
Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [they claim]
a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically
enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend
will be for the general welfare. -- Thomas Jefferson to W. Giles, 1825.
Knows freedom does not come from government (Natural Law theory is absolutely
against all things modern Liberals espouse, and is purely libertarian):
Words of the Sentient:
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature,
and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
--Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. Papers, 1:134
Words of the Sentient:
Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the
world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of
moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal
liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary
for his own sustenance.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.
A Free Marketer and Rule of Law guy:
Words of the Sentient:
In political economy, I think Smith's Wealth of Nations the best book
extant; in the science of government, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws is
generally recommended.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Randolph, 1790
Against almost all Federal standardization and regulation:
Words of the Sentient:
Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap,
we should soon want of bread. --Thomas Jefferson
Against bureaucratic laws and the need for laywers for law, against
activist judges reinterpreting laws:
Words of the Sentient:
Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to
be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean
everything or nothing at pleasure.
-- Thomas Jefferson to W. Johnson, 1823.
For Impeaching Activist Judges:
Words of the Sentient:
As, for the safety of soceity, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, so
judges should be withdrawn from their bench, whose erroneous biases are
leading us to dissolution. --Thomas Jefferson
Against "More Laws Just In Case We Need Them" Liberalism:
Words of the Sentient:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson to A. Stuart, 1791.
A Minarchist who Wishes We Didn;t Need Government at all, which is
what Libertarians are:
Words of the Sentient:
It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.
--Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795.
Against Deficit Spending (Libertarians are 100% against it, while Liberals
have actually argued that it is good for the economy under some conditions)
Words of the Sentient:
And to preserve independence, we must not let our rulers load us with
perpetual debt. We must make our election [choice] between economy and
liberty, or profusion and servitude. -- Thomas Jefferson
Against the United Nations, the WTO, and "International Law":
Words of the Sentient:
I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the
treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no
Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the
definitions of the powers which that instrument gives.
-- Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1803.
For a Republic of limited power, and against both Democracy and
Liberalesque use of power:
Words of the Sentient:
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which
should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the
powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general
bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits
without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.
For Private Property Rights (which are violated by Liberalism):
Words of the Sentient:
A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with
which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we
acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other
sensible beings.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816
>>I shudder to imagine his horror upon seeing the policies and
>>abuses of power by Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Clinton.
ko])Not to mention Eisenhower, Nixon et all!
Absolutely. They were Rockefeller Republicans, more Liberal than Clinton
admits to being. Nixon implemented more of the Great Society programs
than Johnson did. Like Orrin Hatch and John McCain and Bob Dole, they
were Liberal Republicans who belong more in the Democratic party
than Republican.
And, as I am asserting that Jefferson was libertarian, OF COURSE
he would be against those two. He'd find Reagan only good by way
of improvement from the past, and would probably think Forbes
and Kemp have a better set of ideas than Buchanan and Dole, but
he'd be libertarian overall.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Everything the government touches turns to crap;
It's called the Reverse Midas Touch. --Paul Craig Roberts, Cato Institute
KAZ Vorpal
MD])KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>>
>> If I end up being a big-time CEO, I guess I'll screen the
>> corporate interns for their ability to provide a proper
>> blowjob...with the full support of the feminists and Liberals.
MD])Won't you love interviewing.
Oh, definitely. I'll describe the position thusly:
"In the honored tradition of President Clinton, a Lewinski-style
internship, including cigar smoking."
I wish I'd known this when I had my own ISP and was hiring interns...
Everyone: From now on, Feminists and Liberals say boinking interns
is A-OK...certainly not the grounds for a manager being prosecuted,
fired, or even encouraged to resign. It's between you and your
family, and nobody else's business.
The rest of my business career is going to be much more relaxing...
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
I conclude that the CDA is unconstitutional and that the First Amendment
denies Congress the power to regulate protected speech on the Internet.
-- Judge Stewart Dalzell in /ACLU v. Reno/
kim overstreet
>
>We did. Ever hear of the GI Bill, the VA loan, the VA hospital, the GI 10
>point system for Federal Jobs? Some things you learn by serving in the
>military overseas in any kind of war. You learn that:
>
>6. Most of those that didn't won't stand when the National Anthem is
played.
>8. Most of those that didn't think that Veterans Day is a day to take your
>9. Most of those that didn't think the 4th of July is to honor Party
Animals
>10. Most of those that didn't think that those that came very close to
death
the
>13. Most of those that didn't think that those that did actually had a
us?
>
kim overstreet
unsightly an completely innacurate "labels" by a neophyte,who can't even
provide a valid definition of these terms that is commonly accepted by the
public at large.
This guy professes an admiration for a person who betrayed her best friend
in the most public and hummiliating manner possible.
He asks and answers questions with vauge,obtuse rhetoric,and complains of
the semantics of others.He claims "all wars have been started by the
"liberals" ( a term he has yet to define rationally),
even though in this century Eisenhower started the Viet Nam war,
and set up the Bay of Pigs fiasco,only to have it land in Kenedy's lap.
He whines and bitches about FDR and how the country was against the war in
the first place.He says it could have been avoided.
he says that the US should never send the millitary outside of us borders.
I hope he went to public school,so that I can flame it for producing yet
another semi-educated historical revisionist.
Mitchell Holman
}
}So what you're saying is that you are PROUD that your Liberal idols got
}the US into wars which killed more Americans than ANY other form of
}unnatural death this century...
}
} And you're proud that, in all four cases, your lying idols
}FORCED the people of the US into those mass deaths, though in all
}four cases the people of the US were TOTALLY OPPOSED to involvement.
}
Which war were the people of the US "totally opposed" to,
KAZ?
Mitchell Holman
}
}No, you're wrong...he was a coward, all right, because he sent
}a half million OTHER people to their deaths...but FDR /forced/
}the US into the war. Are you aware that he committed at least
}three acts of war against Japan, and that Japan did NOT want
}to go to war against the US, but felt that it would end up
}getting wiped out by FDR if it did not?
}
Do tell what "acts of war" the US committed against
Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
Mitchell Holman
}Mindless Mitch Holboy (ta2...@airmail.net) wrote:
}
}>}>}FDR was a spineless dolt who didn't take on tough foes until they
}>}>
}>}> All suspicions that T. Mark Gibson failed 6th grade
}>}> history have now been confirmed.
}>}
}>}I note that you couldn't refute a word I wrote, Mitch. Maybe
}>}someday you'll learn to do more than post childish insults,
}>}but I doubt it.
}>
}> OK, back up your claim. Tell us what a sitting
}> president could have done with public committed
}> to isolationism to "take on tough foes". Besides
}> what he *did* do, that is, like push thru the Draft
}> Act (passed by one vote), pushed thru Lend Lease,
}> emposed economic sanctions on Japan, and sending
}> all the military aid he could to the Allies.
}>
}> Go ahead, T. Mark - post some proof of "spineless
}> FDR" bilge.
}
}I note you still couldn't refute a word that I wrote.
}I guess that means you know I am absolutely correct, Mitch,
}as usual. (Hint: a successful refutation will not involve stupid
}questions on your part.)
}
}Why didn't FDR build up America's military might? He was supposed
}to be commander-in-chief so it was his duty to ensure that we
}were prepared for war. He failed miserably. He allowed Japan to
}destroy many of our naval assets at Pearl Harbor when he had
}advance warning that the Japanese were up to something nasty.
}
}FDR was a spineless dolt. Your implicit agreement with that statement
}is noted.
}
Repeating your silly claim does not make it true, T Mark.
What is your *proof* that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor ahead
of time?
This is your claim, remember.....
Spirit Explorer
>"The fact that First Amendment cases are unpopular is the very reason that
>we need the First Amendment."
> -Source Unknown
>BT])Nope! The Constitution does not provide for a *definition*
>BT])of war, but for *declaring* war.
>
>Exactly...and Congress did not declare a war in either
>Vietnam or Korea, making the drafts illegal.
Yeah...but try to get this across to them. They don't want to accept
it at all because it flushes their argument drown the drain!
Spirit Explorer
"The fact that First Amendment cases are unpopular is the very reason
that
we need the First Amendment."
-Source Unknown
Spirit Explorer
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Very well put Kim, but you can certainly forget him ever accepting the
fact that he knows nothing of the true history of our country, just
the history that he wants to believe is all. You can never get people
like him to admit that they might be wrong because he already knows he
is wrong.
kim overstreet
Bob Tiernan wrote in message ...
>Spirit Explorer said:
>
>
>> It matters not a whit what you want to call them because
>> according to our own Constitution, they are not wars!!
>
>
Trying to make a case to the "libertoonies" is akin to trying to teach a
mackeral to breath air.....They have their fevered little minds made up as
well as their rhetoric.
>
>
>
Mitchell Holman
}
}That's because EVERY war the US has been in this century was NOT
}a defense of the US borders,
Shooting back at the planes attacking Pearl Harbor
was not a defense of US borders?
How about the repelling the Japanese occupation
of Wake, Kiska, and Attu islands, all US territory?
}
}The US military is only supposed to defend the US borders
Says who?
}
}Which is why the standing army is unconstitutional, and is only supposed
}to be assembled in times of war directly...and this is how things worked
}until this century.
The US did not have a standing army in the 19th Century?
What do you call the troops led by General Custer - civilians?
Ditto the troops in Ft Sumpter when *it* was attacked.
Gundobad
kim overstreet wrote in message <6s46ii$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>This guy professes an admiration for a person who betrayed her best friend
>in the most public and hummiliating manner possible.
Huh? Who says Tripp and Lewinsky were "best" friends? Let me supply a few
facts before we all overdose on kim's spin:
Tripp was under subpoena by the Jones lawyers, because she was around
Kathleen Willey on the day she was allegedly assaulted by Clinton.
Tripp notified Lewinsky that if she was asked by Jones' team if she knew of
other inappropriate behavior by Clinton, she would not lie.
Tripp was called a liar on national tv by Clinton's personal attorney, and
was not about to let that happen again, so she taped Lewinsky when she
continued to tell her about her liasons with Clinton, and when she tried to
persuade her to lie in her Jones case deposition.
>He asks and answers questions with vauge,obtuse rhetoric,and complains of
>the semantics of others.He claims "all wars have been started by the
>"liberals" ( a term he has yet to define rationally),
>even though in this century Eisenhower started the Viet Nam war,
Not. Kennedy was the first to send troops there, as "advisors."
>and set up the Bay of Pigs fiasco,only to have it land in Kenedy's lap.
It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
>He whines and bitches about FDR and how the country was against the war in
>the first place.He says it could have been avoided.
>he says that the US should never send the millitary outside of us borders.
>I hope he went to public school,so that I can flame it for producing yet
>another semi-educated historical revisionist.
>
Where was he actually wrong? I don't believe the US should _never_ "send the
millitary outside of us borders", but that's a matter of opinion, not
revisionism.
>
Gundobad
Mitchell Holman wrote in message
> Do tell what "acts of war" the US committed against
> Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
>
Gundobad
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e5b9bb....@news.zianet.com>...
>On 27 Aug 1998 15:52:46 GMT, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
>>Exactly...and Congress did not declare a war in either
>>Vietnam or Korea, making the drafts illegal.
>
>Yeah...but try to get this across to them. They don't want to accept
>it at all because it flushes their argument drown the drain!
Actually, the draft was already in place before either conflict; the draft
boards simply drew more numbers when told to do so. There was then no legal
requirement for declaration of war or anything else for the boards to do so.
_Now_ we have requirements in place, but the Selective Service
Administration is still extant.
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
Well DUH!!!! The draft boards take their orders directly from our
Congress. It was still illegal, no matter how you try to wraggle
around it. Get over it. It is over and it is history.
Spirit Explorer
>
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
There is no person on this earth that would believe that an oil
embargo is in any way an act of war. That is the stupidist thing I
have heard on this ng yet.
Spirit Explorer
>
>
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
>Not. Kennedy was the first to send troops there, as "advisors."
WRONG!!!!! It was good ole Ike. I know you don't want to believe it,
but truth is truth.
>
>>and set up the Bay of Pigs fiasco,only to have it land in Kenedy's lap.
>
>It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
I have to agree with you here...It was a Kennedy administration mishap
all the way.
BTW, please let us all know when you became the perfect human being.
Everyone makes mistakes, even the Republicans. So why doesn't get over
all of the history stuff, especially those of you who don't know it
that well.
Spirit Explorer
kim overstreet
>
>>He asks and answers questions with vauge,obtuse rhetoric,and complains of
>>the semantics of others.He claims "all wars have been started by the
>>"liberals" ( a term he has yet to define rationally),
>>even though in this century Eisenhower started the Viet Nam war,
>
Eisenhower in '58 (advisors)!
>
>>and set up the Bay of Pigs fiasco,only to have it land in Kenedy's lap.
>
>It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
Ike set it up to fall in JFK's lap.Kenedy didn't want to start his admin
with the invasion of a soverign,abiet threat filled and destablizing state.
>
>>He whines and bitches about FDR and how the country was against the war in
>>the first place.He says it could have been avoided.
>>he says that the US should never send the millitary outside of us borders.
>>I hope he went to public school,so that I can flame it for producing yet
>>another semi-educated historical revisionist.
>>
>Where was he actually wrong? I don't believe the US should _never_ "send
the
>millitary outside of us borders", but that's a matter of opinion, not
>revisionism.
You've just proved your particular "revisionism" above.....Why should I
bother pointing out the errors? It's similar to pointing out that grass is
ususally green and having the haleluia chorus here say it a shade of blue
and should be!
>>
>
>
Matthew Devney
>
> In article <6s3v96$mvr$8...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
>
> }
> }a defense of the US borders,
>
> was not a defense of US borders?
>
> How about the repelling the Japanese occupation
> of Wake, Kiska, and Attu islands, all US territory?
>
Remind me again what makes then territories? Oh yeah, territorial
conquest. I forgot.
> }Which is why the standing army is unconstitutional, and is only supposed
> }to be assembled in times of war directly...and this is how things worked
> }until this century.
>
Hello, do you not know history? The US has had a standing army since
about 1812. Remember that war? Ever since then there have been people
in uniform as their life's work.
What's more, the Constitution says "to provide for the common defense,"
which would seem to indicate that it is not to be used overseas --
unless, of course, there are commoners there. Later on, it gives
Congress the power to create and maintain a standing army.
> The US did not have a standing army in the 19th Century?
> What do you call the troops led by General Custer - civilians?
> Ditto the troops in Ft Sumpter when *it* was attacked.
--
=============================================================================
Matthew Devney
** Pilot Network Services, Inc. (800)
811-5222 **
** 1080 Marina Village Parkway FAX (510)
433-7807 **
** Alameda, CA 94501
USA **
=============================================================================
Daniel T. Fahey
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:35:47 -0400, "Gundobad" <gund...@provide.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> but truth is truth.
This is true ... in fact American Advisors were fighing in right beside
the French and training French Pilots to fly surplus F6f Helcats, F8F
Bearcats AU-1 Corsairs and AD-1 Sky Raiders.
In fact the F4u7 was the AU-1 specialliy built for the French... It had
a higher HP rating for low altitude and could carry 4000lb of ordinance.
All these aircraft used the Pratt and Whitney R2800 piston engine. Even
General Chennault former pilots were contracted to fly supplies and
combat missions. This is where the CIA took over the CAT from Chenault
and renamed it Air America...
All done under Mr. Eisenhour...
> >
> >>and set up the Bay of Pigs fiasco,only to have it land in Kenedy's lap.
> >
> >It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
>
> I have to agree with you here...It was a Kennedy administration mishap
> all the way.
Not exactly...according to TV, internet NG's and several books that
state the same history, Mr. Kennedy was not given all of the facts and
intentions.
Then when he gave the permission to use A-26's they were flown out of
Central America and were an Hour late because the military planners did
not take into consideration the Time Changes.
This planning group was mostly the same Military planners that went into
Iran and took pver the oil fields. AND wanted to go to Vietnam..
Also it was the Baptista Cubans that were in volved in the assination of
Mr. Kennedy not Castro.
>
> BTW, please let us all know when you became the perfect human being.
> Everyone makes mistakes, even the Republicans. So why doesn't get over
> all of the history stuff, especially those of you who don't know it
> that well.
>
> Spirit Explorer
Come on Spirit..you seem to have a good grasp of history...
DF
Gundobad
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6bd50....@news.zianet.com>...
>>
>There is no person on this earth that would believe that an oil
>embargo is in any way an act of war. That is the stupidist thing I
>have heard on this ng yet.
>
quite justified in attacking thereby.
Hell, _we_ fought a war essentially for oil only a couple years ago.
Gundobad
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6bdae....@news.zianet.com>...
>
>WRONG!!!!! It was good ole Ike. I know you don't want to believe it,
>but truth is truth.
>>
first combat troops, supposedly as advisors, and Johnson [another liberal
Democrat] sent the first troops that were actually supposed to fight. Get a
grip
>
>BTW, please let us all know when you became the perfect human being.
I always was. :)
>Everyone makes mistakes, even the Republicans. So why doesn't get over
>all of the history stuff, especially those of you who don't know it
>that well.
>
The Republicans' mistakes haven't included wars, other than the Civil War
and the Persian Gulf. Both can be credibly argued as non-mistakes.
Gundobad
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6be83....@news.zianet.com>...
>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:41:48 -0400, "Gundobad" <gund...@provide.net>
>>Actually, the draft was already in place before either conflict; the draft
>>boards simply drew more numbers when told to do so. There was then no
legal
>>requirement for declaration of war or anything else for the boards to do
so.
>>_Now_ we have requirements in place, but the Selective Service
>>Administration is still extant.
>>
>Well DUH!!!! The draft boards take their orders directly from our
>Congress. It was still illegal, no matter how you try to wraggle
>around it. Get over it. It is over and it is history.
>
Since Congress makes the laws, and the law required no declaration of war,
what was illegal?
KAZ Vorpal
MH])In article <6s3v96$mvr$8...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
MH])}
MH])}That's because EVERY war the US has been in this century was NOT
MH])}a defense of the US borders,
MH]) Shooting back at the planes attacking Pearl Harbor
MH]) was not a defense of US borders?
MH]) How about the repelling the Japanese occupation
MH]) of Wake, Kiska, and Attu islands, all US territory?
Let's explain this really slowly:
FDR_commited_multiple_acts_of_war_against_Japan_until_they_became_desparate
enough_to_strike_back_with_force.
He froze their assets, moved a huge fleet into what was arguably
Japanes waters, near what was unarguably Japanese waters, and
certainly way far away from US waters, and he rejected their
diplomats when they came to him to try to get this kind
of warmongering stopped.
He also placed the US squarely on the side of the opponents of
Japan and Germany, restricting most US trade to the "allies",
even though one of those was Stalin, who was worse than
four Hitlers and thus "but Hitler needed to be stopped" is
no excuse.
MH])}The US military is only supposed to defend the US borders
MH]) Says who?
Says the Founders whose documentation is the SOLE authority upon which
the current government's existence rests, other than pure tyranny.
MH])}Which is why the standing army is unconstitutional, and is only supposed
MH])}to be assembled in times of war directly...and this is how things worked
MH])}until this century.
MH]) The US did not have a standing army in the 19th Century?
MH]) What do you call the troops led by General Custer - civilians?
MH]) Ditto the troops in Ft Sumpter when *it* was attacked.
Those were troops organized for "emergency" situations. The US was
"at war" (another self-manufactured crisis) with the Amerindians.
The fact that the US did not have a standing army until Wilson
is so simple and unarguable that you eliminate any credibility by
admitting your ignorance of it.
Read any decent US military history book.
Words of the Sentient:
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which
place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those
governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from
keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an
instrument is a standing army.
--Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.
Words of the Sentient:
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the
militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at
750, 17 August 1789
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up
in time of peace for [defense against invasion].
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
There [should] be no standing army but in time of actual war.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers, 1:363
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended
themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of
their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such
engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every
man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country
whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy
will make us so. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
[Bonaparte] has at least transferred the destinies of the republic from
the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the
practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the
danger of standing armies.
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours
armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially
so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been
violated. --Thomas Jefferson
--
Words of the Sentient:
Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. --Lazarus Long
Gundobad
kim overstreet wrote in message <6s6ihf$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Eisenhower in '58 (advisors)!
But not "troops." Civilians, not military. Kennedy sent those, who were the
first to actually engage in combat [in "self-defense"], and Johnson [the
"Great Society" liberal] followed up with troops sent for combat.
>>
>>It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
>
>Ike set it up to fall in JFK's lap.Kenedy didn't want to start his admin
>with the invasion of a soverign,abiet threat filled and destablizing
state.
>>
If he didn't want to do so, he should have cancelled the attack. Instead he
sabotaged it.
<remaining idiocy snipped>
KAZ Vorpal
EWC])KAZ Vorpal (k...@smart.net) wrote:
EWC]): Kennedy got the US into Vietnam.
EWC]): Before Kennedy, the US had perhaps a hundred "advisors" in Vietnam...non-combat.
EWC]): This is much the same as the US had in dozens of other countries where the
EWC]): US never got into a war, despite local conflicts.
EWC]): Then Kennedy sent TWENTY THOUSAND COMBAT TROOPS to Vietnam, including
EWC]): armor and weapons.
EWC]): That was when it became different from the many, many other places
EWC]): where the had a few people to represent the US' bias in local issues.
EWC])Under Eisenhower the United States was also providing Vietnam with money
EWC])and weapons, and it was under Eisenhower that the United States backed
EWC])Diem's refusal to hold the elections that were supposed to be held
EWC])throughout Vietnam in 1956. This, to me, counts as "getting us into" the
EWC])situation in Vietnam.
Ah, the usual intellectually dishonest dissembling of the socialists...
"Yes but" style responses always seems to completely ignore the point
given, returning an unrelated and much weaker argument which only
distracts from, not addresses, the point.
The US had "advisors" and/or was sending money/equipment to /scores/ of
other nations.
None of those turned into a war like Vietnam.
The first time Vietnam was different than those VERY many other
"military adviser"/money/equipment situations was, as I said and
you didn't address, when we sent COMBAT troops to Vietnam, with
their own weapons (tanks, guns, et cetera), as opposed to
a few hundred "advisors", mostly unarmed except for personal
weapons.
EWC])Where do you get your 20,000 combat troops number? According to George
EWC])Moss, in _Vietnam: An American Ordeal_, "At the time of Kennedy's death,
EWC])there were 16,500" advisers and support personnel in Vietnam. The real
Again, the mental deception arises. No wonder you guys don't understand
how people are disgusted with Clinton's lying, and keep thinking it's about
sex...this kind of behavior is almost transparent to your own eyes.
Let's say, for a moment, that it was 16,500 combat troops instead of
20,000...
When he took office, there were a few hundred, and no real military
equipment beyond personal arms.
The point stands, you are just trying to distract.
EWC])involvement of American troops in combat happened after the Gulf of
EWC])Tonkin resolutions, passed in 1964 (LBJ, not JFK) by votes of 88-2 in the
EWC])Senate and 416-0 in the House (Moss, p. 149). There was plenty of
EWC])bipartisan blame to go around there.
Sure, the Republicans who were in the MINORITY in both houses were the
sheep they were at that time (and as the leadership still is), and
they fell into the "My country, right or wrong" line, like McCain and
Hatch are doing now over Clinton's warmongering...
But I did already include LBJ (who actually is quoted as SAYING
to the military corporations that he was going to escalate to full
war just for their needs, which is why there should not be a standing
army) in the list of Liberal warmongers.
But, though the Republican leaders invariably go along with it like
sheep, the Liberals are the ones who have gotten us into every major
war this century.
In fact, EVERY Liberal president except Carter got the US into a major
war...suspending Clinton's ranking until we see if he declares war on
Canada to avoid being impeached).
NO Republicans, though they've manufactured small military incidents
in order to show that pretty much all major politicians are corrupt,
have been sick enough to get us into a MAJOR war.
EWC]): As I noted originally, Bush /is/ a Liberal. Bush is the man who CREATED
EWC]): the term "voodoo economics" to attack Reagan's wish to cut taxes and
EWC]): reduce regulation.
EWC])And IMO was right, but I don't get involved in Republican infighting.
Of course you believe he was right...because he's a Liberal.
EWC]): "proxy wars" do not use US troops, though it's wrong for even a
EWC]): penny of taxpayers' money to be spent on foreign entanglements.
EWC])But still count as involvement, IMO.
And, since Liberals don't care about things like "American lives",
(as the warmongering of this century shows), killing thousands of
Americans is pretty much the same as taking taxpayers' money...
EWC]): And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
EWC]): landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
EWC]): for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
EWC])Difference of opinion.
Yeah, what do socialists care about silly little "human lives"...
It's all the same difference.
--
Words of the Sentient:
It has ever been the scheme of government
to keep the people ignorant of their rights. --Thomas Paine
KAZ Vorpal
MA])If these terroists camps were sitting in Russia (with all those warheads)
MA])would Billy have sent the missiles in?
MA])How about they now move their headquarters to London, then blow up another
MA])embassy in say Spain. They violated no laws in London, is Billy going to
MA])send the missiles in.
MA])This administration is the one that during the first presidential campaign
MA])said "foreign policy does not matter, it's the economy stupid". No, it's the
MA])stupid administration, that has no foreign policy and no idea of how to
MA])propose, prepare or carry out one.
Your version of the description of his cowardice is the best I've seen so far.
Much better than mine.
I'm going to steal it and use it myself...
You can go farther, though. He attacked the two least armed of all
of the many places which (arguably) harbor terrorist activity.
There is not the slightest question that Iraq, Syria, Lybia, and Iran do.
But they have real military forces, though of course piddling compared
to the US.
We know, of course, that he could have found some /real/ terrorist
sites to strike in ANY of those countries...and even the most
suspicious of us would have to admit that it's likely to be true,
though we'd still know he was choosing to attack as a distraction.
But he wanted to make sure there could be no actual defense, too.
I still say we should resolve that all military conflicts our
governments get us into must be settled by combat to the death
among our leaders and theirs. We'd live in an era of serious peace,
then.
That's why the nuclear weapons prevented WWIII...because the
leaders would have actually been in jeopardy.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Fear is the foundation of most governments.--John Adams
KAZ Vorpal
MH]) Repeating your silly claim does not make it true, T Mark.
MH]) What is your *proof* that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor ahead
MH]) of time?
MH]) This is your claim, remember.....
The evidence is, of course, circumstantial...as it almost always is when
the crime is committed by a ruler.
But we know that the declaration of war was delivered before the attack
on Pearl Harbor...though they pretend that it somehow wasn't read by
anyone important, so FDR didn't know..."oops"
We know that, before it was even delivered, it was intercepted by
US spies, in Washington, and that it was in a form of encryption that
the US had broken and specifically monitored for really important
stuff like that.
We know that, even, the American radar installation on Pearl Harbor
picked up the massive flight of aircraft LONG before they got there,
but was told to ignore it...allegedly because they just didn't trust
radar (oh yeah, that's why they squandered all those taxpayer dollars
developing it and installing the base there).
I'm sure a few people here can add to this list, who actually have
the history books right at hand...
There is certainly no question that FDR /intended/ Japan to
attack the US, and for Germany to declare war on the US...he committed
acts of war on both, and openly backed their opponants (who were
as bad or worse than they, like China and the USSR)
--
Words of the Socialists:
The bourgeoisie[capitalists], by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all,
even the most barbarian nations into civilization.
--Karl Marx, /The Communist Manifesto/
Edward William Clayton
: In alt.politics.usa.republican Edward William Clayton <tcla...@umich.edu> wrote:
: EWC])KAZ Vorpal (k...@smart.net) wrote:
: EWC]): Kennedy got the US into Vietnam.
: EWC]): Before Kennedy, the US had perhaps a hundred "advisors" in Vietnam...non-combat.
: EWC]): This is much the same as the US had in dozens of other countries where the
: EWC]): US never got into a war, despite local conflicts.
: EWC]): Then Kennedy sent TWENTY THOUSAND COMBAT TROOPS to Vietnam, including
: EWC]): armor and weapons.
: EWC]): That was when it became different from the many, many other places
: EWC]): where the had a few people to represent the US' bias in local issues.
: EWC])Under Eisenhower the United States was also providing Vietnam with money
: EWC])and weapons, and it was under Eisenhower that the United States backed
: EWC])Diem's refusal to hold the elections that were supposed to be held
: EWC])throughout Vietnam in 1956. This, to me, counts as "getting us into" the
: EWC])situation in Vietnam.
: Ah, the usual intellectually dishonest dissembling of the socialists...
: "Yes but" style responses always seems to completely ignore the point
: given, returning an unrelated and much weaker argument which only
: distracts from, not addresses, the point.
Funny, I don't see a "yes, but" anywhere in what I posted.
: The US had "advisors" and/or was sending money/equipment to /scores/ of
: other nations.
: None of those turned into a war like Vietnam.
: The first time Vietnam was different than those VERY many other
: "military adviser"/money/equipment situations was, as I said and
: you didn't address, when we sent COMBAT troops to Vietnam, with
: their own weapons (tanks, guns, et cetera), as opposed to
: a few hundred "advisors", mostly unarmed except for personal
: weapons.
I addressed it by saying that I reject your argument that nothing other
than the introduction of combat troops counts as "getting us into" (your
words) Vietnam.
: EWC])Where do you get your 20,000 combat troops number? According to George
: EWC])Moss, in _Vietnam: An American Ordeal_, "At the time of Kennedy's death,
: EWC])there were 16,500" advisers and support personnel in Vietnam. The real
: Again, the mental deception arises. No wonder you guys don't understand
: how people are disgusted with Clinton's lying, and keep thinking it's about
: sex...this kind of behavior is almost transparent to your own eyes.
Here's a hint for you: not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or
lying. I know it may seem that way to you, but it's not so.
: Let's say, for a moment, that it was 16,500 combat troops instead of
: 20,000...
Let's say it because you have no evidence that it's 20,000, you mean?
Fine.
: When he took office, there were a few hundred, and no real military
: equipment beyond personal arms.
: The point stands, you are just trying to distract.
Now who's ignoring the question? Were there 20,000 troops or not?
: EWC])involvement of American troops in combat happened after the Gulf of
: EWC])Tonkin resolutions, passed in 1964 (LBJ, not JFK) by votes of 88-2 in the
: EWC])Senate and 416-0 in the House (Moss, p. 149). There was plenty of
: EWC])bipartisan blame to go around there.
: Sure, the Republicans who were in the MINORITY in both houses were the
: sheep they were at that time (and as the leadership still is), and
: they fell into the "My country, right or wrong" line, like McCain and
: Hatch are doing now over Clinton's warmongering...
Interesting interpretation. Do you have any evidence (you know, facts,
quotes, that kind of thing) to indicate that the Republicans didn't want
to sign the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or involve troops in Vietnam?
: But I did already include LBJ (who actually is quoted as SAYING
: to the military corporations that he was going to escalate to full
: war just for their needs, which is why there should not be a standing
: army) in the list of Liberal warmongers.
He did? He's quoted where? By who?
: But, though the Republican leaders invariably go along with it like
: sheep, the Liberals are the ones who have gotten us into every major
: war this century.
: In fact, EVERY Liberal president except Carter got the US into a major
: war...suspending Clinton's ranking until we see if he declares war on
: Canada to avoid being impeached).
: NO Republicans, though they've manufactured small military incidents
: in order to show that pretty much all major politicians are corrupt,
: have been sick enough to get us into a MAJOR war.
: EWC]): As I noted originally, Bush /is/ a Liberal. Bush is the man who CREATED
: EWC]): the term "voodoo economics" to attack Reagan's wish to cut taxes and
: EWC]): reduce regulation.
Actually none of this was me.
: EWC])And IMO was right, but I don't get involved in Republican infighting.
: Of course you believe he was right...because he's a Liberal.
No, he's not, but you go on ahead and believe that if you want.
: EWC]): "proxy wars" do not use US troops, though it's wrong for even a
: EWC]): penny of taxpayers' money to be spent on foreign entanglements.
Also not me.
: EWC])But still count as involvement, IMO.
: And, since Liberals don't care about things like "American lives",
: (as the warmongering of this century shows), killing thousands of
: Americans is pretty much the same as taking taxpayers' money...
"Liberals don't care about things like 'American lives.'" Geez, why am I
even wasting my time talking to you?
: EWC]): And Grenada, though also wrong, was not a war. A few soldiers
: EWC]): landing on a nearly unarmed island with almost no casualties,
: EWC]): for eighteen hours, does not a war make.
Also not me. Get your attributions straight, please.
: EWC])Difference of opinion.
: Yeah, what do socialists care about silly little "human lives"...
: It's all the same difference.
Now you move from "liberals don't care" to "socialists don't care," as if
the two are the same, attribute words to me that weren't mine, and imply
that I'm indifferent to human life and a socialist.
Pretty nice tactics there.
Ted
: --
Matthew Devney
>
> kim overstreet wrote in message <6s6ihf$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >Eisenhower in '58 (advisors)!
>
> But not "troops." Civilians, not military.
Wrong. "Military advisors." U.S. troops, in U.S. uniform, under U.S.
orders. Technically, though, they weren't supposed to fight. Kennedy
added "unless fired upon first" to that.
Kennedy sent those, who were the
> first to actually engage in combat [in "self-defense"], and Johnson [the
> "Great Society" liberal] followed up with troops sent for combat.
> >>
> >>It was a fiasco because air support was not supplied. Kennedy again.
> >
> >Ike set it up to fall in JFK's lap.Kenedy didn't want to start his admin
> >with the invasion of a soverign,abiet threat filled and destablizing
> state.
> >>
> If he didn't want to do so, he should have cancelled the attack. Instead he
> sabotaged it.
>
> <remaining idiocy snipped>
--
KAZ Vorpal
MH])}
MH])}No, you're wrong...he was a coward, all right, because he sent
MH])}a half million OTHER people to their deaths...but FDR /forced/
MH])}the US into the war. Are you aware that he committed at least
MH])}three acts of war against Japan, and that Japan did NOT want
MH])}to go to war against the US, but felt that it would end up
MH])}getting wiped out by FDR if it did not?
MH])}
MH]) Do tell what "acts of war" the US committed against
MH]) Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
Are you really that ignorant of basic history?
They froze Japanese assets and trade in American territory, which
is a standard precursor to war (especially back then, before the
ugliness of "international economic sanctions" murdering innocent
civilians through prolonged starvation and suffering).
He put the US fleet through combat manouvres in waters which
were claimed by Japan, near waters unarguably Japanese, and certainly
where the US had no claim.
He rejected their diplomats, when they came to try to get some
kind of resolution to this behavior.
He also placed the US into the position of openly backing
the Japanes and German opponents in the already existing
wars.
Those are all acts of war, and the US has used any /one/ of those
as an excuse for the use of or threat of force, itself.
--
Words of the Sentient:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials. -- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
KAZ Vorpal
SE])On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:37:15 -0400, "Gundobad" <gund...@provide.net>
SE])wrote:
>>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote in message
>>> Do tell what "acts of war" the US committed against
>>> Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
>>>
>>An oil embargo.
>>
SE])There is no person on this earth that would believe that an oil
SE])embargo is in any way an act of war. That is the stupidist thing I
SE])have heard on this ng yet.
Ah...why exactly did the Bush /really/ attack Iraq?
Try not to sound like a naive boob, now.
I seem to recall, in the seventies, the US considering attacking
OPEC nations, too.
And, as FDR knew, Japan would /collapse/ if the US embargo on oil
continued...not to mention the freezing of assets, the Pacific fleet
violating Japan-claimed waters, et cetera.
--
--
Words of the Sentient:
Might doesn't make right, it just makes rules -- KAZ Vorpal
KAZ Vorpal
MH])}
MH])}So what you're saying is that you are PROUD that your Liberal idols got
MH])}the US into wars which killed more Americans than ANY other form of
MH])}unnatural death this century...
MH])}
MH])} And you're proud that, in all four cases, your lying idols
MH])}FORCED the people of the US into those mass deaths, though in all
MH])}four cases the people of the US were TOTALLY OPPOSED to involvement.
MH])}
MH]) Which war were the people of the US "totally opposed" to,
MH]) KAZ?
As anyone who even pays attention to /normal/ history books knows,
all four. Wilson and FDR both ran, in fact, on keeping the US
out of the wars the socialist liars then forced them into entering,
upon being safely re-elected.
--
Words of the Socialists:
President Bush is betraying the oppressed victims in China by extending
special trade status. --Bill Clinton, 1992
We are extending special trade status to China. --Bill Clinton, 1993
We are extending special trade status to China. --Bill Clinton, 1994
We are extending special trade status to China. --Bill Clinton, 1995
dgenius
conflict is counter-productive, troops should be prepared and loyal, a draft
does not accomplish this. Do not forget, the US is the leader of the free
world. A military career is a very respectable career.
-dgenius
KAZ Vorpal wrote in message <6s6s04$fd7$1...@news.smart.net>...
>In alt.politics.usa.republican Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
>MH])In article <6s3v96$mvr$8...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal)
wrote:
>
>MH])}
>--
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up
>in time of peace for [defense against invasion].
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801
>--
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>There [should] be no standing army but in time of actual war.
> -- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers, 1:363
>--
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended
>themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of
>their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such
>engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every
>man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country
>whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy
>will make us so. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
>--
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>[Bonaparte] has at least transferred the destinies of the republic from
>the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the
>practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the
>danger of standing armies.
> --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
>--
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
>None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours
>armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially
>so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been
>violated. --Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>--
>Words of the Sentient:
>
The Shoe
but Kennedy was the one who really bumped up the numbers. I was a personnel
clerk in the Army at the time when the call for volunteers went out.
Advisors were volunteers, all the way. It was LBJ who sent real troops, and
not volunteers. In my opinion, as long as it was volunteers, no big deal.
LBJ was the scoundrel but then if he had not sent troops or educated the
people more, he would have been impeached for "losing Indochina". The Dems
were already tarred with "lost China" brush.
> > >Not. Kennedy was the first to send troops there, as "advisors."
> >
The Shoe
unless the military action has been specifically (no gulf of tonkin
resolutions, no "okay because Congress appropriated funds") approved by
Congress and the President". That would leave it open for volunteers who
believe in the cause free to work it out but protect the draftees. Such an
amendment would have proscribed Viet Nam but would have permitted Desert
Storm.
The Shoe
expression of warmongering. It was a cultural thing morally above decadent
Western Civilization's warmongering. Also, the Japanese diplomats were
peace seeking, nice guys who were always above board. That is why the one
honorable Japanese diplomat wanted to commit hari kari out of shame. But
then he was probably an oriental "Uncle Tom".
The guy who posted the below post is a complete Idiot.
The Shoe
> But not "troops." Civilians, not military. Kennedy sent those, who were
the
> first to actually engage in combat [in "self-defense"]
True, but they were still volunteers.
, and Johnson [the
> "Great Society" liberal] followed up with troops sent for combat.
> >>
LBJ's troops were not volunteers. They were the wretched of the earth,
politically dispensable.
Mader Afac
Gundobad wrote in message <35e6f...@news.provide.net>...
>
>Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6bdae....@news.zianet.com>...
>>
>>WRONG!!!!! It was good ole Ike. I know you don't want to believe it,
>>but truth is truth.
>>>
>first combat troops, supposedly as advisors, and Johnson [another liberal
>Democrat] sent the first troops that were actually supposed to fight. Get a
>grip
Whatever you think they were called, I was one of 'em. So I'm just set back
a laugh because this battle is rather funny.
Deadbeat Dads, Morphine Moms,
Rapists, Murderers, Sex Perverts
and other Democrats. All working
for your future!
Mader Afac RPE BSE
Executive Director LETA
Matthew Devney
>
> We need a constitutional amendment: "No soldier may be forced into combat
> unless the military action has been specifically (no gulf of tonkin
> resolutions, no "okay because Congress appropriated funds") approved by
> Congress and the President". That would leave it open for volunteers who
> believe in the cause free to work it out but protect the draftees. Such an
> amendment would have proscribed Viet Nam but would have permitted Desert
> Storm.
>
the military might of our nation. It has fallen upon his (or maybe one
day her) head to command the army. And all those who enlist do so with
the full understanding that they may be asked to perform acts that are
personally distasteful, but as long as they are legal, those orders must
be carried out.
When you sign on the dotted line, you say you'll do what your commanding
officer says. No more discussion: he says do, you do.
That is the major distinction between a warrior and a soldier, which
many people seem to think are synonyms. The difference is this: a
warrior fights. A soldier obeys orders.
> >There was then no legal requirement for declaration of war or anything
> else for the boards to do
> > so.
> >
--
Matthew Devney~
========================================================================
Matthew Devney
>
> Gundobad wrote in message <35e6f...@news.provide.net>...
> >
> >Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6bdae....@news.zianet.com>...
> >>
> >>WRONG!!!!! It was good ole Ike. I know you don't want to believe it,
> >>but truth is truth.
> >>>
> >There is a difference, between "personnel" and "troops." Kennedy sent the
> >first combat troops, supposedly as advisors, and Johnson [another liberal
> >Democrat] sent the first troops that were actually supposed to fight. Get a
> >grip
>
> Whatever you think they were called, I was one of 'em. So I'm just set back
> a laugh because this battle is rather funny.
>
were you a "troop" or "personnel"?
More to the topic, who sent you?
> Deadbeat Dads, Morphine Moms,
> Rapists, Murderers, Sex Perverts
> and other Democrats. All working
> for your future!
>
> Mader Afac RPE BSE
> Executive Director LETA
--
msi...@tefbbs.com
Simon
===============================================
"Gundobad" <gund...@provide.net> wrote:
>
>Spirit Explorer wrote in message <35e6bd50....@news.zianet.com>...
>>>
>>There is no person on this earth that would believe that an oil
>>embargo is in any way an act of war. That is the stupidist thing I
>>have heard on this ng yet.
>>
>Oh really? I seem to recall that the Japanese took it that way, and felt
>quite justified in attacking thereby.
>Hell, _we_ fought a war essentially for oil only a couple years ago.
>
>
>
>
Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and may or may not reflect my opinion at this particular time or any other.
Gundobad
The Shoe wrote in message <01bdd2d0$91bdaf80$05f945cf@default>...
Mitchell Holman
}In alt.politics.usa.republican Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
}MH])In article <6s3v96$mvr$8...@news.smart.net>, k...@smart.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
}
}MH])}
}MH])}That's because EVERY war the US has been in this century was NOT
}MH])}a defense of the US borders,
}
}MH]) Shooting back at the planes attacking Pearl Harbor
}MH]) was not a defense of US borders?
}
}MH]) How about the repelling the Japanese occupation
}MH]) of Wake, Kiska, and Attu islands, all US territory?
}
}
}
}Let's explain this really slowly:
}
}FDR_commited_multiple_acts_of_war_against_Japan_until_they_became_desparate
}enough_to_strike_back_with_force.
}
}He froze their assets, moved a huge fleet into what was arguably
}certainly way far away from US waters, and he rejected their
}diplomats when they came to him to try to get this kind
}of warmongering stopped.
}
I had no idea that Pearl Harbor was "inarguably Japanese waters".
Perhaps you could explain the Japanese claim over Hawaii.
}
}MH])}The US military is only supposed to defend the US borders
}
}
}MH]) Says who?
}
}
}Says the Founders whose documentation is the SOLE authority upon which
}the current government's existence rests, other than pure tyranny.
}
Are you talking about the same Founding Fathers who sent
the American Navy to the Barbary coast to destroy pirate ships?