OT: Deport Oprah
MuahMan
think I've ever seen. Keeps showing clips blaming all of the worlds problems
on us. Now she has some arabs on there saying how America is to blame for
9/11 too. If there is another terrorist attack in this country I hope this
thankless bitch is in middle of it. Disgusting.
Vector Newman
Is this world nuts or what?
--
Vector Newman
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b583q6$26nipa$1...@ID-180643.news.dfncis.de...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Hob...@calvinball.com
That is called sensationalism. That is what ugly, fat women with 9th grade
educations do in order to make $680 million. Had she been satisfied with
$100 in a CD at 1.3%; she would just have gone on welfare and popped out a
few kids out of wedlock. Don't let it bother you too much - she will die
from her obesity soon enough, and the probate court will take 50%. Then we
can use that money to bomb Iraq. :-)
Bag'O'Meat
First of all, you watch Oprah?? Secondly, maybe she's a little extreme, but
we Americans are in stark denial if we think that we're too perfect for
anybody to dislike us.
Greg Zook
<Hob...@CalvinBall.com> wrote in message
news:qkPda.9222$Ev6....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
plonk and plonk.
>
>
>
SOMLAW
> news:b583q6$26nipa$1...@ID-180643.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>This stupid bitch had perhaps the most unamerican show on tv today that I
>>think I've ever seen. Keeps showing clips blaming all of the worlds
>
> problems
>
>>on us. Now she has some arabs on there saying how America is to blame for
>>9/11 too. If there is another terrorist attack in this country I hope this
>>thankless bitch is in middle of it. Disgusting.
>>
(rant alert)
Do you know what pisses me off?
How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
Say for example... if we had a Democratic president, and he bombed Iraq
to distract the fact his intern is suckig his cock would get no reaction
from the so called "concerned celebrities"... wait, it already happened!!
It also amazes how these holier than thou celebrities also have their
own drug rehab hospitals, are mostly college dropouts, or never even got
past high school, and will take whatever political stance the heads of
Paramount or Universal Studios has.
These are the same pieces of shit who gave a CHILD RAPIST a standing
ovation at the Oscars, of course Roman Polanski wasn't there (not the
other child rapist, Woody Allen, he didn't win an Oscar this year) he is
still hiding out in Europe for drugging and raping a 12 year old girl in
then fleeing the country.
-----------------------
SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
Mark Zarella
>
> How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
> our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
I would normally be inclined to disagree with you about this, but I just
recently encountered a group of anti-war folks who were criticizing the hell
out of this Iraqi crap but then praising the merits of the Kosovo nonsense.
The anti-war crowd annoys me even more than the war-mongering collectivists.
dscotts
> I would normally be inclined to disagree with you about this, but I just
> recently encountered a group of anti-war folks who were criticizing the hell
> out of this Iraqi crap but then praising the merits of the Kosovo nonsense.
> The anti-war crowd annoys me even more than the war-mongering collectivists.
being the devil's advocate I am ........... so don't mind be, but?
While your chewing over that nonsense, here's some more political jargon to chew
over. Those same war-mongering collectivists who blasted Clinton for putting our
boys in harms - oh, they were so dramatic, as were the wives and retired vets
of the armed forces - way for no reason of immanent danger to the security of
the nation and didn't want to here about how the security of Europe really was
our problem now find themselves with the shoe on the other foot. These same
pundits vehemently squawked at the idea that the US should get involved for
primarily moral reasons as again, this was no reason to subject our very finest
to injury or death. As it turned out, that intervention, with little loss of
life to our troops except by error more than anything else, stopped a problem
that would still be festering even now and helped keep the US markets in a
comfortable, stable economical environment that we all enjoyed for years.
The other by product was some small good will that laid some grounds for similar
US intervention on purely moral imperatives it had because the US did come to
the aid of Moslems when basically no one else cared, including Arab countries.
All that said, republicans were still vehemently against, but now the sheer
hypocrisy a few years later is these same republicans (and the Christian right,
almost fundamentalist in my eyes, Thou shall not kill?, is especially sickening
kissing up to their great Christian leader Bush) had no other foot to stand on
in the world stage for a justifiable reason to enter Iraq except the moral
imperative to free those poor suffering people of Iraq, who happen to be sitting
on the biggest oil reserves in the worlds and will happen to need the services
of say, all the buddies of Bush and Chaney to make big money putting things all
back together again. Its boys' club politics too often and both sides are so
guilty they reek of the hypocrisy that any objective man has to find sickening
and disheartening!
I'm a bit in that crowd that felt the US should have gathered and exposed a
little better intel before entering Iraq, maybe nibbled away with a vengeance
for 6 months or so until the hot season passed in Iraq and the window of
opportunity again presented itself and we had better grounds on the world stage
to end the Saddam regime. Saddam's a pig, he world have provided more reasons
because he is what he is, but that's the past. However, I'm not hypocritical
enough to be blinded by the fact I get in my car every day all by myself,
wasting gas with no desire for mass transit, waste energy keeping the unattended
computer on too often to not realize I have a part in this gluttony of world
resources in at least paying the piper, a pragmatist, unlike so many of those
anti war SUV driving hypocrites.
I will say that although I can see some reasoning behind this naive pie in the
sky attempt (one last shot) to tame the Middle east, I find Dubya's credentials
- and many of his staff left over from the CIA days of his daddy and pockets
filled to the brim with oil and arms interest - to carry on this campaign so
inappropriate and fundamentally repulsive that I can understand why the world
stage is up in arms. Kosovo was probably the best thing we've done with the use
of force for quite some time as far as moral reasoning that is some how trying
to be fronted as explanation for this slaughter. Afghanistan has its merit,
truly cause and effect in most peoples eyes with relationship to 9/11,
definitely more so for pure national defense than moral right and all that crap.
I have no problem there, although what little we hear about it now seems to me
that things are going back to the way they were before Al-Quide, which wasn't
all that great and certainly not the great rebuilding that Bush told us would be
done - instead typical short sided slash and burn foreign policies, problem
solved for present administration, we're out of here. Of course, what can you
expect, there's no oil there to exploit for Bush and all his buddies so I can
understand why the Arab world would look on us with doubt for this present
intervention with promises of good tidings to come.
I said it before and I say it again, what part of history shows it to be a good
idea for a purely Anglo-Saxon military forces to invade and occupy a Moslem
country. Its always ends badly with the anglo's eventually leaving, carrying too
many of their dead as they sneak off the beach too often leaving the place in
more chaos than when they got there with definitely more Muslim/Anglo animosity
that before. Maybe this will end differently, if so it will surely have to buck
history. Also, I'm not naive enough to not understand that the zelot Muslim and
Anglo worlds are coming to a powder keg and if it must happen over religious
doctrine, perhaps its better to get it over with the earlier the better because
as every year ticks by, Arabs gain more WDM and if it comes down to us and them,
we may not have the moral superiority on our sides but we certainly have the
arms superiority at this present time. Scary thoughts ..........
Its a mess, but even if justifiable, I still resort back to my primary complaint
and I would imagine its the same with what you try to label many liberals,
bleeding heart crap monikers. George Bush Jr. reeks of impropriety to carry on
this war with Saddam especially when at times it seems to me that this is just
the present administration finally finding a salable reason to finnish the
business his daddy started but fell short in its completion in corporate eyes
and needs. Which again, I find some value in the arguments to oust the criminal
Hussein but perhaps in the end I find hard to except from a president who's
families present and future riches come from oil and munitions, who has an
obvious grudge to get even with the guy who tried to kill his father, and who's
vice President was on the board allocated part of the reconstruction contracts
who's retirement plan must be so intricately intertwined with the success of
this oil rebuilding venture, and finally who seems to be putting said buddies in
front of the line for the biggest sections of the pie.
I try to be objective but its an ugly mess that one could seriously attribute to
the likes of say, a Saddam Hussein and his lynch men. They're all criminals when
it comes to getting the oil, the only difference, who writes the history books,
Saddam is small potatoes with the sheer magnitude as what could be argued of
this crime to get the riches. And so many Americans smile proudly with
presidential approval right now as many unsuspectingly will take it up the ass
when it comes time for all the programs that make a better life for its middle
class (clean air and water, education, health care, to name a few) are slashed
to the bone to pay for this restructure (and the home security to protect from
the repercussions) as only a very few (the top few %) will reap the financial
rewards of this business venture worthy of the likes of an Enron CEO. And we
think Arabs are ignorant and backwards, we kid ourselves????????
My advice to the US after all this mess....... no second term for dildo Dubya,
better to elect Colin Powell next president and let him get the interested
parties back to counseling as he puts it. We will desperately need a man of
peace after all this cluster fuck foreign policy runs its course!
Mark Zarella
>
> While your chewing over that nonsense, here's some more political jargon
to chew
> over. Those same war-mongering collectivists who blasted Clinton for
putting our
> boys in harms - oh, they were so dramatic, as were the wives and retired
vets
> of the armed forces - way for no reason of immanent danger to the security
of
> the nation and didn't want to here about how the security of Europe really
was
> our problem now find themselves with the shoe on the other foot. These
same
> pundits vehemently squawked at the idea that the US should get involved
for
> primarily moral reasons as again, this was no reason to subject our very
finest
> to injury or death. As it turned out, that intervention, with little loss
of
> life to our troops except by error more than anything else, stopped a
problem
> that would still be festering even now and helped keep the US markets in a
> comfortable, stable economical environment that we all enjoyed for years.
What problem did it stop? And how can you be assured that it helped the US
market in any way?
> The other by product was some small good will that laid some grounds for
similar
> US intervention on purely moral imperatives it had because the US did come
to
> the aid of Moslems when basically no one else cared, including Arab
countries.
Yet the international community didn't oppose that one? Isn't that one of
the chief objections to the Iraq war that the anti-war crowd has?
> All that said, republicans were still vehemently against, but now the
sheer
> hypocrisy a few years later is these same republicans (and the Christian
right,
> almost fundamentalist in my eyes, Thou shall not kill?, is especially
sickening
> kissing up to their great Christian leader Bush) had no other foot to
stand on
> in the world stage for a justifiable reason to enter Iraq except the moral
> imperative to free those poor suffering people of Iraq, who happen to be
sitting
> on the biggest oil reserves in the worlds and will happen to need the
services
> of say, all the buddies of Bush and Chaney to make big money putting
things all
> back together again.
Their main claim is the WMD part. They just recently put up this
save-the-poor-Iraqi smokescreen to sugarcoat things, of course. I'm not
entirely sure that oil is a major motive in this one, although it most
certainly was in Daddy Bush's war (along with helping to keep the military
industrial complex afloat).
> Its boys' club politics too often and both sides are so
> guilty they reek of the hypocrisy that any objective man has to find
sickening
> and disheartening!
>
> I'm a bit in that crowd that felt the US should have gathered and exposed
a
> little better intel before entering Iraq, maybe nibbled away with a
vengeance
> for 6 months or so until the hot season passed in Iraq and the window of
> opportunity again presented itself and we had better grounds on the world
stage
> to end the Saddam regime. Saddam's a pig, he world have provided more
reasons
> because he is what he is, but that's the past. However, I'm not
hypocritical
> enough to be blinded by the fact I get in my car every day all by myself,
> wasting gas with no desire for mass transit, waste energy keeping the
unattended
> computer on too often to not realize I have a part in this gluttony of
world
> resources in at least paying the piper, a pragmatist, unlike so many of
those
> anti war SUV driving hypocrites.
What's wrong with oil "gluttony"? The market would provide a corrective
measure if the US didn't tinker.
>
> I will say that although I can see some reasoning behind this naive pie in
the
> sky attempt (one last shot) to tame the Middle east, I find Dubya's
credentials
> - and many of his staff left over from the CIA days of his daddy and
pockets
> filled to the brim with oil and arms interest - to carry on this campaign
so
> inappropriate and fundamentally repulsive that I can understand why the
world
> stage is up in arms. Kosovo was probably the best thing we've done with
the use
> of force for quite some time as far as moral reasoning that is some how
trying
> to be fronted as explanation for this slaughter.
The "moral reasoning" of Kosovo consisted of the very same tactics employed
here.
jb
"Mark Zarella" <seesi...@foremail.address> wrote in message
news:pPFja.19947$ii....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Kosovo was probably the best thing we've done with
> the use
> > of force for quite some time as far as moral reasoning that is some how
> trying
> > to be fronted as explanation for this slaughter.
>
> The "moral reasoning" of Kosovo consisted of the very same tactics employed
> here.
>
I respectfully disagree - the Kosovo intervention was in response to an ongoing genocide
which neither NATO nor the UN were doing anything to stop it ....
There were no trumped up 'terrorist connections' or 'chemical weapons stockpiles'
or 'threatening nuclear weapons programs' excuses.....the reason to go into
Kosovo was to stop the genocide, it was an honest, straight-forward reason,
and since we started withdrawing soon after its conclusion, it appears to have
been the honest reason we were there.
Is anyone so certain why we are in Iraq ?
There have been several reasons given - but none seem so foreright:
the evidence of the nuclear program was forged documents,
the one terrorist camp identified was in northern Iraq, which could be argued to be Kurd-controlled
(both the Kurds and Al Queda are Islamic fundermentalist?), and
not much evidence or use of chemical or bio-weapons.....
We probably are in Iraq primarily to re-align the Middle East, but that would not be
a convincing arguement domesticly or internationally, so we were presented with a
bunch of faux reasons to chose from....
Do we now take a left turn and invade Syria ? We have all the troops and aircraft carriers
there, it would be a waste to withdraw them all if we plan to 're-adjust' Syria eventually.....
PatsWickedPissah
>Do we now take a left turn and invade Syria ? We have all the troops and
>aircraft carriers
>there, it would be a waste to withdraw them all if we plan to 're-adjust'
>Syria eventually.....
That would be ahead of plan. Next down is Iran, but from within. THEN Syria.
Top it off with the perfidious Saudis and finally Eqypt.
-p
Mark Zarella
> > the use
> > > of force for quite some time as far as moral reasoning that is some
how
> > trying
> > > to be fronted as explanation for this slaughter.
> >
> > The "moral reasoning" of Kosovo consisted of the very same tactics
employed
> > here.
> >
>
> I respectfully disagree - the Kosovo intervention was in response to an
ongoing genocide
> which neither NATO nor the UN were doing anything to stop it ....
Why should they have?
Sri Krsna
Jim vh
@yahoo.com.remove says...
> (rant alert)
>
> Do you know what pisses me off?
>
> How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
> our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
>
> Say for example... if we had a Democratic president, and he bombed Iraq
> to distract the fact his intern is suckig his cock would get no reaction
> from the so called "concerned celebrities"... wait, it already happened!!
hey at least there was a higher employment rate among tech
support and EEs back in those days.
> other child rapist, Woody Allen, he didn't win an Oscar this year) he is
> still hiding out in Europe for drugging and raping a 12 year old girl in
> then fleeing the country.
>
i did a google search and didn't find this one. maybe this
is from one of rush limbaugh's shows?
--
Jim vh
dwo'ski
news:20030405154037...@mb-ff.aol.com...
This administration is incapable of anything resembling a left turn, jb.
But you're right, Syria is next. Phil is confused because Syria didn't make
it into David Frum's "Axis of Evil" while Iran did. That's only because
Assad The Younger was making nice in the early post 9/11 era. That's over
now so Syria has got to go. Iran continues to be a much longer, slower,
more covert process of destabilization.
dwo'ski
dwo'ski
news:IlJja.35643$yh1.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
Just what typically passes for "thought" among the right-wing, knee-jerk,
reactionary crowd: take a fact and spin it so fast that it appears that
you're the only one making any sense and that it's actually the rest of the
universe that's spinning, then call your position a "no-spin zone."
Parentheses below are an attempt to distinguish my opinion from fact.
-The highly successful film making community was giving a standing ovation
to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning Polanski the
Oscar for Direction.
-Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in Europe.
-He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as punishment
for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
"drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out by the double-crossing
judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized that
one has admitted guilt via plea?).
-The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should be
judged solely on its merits.
-The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and borderline
negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o adult
supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
Mark Zarella
punishment
> for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
> "drug" known as alcohol that was used)
Is the legal drug still legal when given to a 13 year old?
> was thrown out by the double-crossing
> judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized that
> one has admitted guilt via plea?).
>
> -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should
be
> judged solely on its merits.
So should Manson's.
> -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and borderline
> negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o
adult
> supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
> easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
Yeah, the mother's negligence makes Polanski's actions ok.
dwo'ski
> > -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
> punishment
> > for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
> > "drug" known as alcohol that was used)
>
> Is the legal drug still legal when given to a 13 year old?
Nope. But I think my point is pretty clear: There's no need to magnify the
original crime by spinning that "drugs" somehow have something to do with it
unless one is going to be honest and state that the "drug" in question is
alcohol
> > was thrown out by the double-crossing
> > judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized
that
> > one has admitted guilt via plea?).
> >
> > -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should
> be
> > judged solely on its merits.
>
> So should Manson's.
You are stating that in your opinion Manson is an artist. I would politely
disagree. He is, as a matter of fact, responsible for the death of
Polanski's unborn child and the woman who was carrying it.
> > -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
borderline
> > negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o
> adult
> > supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
> > easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
>
> Yeah, the mother's negligence makes Polanski's actions ok.
This is just ridiculous. 1) I never said that. 2) I never implied that.
3) That type of "logic" is a shining example of why dittoheads rule the
circle jerk airwaves.
Brady2Brown
Only when you remove your hat
dwo'ski
news:20030406141728...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> > But I think my point is pretty clear:
>
> Only when you remove your hat
Glad to see you're reading above a 3rd grade level. Keep it up, you may
learn to think and write accordingly someday.
Mark Zarella
> > punishment
> > > for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the
legal
> > > "drug" known as alcohol that was used)
> >
> > Is the legal drug still legal when given to a 13 year old?
>
> Nope. But I think my point is pretty clear: There's no need to magnify
the
> original crime by spinning that "drugs" somehow have something to do with
it
> unless one is going to be honest and state that the "drug" in question is
> alcohol
I haven't heard anyone talk about the drug issue much, actually. Usually
they focus on the pedophilia.
>
>
> > > was thrown out by the double-crossing
> > > judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized
> that
> > > one has admitted guilt via plea?).
> > >
> > > -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art
should
> > be
> > > judged solely on its merits.
> >
> > So should Manson's.
>
>
> You are stating that in your opinion Manson is an artist. I would
politely
> disagree. He is, as a matter of fact, responsible for the death of
> Polanski's unborn child and the woman who was carrying it.
Manson has created plenty of art. It's absurd not to recognize that.
>
>
> > > -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
> borderline
> > > negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o
> > adult
> > > supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's
much
> > > easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
> >
> > Yeah, the mother's negligence makes Polanski's actions ok.
>
> This is just ridiculous. 1) I never said that. 2) I never implied that.
> 3) That type of "logic" is a shining example of why dittoheads rule the
> circle jerk airwaves.
So what were you saying exactly? It appears that your last post was an
attempt to defend Polanski's actions. If not, then you should have made
yourself a little more clear about just what your point WAS.
SOMLAW
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16293
Roman Polanski, drugged and raped a child. But he makes nice movies!
--
-----------------------
SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
SOMLAW
Jim vh wrote:
> In article <3E8E05A...@yahoo.com.remove>, bakala_2000
> @yahoo.com.remove says...
>
>
>>(rant alert)
>>
>>Do you know what pisses me off?
>>
>>How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
>>our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
>>
>>Say for example... if we had a Democratic president, and he bombed Iraq
>>to distract the fact his intern is suckig his cock would get no reaction
>>from the so called "concerned celebrities"... wait, it already happened!!
>
>
> hey at least there was a higher employment rate among tech
> support and EEs back in those days.
>
>
Yeah, makes me want to vote for John Kerry in 2004. But the guy had to
go and make idiotic soundbites.
>
>>other child rapist, Woody Allen, he didn't win an Oscar this year) he is
>>still hiding out in Europe for drugging and raping a 12 year old girl in
>>then fleeing the country.
>>
>
>
>
> i did a google search and didn't find this one. maybe this
> is from one of rush limbaugh's shows?
>
>
--
-----------------------
SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
SOMLAW
Hold off on Iran, North Korea is threatening to nuke California. China
has already cut off all oil shipments to them, and they REALLY need to
be disarmed.
SOMLAW
Lets Iran sleep, they will not try anything stupid, especially when they
see how Iraq was swiftly bitch slapped.
North Korea has nukes pointed and threatening to blow up the US West
coast. And now China is pissed at them, China and US versus North Korea?
Damn this is ugly.
SOMLAW
Just what passes as "thought" for the left wing liberals. Blaming
everybody but the suspects.
> -The highly successful film making community was giving a standing ovation
> to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning Polanski the
> Oscar for Direction.
The same community who also stood up and applauds Woody Allen after he
rapes his 14 year old stepdaugther? I am not some moral holy roller, but
give me a break. Stop making excuses for people. If people in la la land
want to preach their gospel to the country, show some moral fiber.
> -Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in Europe.
> -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as punishment
> for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
> "drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out by the double-crossing
> judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized that
> one has admitted guilt via plea?).
>
Alcohol is not legal for preteen girls. She was drugged with booze and
Qualuudes (spelling?).
What double crossing judge? That is just a media spin, put out by the
media companies who own news networks, and movies studios that *gasps*
release his movies!
Its like watching CNN, and their movie review reports (which obviously
are scarce in the war news 24/7 these days). All the movies released by
any Time Warner studio get favorable to great reviews, but anything
release by 20th century Fox get blasted as crap. Consider the source of
your news.
> -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should be
> judged solely on its merits.
Maybe because she is tired of being harassed by the media? I am sure her
years of therapy have helped her get over the night some old pervert
raped her, does it mean he should be vindicated? Do the crime, serve the
time.
> -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and borderline
> negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o adult
> supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
> easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
A naive mother does not mean raping her daughter should be her fault. It
was Polanski who violated her daughter, not her.
At what point is it Polanski's fault? Stop making excuses, it makes you
sound ignorant.
SOMLAW
dwo'ski wrote:
> "Mark Zarella" <seesi...@foremail.address> wrote in message
> news:6yZja.16146$e8....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>>-He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
>>
>>punishment
>>
>>>for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
>>>"drug" known as alcohol that was used)
>>
>>Is the legal drug still legal when given to a 13 year old?
>
>
> Nope. But I think my point is pretty clear: There's no need to magnify the
> original crime by spinning that "drugs" somehow have something to do with it
> unless one is going to be honest and state that the "drug" in question is
> alcohol
>
'
QUALUUDES (spelling?) and alcohol, check a news source that doesn't also
own Polanski's movie studios.
-----------------------
SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
SOMLAW
See, movie people and celebrities are pretty ladies, handsome men and
overall cool people. Stupid schmucks aspire to drive fancy cars and live
like movie stars, so they will agree to whatever bullshit the famous
people tell them.
Some people don't want to be Joe the electrician, or Sally the 4th grade
teacher, they want to live in Beverly Hills, drive a Porchse and go to
parties with lots of people who try to hard to impress other people.
They think that if they share the same opinions as these people, they
end up like them!
PatsWickedPissah
>PatsWickedPissah wrote:
>>>"jb" jbe...@attbi.com
China and Japan along with S Korea need to take the iniative dealing with N
Korea. China's recent moves indicate that it may have just realized that
having a wackjob with nukes and delivery means nearby is NOT a good idea.
Iran falls from within...with maybe a little push.
-p
Jim vh
@yahoo.com.remove says...
>
> > i did a google search and didn't find this one. maybe this
> > is from one of rush limbaugh's shows?
> >
> >
>
> www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16293
>
> Roman Polanski, drugged and raped a child. But he makes nice movies!
>
>
>
>
ok, i knew about that. i thought the reference was woody
allen drugging/raping.
--
Jim vh
dscotts
> China and Japan along with S Korea need to take the iniative dealing with N
> Korea. China's recent moves indicate that it may have just realized that
> having a wackjob with nukes and delivery means nearby is NOT a good idea.
>
> Iran falls from within...with maybe a little push.
don't think so small .......
if only some of those Indonesian Muslims would blow up a Chinese embassy or
something .... and isn't Russia butting heads with the Chetnians again, add us
in the Middle East and we could have a regular hoedown, a real holocaustal nuke
fest. What's the most recent number, over 1/7 of the worlds population of
aprox. 7 billion are Muslims? Need to get that stat down to a more controllable
number, could easily trim that in half in a couple of days with probably only
4-5 Trident class US subs - probably off the Arabian shores already???? Let
alone getting Russia and China in the act. Let's just get it over with so the
markets can get back in the groove. What do you say? Of course, we'll definitely
have to get those fuel cell cars up and running allot quicker than GM wants to
in their projections of the end of the decade, but hell, we'll throw billions at
them, so they'll love it and it will create more jobs. What the hell .....
I'd also add, while we're at it on a global scale, wouldn't hurt to nip it in
the bud at home and have Georgie Porgie make a discrete call to his dad's CIA
buddies and have Farrakhan's plane mysteriously crash or something ......
there ........ problem solved - let's get back to the Pats!!!!
dwo'ski
> > > > -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
> > > punishment
> > > > for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the
> legal
> > > > "drug" known as alcohol that was used)
> > >
> > > Is the legal drug still legal when given to a 13 year old?
> >
> > Nope. But I think my point is pretty clear: There's no need to magnify
> the
> > original crime by spinning that "drugs" somehow have something to do
with
> it
> > unless one is going to be honest and state that the "drug" in question
is
> > alcohol
>
> I haven't heard anyone talk about the drug issue much, actually. Usually
> they focus on the pedophilia.
The original poster brought up drugs.
>
> >
> >
> > > > was thrown out by the double-crossing
> > > > judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly
publicized
> > that
> > > > one has admitted guilt via plea?).
> > > >
> > > > -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art
> should
> > > be
> > > > judged solely on its merits.
> > >
> > > So should Manson's.
> >
> >
> > You are stating that in your opinion Manson is an artist. I would
> politely
> > disagree. He is, as a matter of fact, responsible for the death of
> > Polanski's unborn child and the woman who was carrying it.
>
> Manson has created plenty of art. It's absurd not to recognize that.
Ok, color me absurd. You'll be putting me in good company. The relative
merits of, and what constitutes "art" is a subject that has endured far more
debate than I'm willing to engage in here on this subject. Suffice it to
say that Polanski was recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences. I am aware of no equivalent body constituted around the concept
of peer recognition that celebrates Manson.
> >
> >
> > > > -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
> > borderline
> > > > negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot"
w/o
> > > adult
> > > > supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's
> much
> > > > easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
> > >
> > > Yeah, the mother's negligence makes Polanski's actions ok.
> >
> > This is just ridiculous. 1) I never said that. 2) I never implied
that.
> > 3) That type of "logic" is a shining example of why dittoheads rule the
> > circle jerk airwaves.
>
> So what were you saying exactly? It appears that your last post was an
> attempt to defend Polanski's actions. If not, then you should have made
> yourself a little more clear about just what your point WAS.
Perhaps it appears that way to you, in which case it's true, appearances are
deceiving. It's clear to me that I was replying to an earlier poster who
had, imo, divorced himself from facts and reality to twist Hollywood's
recognition of Polanski as an artist into a celebration of pedophilia.
Perhaps you could be as clear as you exhort me to be about where I defended
Polanski for the original crime.
dwo'ski
news:3E909693...@yahoo.com.remove...
> QUALUUDES (spelling?) and alcohol, check a news source that doesn't also
> own Polanski's movie studios.
You could have more easily done what you ask me to do b/c I have no idea
what constitutes "Polanski's movie studios" to you. I found the following @
ABC, which is owned by Disney, which I would assume does business w/Polanski
in some shape somewhere in the world.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA030130Geimer_Polans
ki.html
And the item reports drugs being involved so I was wrong. My bad.
Mark Zarella
> > politely
> > > disagree. He is, as a matter of fact, responsible for the death of
> > > Polanski's unborn child and the woman who was carrying it.
> >
> > Manson has created plenty of art. It's absurd not to recognize that.
>
> Ok, color me absurd. You'll be putting me in good company. The relative
> merits of, and what constitutes "art" is a subject that has endured far
more
> debate than I'm willing to engage in here on this subject. Suffice it to
> say that Polanski was recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
> Sciences. I am aware of no equivalent body constituted around the concept
> of peer recognition that celebrates Manson.
Never heard any of his music? If John Denver was an artist, then so is
Manson.
dwo'ski
Can you substantiate that any of that applies to me?
> > -The highly successful film making community was giving a standing
ovation
> > to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning Polanski
the
> > Oscar for Direction.
>
> The same community who also stood up and applauds Woody Allen after he
> rapes his 14 year old stepdaugther? I am not some moral holy roller, but
> give me a break. Stop making excuses for people. If people in la la land
> want to preach their gospel to the country, show some moral fiber.
Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
preach morality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
> > -Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in
Europe.
>
>
> > -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
punishment
> > for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
> > "drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out by the
double-crossing
> > judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized
that
> > one has admitted guilt via plea?).
> >
>
> Alcohol is not legal for preteen girls. She was drugged with booze and
> Qualuudes (spelling?).
Apparently correct. As I've said elsewhere, my bad (on the 'ludes, which I
hadn't recalled).
> What double crossing judge? That is just a media spin, put out by the
Fact: a plea bargain had been agreed to and accepted by the judge.
Fact: Polanski fled after it became clear that the judge was not going to
abide by the terms of the plea despite the fact that Polanski's guilty plea
had become public.
"Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse as part of a plea
agreement and he went to jail for a short time in order to undergo
psychiatric evaluation. When Polanksi realized the judge intended to
sentence him to more time behind bars, he fled to France."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA030130Geimer_Polans
ki.html
Can you similarily substantiate any of your ravings? No? And I'm supposed
to accept that? Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like
jack-booted thugs to determine reality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
> media companies who own news networks, and movies studios that *gasps*
> release his movies!
>
> Its like watching CNN, and their movie review reports (which obviously
> are scarce in the war news 24/7 these days). All the movies released by
> any Time Warner studio get favorable to great reviews, but anything
> release by 20th century Fox get blasted as crap. Consider the source of
> your news.
Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
arbitrate impartiality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!" btw, I get most of my
"real" news form a mix of the following: WSJ, NYX, Financial Times,
Washington Post, the web, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and Fox, where I've been
interviewed live, in studio, so I'd say I have a pretty clear idea of how
things work there. I've also been published under byline while working in
DC, put together appearances on CNN, GMA, radio, local TV & print, so I'm
pretty comfortable with the idea that the way I see contemporary media is
rooted in reality and not a figment of my imagination.
> > -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should
be
> > judged solely on its merits.
>
> Maybe because she is tired of being harassed by the media? I am sure her
Maybe in your world but apparently not in hers.
> years of therapy have helped her get over the night some old pervert
> raped her, does it mean he should be vindicated? Do the crime, serve the
I never said he should be vindicated. I disputed the spin used by the
original poster. I've backed my position w/links to reputable (except, of
course, in your world) news sites. How about you do the same.
> time.
Agreed. He did. Then the judge backed out because of public outcry. Do
you have any idea how many rapists get pled out that you never hear about
because they aren't famous? Do you care? I doubt it. Much easier to
fantasize a reality which explains all the reasons why you aren't as famous,
rich, smart, admired, appreciated, handsome, accomplished, liked, loved,
etc. as you'd like to be by blaming it on others, preferably those who are
much of the above.
>
> > -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
borderline
> > negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o
adult
> > supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
> > easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
>
> A naive mother does not mean raping her daughter should be her fault. It
> was Polanski who violated her daughter, not her.
Agreed (though calling her "naive" pushes the limits of credulity). When did
I say anything different? But you miss my point.
> At what point is it Polanski's fault? Stop making excuses, it makes you
> sound ignorant.
Where have I made excuses? Stop saying I do things that I don't do, it
makes you sound like a jack-booted thug. "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
dwo'ski
> See, movie people and celebrities are pretty ladies, handsome men and
> overall cool people. Stupid schmucks aspire to drive fancy cars and live
> like movie stars, so they will agree to whatever bullshit the famous
> people tell them.
>
> Some people don't want to be Joe the electrician, or Sally the 4th grade
> teacher, they want to live in Beverly Hills, drive a Porchse and go to
> parties with lots of people who try to hard to impress other people.
>
> They think that if they share the same opinions as these people, they
> end up like them!
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> -----------------------
> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
See, right of center rich people are pretty ladies, handsome men and overall
cool people. Stupid schmucks aspire to drive fancy cars and live like right
of center rich people, so they will agree to whatever bullshit the famous
rich people tell them. Some people aren't satisfied to be Joe the
electrician, or Sally the 4th grade teacher, they want to live in fancy
places, drive fancy cars and go to parties with lots of people who try to
(sic) hard to impress other people. They think that if they share the same
dwo'ski
You're talking Marylin here, yes?
Seriously, I don't wanna quibble about whether or not Manson qualifies as an
artist. I concede the point. What I should have written was more along the
lines of: You are stating that in your opinion Manson is an artist as
accomplished in his craft as Polanski is in his. I would politely disagree.
But the answer to your question is, no, I haven't. I wouldn't buy it and
probably wouldn't take the time to seek it out. If you wanna share a file
or two so I can give it a listen, I might do that but I would assume that my
personal feelings would prejudice my ability to give him a fair listen. But
I'm an old fart. Trent Reznor or Rob Zombie usually satisfy my head banging
needs.
And, oh, yeah, John Denver was a commercially popular folk singer/writer.
But artist? eh~
Brady2Brown
>Manson.
>
Didn't he collaberate on some Beach Boy tunes????
SOMLAW
oh fer chrissakes, "Polanski's movie studios" was meant to say the movie
studios that finance and release his movies. Semantics.
SOMLAW
Uhmm... no I just won't defend a child rapist. Why are you so quick to
defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that are
based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
SOMLAW
>>everybody but the suspects.
>
>
> Can you substantiate that any of that applies to me?
>
You were quick to note that Polanski was in the trouble he was in
because of the victim's naive mother, the judge who "lied" to him.. You
started to make excuses for him.
>
>
>>>-The highly successful film making community was giving a standing
>>
> ovation
>
>>>to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning Polanski
>>
> the
>
>>>Oscar for Direction.
>>
>>The same community who also stood up and applauds Woody Allen after he
>>rapes his 14 year old stepdaugther? I am not some moral holy roller, but
>>give me a break. Stop making excuses for people. If people in la la land
>>want to preach their gospel to the country, show some moral fiber.
>
>
> Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
> preach morality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
Oh, I see, my three word tongue in cheek sig file proves your right,
good agrument!
>
>>>-Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in
what is with the "happily and well (thank you)" line here? You speak for
the child rapist?
> Europe.
>
>>
>>>-He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
>>
> punishment
>
>>>for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the legal
>>>"drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out by the
>>
> double-crossing
>
>>>judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized
>>
> that
>
>>>one has admitted guilt via plea?).
>>>
>>
>>Alcohol is not legal for preteen girls. She was drugged with booze and
>>Qualuudes (spelling?).
>
>
> Apparently correct. As I've said elsewhere, my bad (on the 'ludes, which I
> hadn't recalled).
Well you seem
>
>>What double crossing judge? That is just a media spin, put out by the
>
>
> Fact: a plea bargain had been agreed to and accepted by the judge.
> Fact: Polanski fled after it became clear that the judge was not going to
> abide by the terms of the plea despite the fact that Polanski's guilty plea
> had become public.
That spin is different depending on who you listen too. If the judge
signed off and agreed to it, then the case was closed, but he didn't.
The plea from his attorney and the DA/prosecutor was never accepted by a
judge.
> "Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse as part of a plea
> agreement and he went to jail for a short time in order to undergo
> psychiatric evaluation. When Polanksi realized the judge intended to
> sentence him to more time behind bars, he fled to France."
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA030130Geimer_Polans
> ki.html
>
> Can you similarily substantiate any of your ravings? No? And I'm supposed
> to accept that? Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like
> jack-booted thugs to determine reality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
Jack booted thugs? Nothing like a knee jerk reaction, simply because I
tend to think more the right of the center than the left. You may
disagree with my stance on several things, the War in Iraq, government
welfare, etc.. I can respect those differences, however don't apply your
liberal platform just to oppose my comments on a child rapist.
>
>
>>media companies who own news networks, and movies studios that *gasps*
>>release his movies!
>>
>>Its like watching CNN, and their movie review reports (which obviously
>>are scarce in the war news 24/7 these days). All the movies released by
>>any Time Warner studio get favorable to great reviews, but anything
>>release by 20th century Fox get blasted as crap. Consider the source of
>>your news.
>
>
> Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
> arbitrate impartiality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!" btw, I get most of my
> "real" news form a mix of the following: WSJ, NYX, Financial Times,
> Washington Post, the web, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and Fox, where I've been
> interviewed live, in studio, so I'd say I have a pretty clear idea of how
> things work there. I've also been published under byline while working in
> DC, put together appearances on CNN, GMA, radio, local TV & print, so I'm
> pretty comfortable with the idea that the way I see contemporary media is
> rooted in reality and not a figment of my imagination.
Oh, I see you are an expert. And calling me a jack booted thug? Why? Who
>
>
>>>-The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art should
>>
> be
>
>>>judged solely on its merits.
>>
>>Maybe because she is tired of being harassed by the media? I am sure her
>
>
> Maybe in your world but apparently not in hers.
>
>
>
>>years of therapy have helped her get over the night some old pervert
>>raped her, does it mean he should be vindicated? Do the crime, serve the
>
>
> I never said he should be vindicated. I disputed the spin used by the
> original poster. I've backed my position w/links to reputable (except, of
> course, in your world) news sites. How about you do the same.
I was the orignal poster who brought up the child rapist. And all you
have done is make false statements regarding the child rapist's case,
then when you are caught, you say "my bad"
>
>>time.
>
>
> Agreed. He did. Then the judge backed out because of public outcry. Do
> you have any idea how many rapists get pled out that you never hear about
> because they aren't famous? Do you care? I doubt it. Much easier to
> fantasize a reality which explains all the reasons why you aren't as famous,
> rich, smart, admired, appreciated, handsome, accomplished, liked, loved,
> etc. as you'd like to be by blaming it on others, preferably those who are
> much of the above.
>
>
>
>>>-The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
>>
> borderline
>
>>>negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo shoot" w/o
>>
> adult
>
>>>supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as indicted (it's much
>>>easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
>>
>>A naive mother does not mean raping her daughter should be her fault. It
>>was Polanski who violated her daughter, not her.
>
>
> Agreed (though calling her "naive" pushes the limits of credulity). When did
> I say anything different? But you miss my point.
>
>
>
>>At what point is it Polanski's fault? Stop making excuses, it makes you
>>sound ignorant.
>
>
> Where have I made excuses? Stop saying I do things that I don't do, it
> makes you sound like a jack-booted thug. "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
Again, a three word tongue in cheek sig cannot define me as a jack
booted thug. Jack Booted Thugs drug and rape 13 year old girls, I don't.
The last time I laid my hands on a 13 year girl, I was a 13 year old boy.
-----------------------
SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
R. Cohen
> > Do you know what pisses me off?
> >
> > How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
> > our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
>
> recently encountered a group of anti-war folks who were criticizing the hell
> out of this Iraqi crap but then praising the merits of the Kosovo nonsense.
> The anti-war crowd annoys me even more than the war-mongering collectivists.
I always thought it just as ironic that Clinton was heavily criticized
by the Republicans for Kosovo myself. Especially since one of the
reasons he was criticized was because it was one of those fuzzy
"humanitarian" missons the Republicans seem to hate so much. Except
that's SUPPOSED to be one of the reasons we're now in Iraq!
PatsWickedPissah
>"Mark Zarella" <seesi...@foremail.address> wrote
>> > Do you know what pisses me off?
>> >
>> > How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
>> > our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
>>
>> I would normally be inclined to disagree with you about this, but I just
>> recently encountered a group of anti-war folks who were criticizing the
>hell
>> out of this Iraqi crap but then praising the merits of the Kosovo nonsense.
>> The anti-war crowd annoys me even more than the war-mongering
>collectivists.
>
>I always thought it just as ironic that Clinton was heavily criticized
>by the Republicans for Kosovo myself. Especially since one of the
>reasons he was criticized was because it was one of those fuzzy
>"humanitarian" missons the Republicans seem to hate so much. Except
>that's SUPPOSED to be one of the reasons we're now in Iraq!
I will state publicly that Kosovo turned out OK despite my misgivings at the
time. Clinton did well. However, and this is not a shot at the ex-Pres, it
still befuddles me why WE were involved. In effect by supplying the military
might to resolve a clear Euro problem we the taxpayers of the US are
subsidizing the socialist democracies of Europe. With the notable exception of
the UK, they do not need to fund and field an effective military if they can
call for US aid when in trouble. Instead they can put in layer upon layer of
social welfare subsidies because defense budgets are miniscule - mostly
salaries in Euro countries.
-p
Polarhound
> > "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b583q6$26nipa$1...@ID-180643.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>This stupid bitch had perhaps the most unamerican show on tv today that
I
> >>think I've ever seen. Keeps showing clips blaming all of the worlds
> >
> > problems
> >
> >>on us. Now she has some arabs on there saying how America is to blame
for
> >>9/11 too. If there is another terrorist attack in this country I hope
this
> >>thankless bitch is in middle of it. Disgusting.
> >>
>
>
> (rant alert)
>
> Do you know what pisses me off?
>
> How these celebrities will say anything blaming America, simply because
> our president has the "(R)" next to his name instead of the "(D)".
>
> to distract the fact his intern is suckig his cock would get no reaction
> from the so called "concerned celebrities"... wait, it already happened!!
>
> own drug rehab hospitals, are mostly college dropouts, or never even got
> past high school, and will take whatever political stance the heads of
> Paramount or Universal Studios has.
>
> These are the same pieces of shit who gave a CHILD RAPIST a standing
> ovation at the Oscars, of course Roman Polanski wasn't there (not the
> other child rapist, Woody Allen, he didn't win an Oscar this year) he is
> still hiding out in Europe for drugging and raping a 12 year old girl in
> then fleeing the country.
Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne
The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming
about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the
President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who
will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid"
,"morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in
Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.
So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's
look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders,
and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:
President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University
and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the
Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in
Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected
Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic
re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to
consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the
vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent
of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of
women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican
other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial
candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El
Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about
his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might
want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)
Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in
political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science
Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary
duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign
leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our
homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of
the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet
with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the
Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has
seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men
and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are
doing for the United States of America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he
earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY
and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in
June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business
Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is
the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations.
Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of
Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the
Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy
Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have
been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and
colleges across the country.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval
aviator ; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59;
U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director
of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living
Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential
Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House
Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of
Defense, 1975-77
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to
Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The
Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served
as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor.
After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private
practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was
elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat
veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six
times.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in
Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of
Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and
her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the
University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of
Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in
Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the
University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's
Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are
also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College
in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame
in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International
Security and Arms Contro! l, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for
International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution.
Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip
Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain
Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has
written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense
policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S.
Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and
2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the
period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she
served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of
Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986,
while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations,
she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender --
Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of
directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the
International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony
Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New
Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and
East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls
Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed
such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the
Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand
Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the
Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San
Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama. She resides in
Washington, D.C.
So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their
experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend
to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are
going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also
have all the facts on their educations and background:
Barbra Streisand : Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting
Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting
Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting
Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting
Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting
Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting
George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting
Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting
Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting
Janeane Garofalo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting
While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should
also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even
hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to
information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the
threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting
governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI,
Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies
around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of
the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way
as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering
agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would
destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things
Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists
detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United
States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton
bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the
Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan
Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our
Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not
a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked
on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating
terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies
against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican
sits in the White House. Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan
was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament
groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to
disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order
to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all
the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close
to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to
disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these
weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly
weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities. So why the
hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw
such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course
of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace?
Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked
France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were
wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy
himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war?
Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and
the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and
speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in
more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime?
Does his bank account give him clout? The ultimate irony is that many of
these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse,
alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law,
publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best
for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this
country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them
in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!
It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves
about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the
freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace
in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism
striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains
strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware
of the severe consequences that will befall them.
Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and
join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real.
We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe
by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength
and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi
regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from
unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped
them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn
around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the
strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
R. Cohen
We were in Kosovo because people were being slaughtered and we decided
not to turn an blind eye to it this time. (No, we're not capable of
doing that every time). We rightfully embarrassed NATO and Europe on
Kosovo. It WAS their problem. I had concerns about Kosovo. I have
concerns about Iraq but it seems to be working out ok there as well.
*PHEW* (There's a long way to go obviously.) It's funny, while I'm
sure there are WMD somewhere in Iraq, it seems to me that the
"liberation" of the Iraqi's from the cruel Hussein regime has become
the MAIN reason the American people are really supporting the war. IMO
of course. So what's the difference again between Kosovo and Iraq?
8-)
Hob...@calvinball.com
> So what's the difference again between Kosovo and Iraq?
Saddam has more sensitive nipples than Slobodan.
pez
If you had a choice of going college or making the money Jennifer
Anniston makes, what would you do? (she probably still makes more than
GW, BTW).
SOMLAW
pez wrote:
> Polarhound wrote:
>
> If you had a choice of going college or making the money Jennifer
> Anniston makes, what would you do? (she probably still makes more than
> GW, BTW).
There is nothing wrong with skipping college and going into show biz...
but show biz is acting, and singing, they have no background or real
education in history, politics, or international affairs.
You don't hear Donald Rumsfield telling George Lucas how produce a Star
Wars movie.
Hob...@calvinball.com
> Polarhound wrote:
>
> If you had a choice of going college or making the money Jennifer
> Anniston makes, what would you do? (she probably still makes more than
> GW, BTW).
I have a better choice. Fuck Jennifer Anniston while she gives you all her
money, and then go to college.
dwo'ski
When did I ask you to?
> defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that are
Why are you so quick to say 1) I asked you to defend Polanski 2) to say
that I defend Polanski?
> based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
> right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
The people of the far right are hypocrites, mindless windbags and dittoheads
(and proud of it). I don't see the far-right screaming about Shcwarzenegger
(sic?) being a pedophile, child rapist scumbag.
> reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
My knee-didn't jerk, I didn't react, I didn't defend him. Stop being such a
jack-booted thug (I call you that because you run around stating my position
for me, refuse to respond to my points in response to your points and then
there's your sigfile).
dwo'ski
> >>Just what passes as "thought" for the left wing liberals. Blaming
> >>everybody but the suspects.
> >
> >
> > Can you substantiate that any of that applies to me?
> >
>
> You were quick to note that Polanski was in the trouble he was in
> because of the victim's naive mother, the judge who "lied" to him.. You
> started to make excuses for him.
Actually, I wasn't so quick. I even managed to ignore it the first time I
read it. But then my resistance crumbled. I can't totally understand your
syntax but if I'm correct in what I think you mean, you're wrong in your
take on my meaning. I pointed out that there are multiple standards
regarding his case and mentioned the girl's mother getting a pass as an
example. I never made excuses for the original act. The only thing I was
"defending" was Hollywood's right to recognize him as an artist, the
apparent inspiration of the original rant. I never said the judge lied, I
wasn't there, I don't know nor claim to know. The facts of the case, which
no one in their right mind (including the prosecutor's office) disputes is
that a plea bargain was agreed to and then after public pressure, the judge
reneged. I don't know about you but I have a problem with that.
>
> >
> >
> >>>-The highly successful film making community was giving a standing
> >>
> > ovation
> >
> >>>to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning Polanski
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>Oscar for Direction.
> >>
> >>The same community who also stood up and applauds Woody Allen after he
> >>rapes his 14 year old stepdaugther? I am not some moral holy roller, but
> >>give me a break. Stop making excuses for people. If people in la la land
> >>want to preach their gospel to the country, show some moral fiber.
> >
> >
> > Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
> > preach morality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
>
> Oh, I see, my three word tongue in cheek sig file proves your right,
> good agrument!
I really have a hard time with your "logic." I was using your use of your
sigfile as an indication of what your priorities are. In all the great
quotes throughout history you couldn't find anything more appropriate or
meaningful? Why don't you address my actual argument(s) instead of twisting
things?
>
> >
> >>>-Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in
>
> what is with the "happily and well (thank you)" line here? You speak for
You used the word "hiding" in relation to his life in Europe, which implies
a number of things. He is certainly not "hiding" in Europe. The "thank
you" part was just to tweak you in a number of ways, at least one of which
clearly worked as you chose to dwell on here.
> the child rapist?
And artist, and vicitm, and survivior, and a great many other things too
numerous to mention here. Are you a Christian? Didn't the God of the
Christians say something about being w/o sin and casting stones?
>
> > Europe.
> >
> >>
> >>>-He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
> >>
> > punishment
> >
> >>>for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it was the
legal
> >>>"drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out by the
> >>
> > double-crossing
> >
> >>>judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's been highly publicized
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>>one has admitted guilt via plea?).
> >>>
> >>
> >>Alcohol is not legal for preteen girls. She was drugged with booze and
> >>Qualuudes (spelling?).
> >
> >
> > Apparently correct. As I've said elsewhere, my bad (on the 'ludes,
which I
> > hadn't recalled).
>
> Well you seem
huh?
>
>
> >
> >>What double crossing judge? That is just a media spin, put out by the
> >
> >
> > Fact: a plea bargain had been agreed to and accepted by the judge.
> > Fact: Polanski fled after it became clear that the judge was not going
to
> > abide by the terms of the plea despite the fact that Polanski's guilty
plea
> > had become public.
>
> That spin is different depending on who you listen too. If the judge
> signed off and agreed to it, then the case was closed, but he didn't.
> The plea from his attorney and the DA/prosecutor was never accepted by a
> judge.
Please, share your sources. Or do you have first hand knowledge that
differs from the public record to which I was kind enough to post a link?
> > "Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse as part of a
plea
> > agreement and he went to jail for a short time in order to undergo
> > psychiatric evaluation. When Polanksi realized the judge intended to
> > sentence him to more time behind bars, he fled to France."
> >
> >
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA030130Geimer_Polans
> > ki.html
> >
> > Can you similarily substantiate any of your ravings? No? And I'm
supposed
> > to accept that? Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like
> > jack-booted thugs to determine reality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!"
>
> Jack booted thugs? Nothing like a knee jerk reaction, simply because I
> tend to think more the right of the center than the left. You may
> disagree with my stance on several things, the War in Iraq, government
> welfare, etc.. I can respect those differences, however don't apply your
> liberal platform just to oppose my comments on a child rapist.
Not a knee-jerk reaction so much as a reasoned attack. You strike me as a
hypocritical jack-booted thug type. I've said why elsewhere. I invite you
to prove me wrong. As a matter of fact, your assumptions that we would have
different stances on "the War in Iraq" (btw, when did Congress declare
"war"? I must have missed it. Seems like just another post WWII "police
action" to me.) strikes me as a "knee jerk reaction" of the sort you accuse
me of.
I'm not running for office; I have no "platform" (other than the Pats should
win every SB until we get bored and start taking them for granted).
Your having comments about Polanski being a child rapist is not the issue
(for me). Your going on an anti-Hollywood rant w/o making an even halfway
decent argument is.
btw, do you oppose all "government welfare" or just that which goes to less
than wealthy individuals as opposed to the powers that be? (yes, I'm making
what strikes me as a reasoned assumption here)
>
>
> >
> >
> >>media companies who own news networks, and movies studios that *gasps*
> >>release his movies!
> >>
> >>Its like watching CNN, and their movie review reports (which obviously
> >>are scarce in the war news 24/7 these days). All the movies released by
> >>any Time Warner studio get favorable to great reviews, but anything
> >>release by 20th century Fox get blasted as crap. Consider the source of
> >>your news.
> >
> >
> > Um, ok. But only because you say so. Nothing like jack-booted thugs to
> > arbitrate impartiality, eh? "> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!" btw, I get most of
my
> > "real" news form a mix of the following: WSJ, NYX, Financial Times,
> > Washington Post, the web, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and Fox, where I've been
> > interviewed live, in studio, so I'd say I have a pretty clear idea of
how
> > things work there. I've also been published under byline while working
in
> > DC, put together appearances on CNN, GMA, radio, local TV & print, so
I'm
> > pretty comfortable with the idea that the way I see contemporary media
is
> > rooted in reality and not a figment of my imagination.
>
> Oh, I see you are an expert. And calling me a jack booted thug? Why? Who
huh? complete sentences? Aside from why I call you a jack booted thug
there was some poetry in there. Did you miss that too? Wasn't making any
claim to be an expert. Just trying to claim a reasonable ground from which
to refute your wild accusations of Polanski setting editorial policy for
much of the media because he makes films.
> >
> >
> >>>-The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art
should
> >>
> > be
> >
> >>>judged solely on its merits.
> >>
> >>Maybe because she is tired of being harassed by the media? I am sure her
> >
> >
> > Maybe in your world but apparently not in hers.
> >
> >
> >
> >>years of therapy have helped her get over the night some old pervert
> >>raped her, does it mean he should be vindicated? Do the crime, serve the
> >
> >
> > I never said he should be vindicated. I disputed the spin used by the
> > original poster. I've backed my position w/links to reputable (except,
of
> > course, in your world) news sites. How about you do the same.
>
> I was the orignal poster who brought up the child rapist. And all you
> have done is make false statements regarding the child rapist's case,
> then when you are caught, you say "my bad"
Didn't know you were the original poster. Do you use more than one name or
did I just overlook something obvious? Where have my statements been false?
I take back my "my bad" 'cause you lie, don't get that I was trying to be
reasonable/gentlemanly and conflate it with other things which clearly don't
obtain.
Yes, it can. If you want to claim fiat power that whatever you say goes
just because you say it and differing opinions are just that while your
opinions are facts than you are a perfect example of a jack-booted thug b/c
history has shown that given the opportunity you will use force to enforce
that your opinions are factual and others' are "wrong." Drugging and raping
girls doesn't make you a jack-booted thug, it makes you a child rapist. So
you're saying that the last time you laid hands on a 13 year old girl was,
like, last week?
>
>
> -----------------------
> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
>
dwo'ski
news:BSnka.79106$z_2....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
Great idea but I think Brad Pitt beat you to that one.
dwo'ski
> There is nothing wrong with skipping college and going into show biz...
> but show biz is acting, and singing, they have no background or real
> education in history, politics, or international affairs.
>
> You don't hear Donald Rumsfield telling George Lucas how produce a Star
> Wars movie.
The great thing about living in a democracy is that even high school droputs
get to have and voice opinions about things political. They even get to act
on those opinions, if they're sufficiently motivated.
But you don't hear professional political commentators going on rants and
tirades about those opinions. Probably 'cause drop outs aren't envied
enough to raise the ire of political wannabees. The beautiful, rich,
successful people of Hollywood, otoh, now there's a tempting target.
pez
>
> <Hob...@CalvinBall.com> wrote in message
> news:BSnka.79106$z_2....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > "pez" <obe...@gotc.com> wrote in message news:3E9207...@gotc.com...
> > > Polarhound wrote:
> > >
> > > If you had a choice of going college or making the money Jennifer
> > > Anniston makes, what would you do? (she probably still makes more than
> > > GW, BTW).
> >
> > I have a better choice. Fuck Jennifer Anniston while she gives you all
> her
> > money, and then go to college.
I've got money AND Jennifer Anniston? Forget college!
SOMLAW
>
> When did I ask you to?
>
You never did, but you are were quick too.
>>defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that are
>
>
> Why are you so quick to say 1) I asked you to defend Polanski 2) to say
> that I defend Polanski?
>
>
>
>>based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
>>right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
>
>
> The people of the far right are hypocrites, mindless windbags and dittoheads
> (and proud of it). I don't see the far-right screaming about Shcwarzenegger
> (sic?) being a pedophile, child rapist scumbag.
Oh, I see, name calling. Your agrument has been reduced to this.
mindless windbags,
>>reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
>
>
> My knee-didn't jerk, I didn't react, I didn't defend him. Stop being such a
> jack-booted thug (I call you that because you run around stating my position
> for me, refuse to respond to my points in response to your points and then
> there's your sigfile).
Uhmm... yes you did defend him, your knee did jerk, and you did react.
Why are you so quick to backpedal? Can't you admit you are wrong? Stop
changing what you previously posted. You told me I was wrong to snap so
quickly to call him a child rapist. And it was a knne jerk reaction. You
told me the judge double crosses him, he didn't drug anybody, and the
victims mother was suspect.
The "windbags" of the far right and the "windbags" of the far left are
both hypocrites, the bullshit exists on both sides, to claim one side is
perfect is completely ignorant.
You did defend him, and blasted the thought I should judge him:
Here are some of the gems of your apparent wisdom:
> "Just what typically passes for "thought" among the right-wing,
> knee-jerk, reactionary crowd: take a fact and spin it so fast that it
> appears that you're the only one making any sense and that it's
> actually the rest of the universe that's spinning, then call your
> position a "no-spin zone."
I didn't realize I was Bill O'Reilly, so only people on the far right
should oppose child rapists?
> Parentheses below are an attempt to distinguish my opinion from fact.
> -The highly successful film making community was giving a standing
> ovation to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning
> Polanski the Oscar for Direction.
Yeah and?
> -Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in
> Europe.
Well, thanks for letting us know how is doing !
> -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
> punishment for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it
> was the legal "drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out
by > the double-crossing judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's
> been highly publicized that one has admitted guilt via plea?).
The trial was going to be fair. Fair justice. Rapists go to jail, they
don't go home. It would have been fair justice, convicted rapists go to
jail, then again famous people tend to have a different view of what
justice is.
> -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art
> should be judged solely on its merits.
This statement doesn't defend the rapist?
> -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
> borderline negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo
> shoot" w/o adult supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as
> indicted (it's much easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
Why should a mother be indicted? She didn't know he was a rapist. Sounds
like you are trying deflect blame here.
This is not a far right versus far left agrument, this is not Phil
Donahue agruing with Bill O'Reilly, my statement was this, the same
people who project a moral outrage at our president (and justifiable so
in some cases) were giving a cowardly child rapist a standing ovation.
That was my agrument, and I was right. They did give a child rapist a
standing ovation. I am not agruing about the war in Iraq, that thread
will go on forever, I am criticizing hypocrites who scream moral bloody
murder, yet will give someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl a
standing ovation.
And yoy know what? I was right. It was a major act of hypocrites, and
you did defend him by the way to you were contradicting my opinions. =
And yes, I have a three word .sig in caps, with a a few "!" in it, it
does make me a jack booted thug. Its nice to keep using the same phrases
over and over again, they still don't make sense.
You did jump down my throat, assuming I was Bill O'Reilly's demon spawn,
and you did defend the rapist, and you did make excuses for him, trying
to say otherwise would be complete utter bullshit.
Why isn't anyone else here defending the rapist but you?
dwo'ski
> >>Uhmm... no I just won't defend a child rapist. Why are you so quick to
> >
> > When did I ask you to?
> >
>
> You never did, but you are were quick too.
>
If you think that was quick wait til you see my "40" times on PSU's track!
>
>
>
> >>defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that are
> >
> >
> > Why are you so quick to say 1) I asked you to defend Polanski 2) to say
> > that I defend Polanski?
> >
> >
> >
> >>based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
> >>right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
> >
> >
> > The people of the far right are hypocrites, mindless windbags and
dittoheads
> > (and proud of it). I don't see the far-right screaming about
Shcwarzenegger
> > (sic?) being a pedophile, child rapist scumbag.
>
> Oh, I see, name calling. Your agrument has been reduced to this.
> mindless windbags,
It only appears to you that my argument has been reduced to this b/c you
refuse to address or accept all my other winning points.
> >>reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
> >
> >
> > My knee-didn't jerk, I didn't react, I didn't defend him. Stop being
such a
> > jack-booted thug (I call you that because you run around stating my
position
> > for me, refuse to respond to my points in response to your points and
then
> > there's your sigfile).
>
> Uhmm... yes you did defend him, your knee did jerk, and you did react.
Someday, you may yet grow up and learn that just because you say something
doesn't make it so. I've just checked my sent items folder and there is no
way anyone other than a/an (insert much name calling here) can construe my
posts to be a defense of his initial crime.
> Why are you so quick to backpedal? Can't you admit you are wrong? Stop
No, I'm not backpedaling and yes, I can, and tried to admit when I was wrong
before but you did your best to obfuscate what I said so I retracted it. I
won't make that mistake again.
> changing what you previously posted. You told me I was wrong to snap so
Not only are you a liar, you're really bad at it. And since you like
telling others what to do so much, post what you accuse me of saying instead
of just putting things into my mouth, you attempted rapist, you!
> quickly to call him a child rapist. And it was a knne jerk reaction. You
> told me the judge double crosses him, he didn't drug anybody, and the
I posted to the NG, I didn't tell you; the world is much, much larger than
that vast empty space between your ears. Superior Court Judge Laurence J.
Rittenband *did* "double-cross" him by agreeing to give him a relatively
mild sentence and then reneging due to public outcry (maybe b/c Roman's
famous? nah, couldn't be!). You keep claiming otherwise w/o posting a
single link supporting your position. I said, and this is a direct quote:
"(I don't recall but I believe it was the legal "drug" known as alcohol that
was used)" Feel free to look up any word in that sentence which you don't
understand @ http://dictionary.com
> victims mother was suspect.
She is, was, should have been. From:
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
"The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of
engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the
girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity
expected to accompany such a trial."
Also, the girl was photographed topless by Polanski at the first
"photo-session." What kind of "mother" allows her barely teenage daughter
to go unsupervised to a *second* "photo-session" after that?
> The "windbags" of the far right and the "windbags" of the far left are
> both hypocrites, the bullshit exists on both sides, to claim one side is
> perfect is completely ignorant.
You know, if you hadn't misconstrued so much of what I've said I'd be real
tempted to agree with you on this. But there you go again, trying to make
it seem as if I had ever said that "...one side is perfect..." so never
mind.
> You did defend him,
When? Where?
<snip> and blasted the thought I should judge him:
Yeah, and I'll continue to "blast" the idea that you are in any position to
judge the specifics of his case given your absolute refusal to appraise
yourself of them.
> Here are some of the gems of your apparent wisdom:
> > "Just what typically passes for "thought" among the right-wing,
> > knee-jerk, reactionary crowd: take a fact and spin it so fast that it
> > appears that you're the only one making any sense and that it's
> > actually the rest of the universe that's spinning, then call your
> > position a "no-spin zone."
That's not wisdom. It's a lot of "bored of the BS" BS but it sure ain't
wisdom.
> I didn't realize I was Bill O'Reilly, so only people on the far right
> should oppose child rapists?
You're no Bill but it sure took you long enough to pick up on the reference.
You still don't get it. Slow down and see if you can differentiate b/w my
defense of Hollywood's right to celebrate his art and your repeated
assertion that I'm defending Polanski's crime.
> > Parentheses below are an attempt to distinguish my opinion from fact.
>
> > -The highly successful film making community was giving a standing
> > ovation to a piece of art that (deservedly) was credited with earning
> > Polanski the Oscar for Direction.
> Yeah and?
What don't you get?
>
> > -Polanski is living quite openly, happily and well (thank you) in
> > Europe.
>
> Well, thanks for letting us know how is doing !
Anytime! (I'm assuming you omitted the word "he" there; if that's ok
w/you.)
> > -He fled the US when the plea-bargain that had been agreed to as
> > punishment for the crime in question (I don't recall but I believe it
> > was the legal "drug" known as alcohol that was used) was thrown out
> by > the double-crossing judge (how does one get a fair trial once it's
> > been highly publicized that one has admitted guilt via plea?).
>
> The trial was going to be fair. Fair justice. Rapists go to jail, they
> don't go home. It would have been fair justice, convicted rapists go to
See, here is where you make it clear to the world how you have absolutely no
interest in maintaining touch w/reality. There wasn't going to be any
trial. But, obviously, you don't know that. Because your take on the case
is not what exists in reality but what you've been fed by the dittohead
spin-meisters. He had already admitted guilt, turned himself in and been in
the custody of the state.
In case you missed it the first time, here's that link again so that you can
learn to educate yourself about things before simply spouting assertions to
make yourself feel good:
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
> jail, then again famous people tend to have a different view of what
> justice is.
By which you mean "Ahnold" and OJ, yes?
>
> > -The victim has stated with no trace of equivocation that his art
> > should be judged solely on its merits.
>
> This statement doesn't defend the rapist?
Nope.
> > -The behavior of the mother of the vicitm is highly suspect and
> > borderline negligent in allowing her minor daughter to go to a "photo
> > shoot" w/o adult supervision but ttbomk she has never been as much as
> > indicted (it's much easier to scapegoat than admit responsibility).
>
> Why should a mother be indicted? She didn't know he was a rapist. Sounds
> like you are trying deflect blame here.
Sounds like you don't know the facts here; nothing new.
> This is not a far right versus far left agrument, this is not Phil
> Donahue agruing with Bill O'Reilly, my statement was this, the same
> people who project a moral outrage at our president (and justifiable so
> in some cases) were giving a cowardly child rapist a standing ovation.
And that's where you were and continue to be wrong. They were giving an
artist, who also happens to be guilty of a crime, a standing ovation for his
art. He has faced and survived much more than you'll ever be able to
imagine facing. If anyone here is the coward, it's you.
> That was my agrument, and I was right. They did give a child rapist a
There you go again! You're right just because you say so. Um, ok? Dud tha
make shnookums fee betta?
> standing ovation. I am not agruing about the war in Iraq, that thread
That's it, just keep saying it over and over again. That'll make it true!
> will go on forever, I am criticizing hypocrites who scream moral bloody
> murder, yet will give someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl a
> standing ovation.
Keep criticizing. But it might get more effective once you get a better
grip on the facts.
> And yoy know what? I was right. It was a major act of hypocrites, and
Hee hee.
> you did defend him by the way to you were contradicting my opinions. =
Um, wrong. Try again!
> And yes, I have a three word .sig in caps, with a a few "!" in it, it
> does make me a jack booted thug. Its nice to keep using the same phrases
Now you're getting it!
> over and over again, they still don't make sense.
Now you're so confused you're criticizing your own use of the same phrases
like "I was right" over and over again?
> You did jump down my throat, assuming I was Bill O'Reilly's demon spawn,
Nope! Dang! And I thought you were catching on! Oh, well. Thanks for
playing.
> and you did defend the rapist, and you did make excuses for him, trying
> to say otherwise would be complete utter bullshit.
Again, um, only b/c you say so you jack-booted thug, you!
> Why isn't anyone else here defending the rapist but you?
I could just as easily ask why isn't anyone else in here joining you in your
attack but the truth of the matter is probably that,
1) we're very OT
2) most reasonable people probably don't care
3) most reasonable people inclined to care aren't bothering to read this
thread which is clearly devolving into a pissing match b/w just the two of
us
4) the few who may be reading may have a feeling that they know very little
about the facts and only what has been widely spouted by the media and their
demon spawn so they are wisely saying nothing rather than risk exposing
their understandable ignorance to the world. You would call them "cowards."
>
>
> -----------------------
> SOMLAW HAS SPOKEN!!!
Indeed.
The Smiths
> A whining billionaire.
a racist, sexist as well...
>
> Is this world nuts or what?
>
> --
>
> Vector Newman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b583q6$26nipa$1...@ID-180643.news.dfncis.de...
> > This stupid bitch had perhaps the most unamerican show on tv today that I
> > think I've ever seen. Keeps showing clips blaming all of the worlds
> problems
> > on us. Now she has some arabs on there saying how America is to blame for
> > 9/11 too. If there is another terrorist attack in this country I hope this
> > thankless bitch is in middle of it. Disgusting.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
David Anderson
> Do you *ever* make *any* sense? I challenge you to name *one*
> "...former far left liberal, neo-Trotskyite (etc. etc. bs. bs. bs. ad
> nauseam)..." member of this administration "...now in control of US
> foreign policy (etc. etc. bs. bs. bs. ad nauseam)..."
>
The neo-cons, who started out at liberal, neo-Trotskyite during the
1930s-50s, then became hardline anti-communists, and now the new
American Century types--- Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, et al. Look at
the definition of a neo-con and that is what they are.
dave
> --
dwo'ski
news:8246c913.03040...@posting.google.com...
Geez; I have no idea what you're trying to say in that first line but
neo-con does not equal neo-Trotskyite and if you think it does than you need
to start looking up a lot of definitions yourself. Just because Irving
Kristol attended some neo-Trots meetings in his youth and is credited
w/founding neo-cons doesn't begin to equate the two.
Perle is neither a "member of this administration" nor "...now in control of
US foreign policy" and recently had to resign his chair b/c of Sy Hersh's
brilliant investigative reporting. Besides, he may be a neo-con but he's no
neo-Trots. Or are you trying to say that just b/c he drafted Jackson-Vannik
and became a member of the Reagan Admin. that qualifies him as such?
Wolfowitz is an interesting guy who worked hand in hand with Holbrooke on a
number of things (and for all we know continues to do so) and if you really
want to focus on him you're going to fall short on a number of counts.
Bolton is a *rabid* right-winger. Are you seriously trying to make the case
that he's either neo-con or neo-Trots or were you just tossing his name out
there cause he's an Undersec? Cause if you think he's anywhere near neo-con
you know *nothing*
Besides, I was challenging a poster who has spewed BS and then refused to
answer a challenge to it previously. If you had to let him off the hook
couldn't you do it w/something factual instead of just disseminating more
misinformation? Or just let the thread die?
SOMLAW
>>You never did, but you are were quick too.
>>
>
>
> If you think that was quick wait til you see my "40" times on PSU's track!
well, good for you.
>>>>defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that are
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are you so quick to say 1) I asked you to defend Polanski 2) to say
>>>that I defend Polanski?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
>>>>right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
>>>
>>>
>>>The people of the far right are hypocrites, mindless windbags and
>>
> dittoheads
>
>>>(and proud of it). I don't see the far-right screaming about
>>
> Shcwarzenegger
>
>>>(sic?) being a pedophile, child rapist scumbag.
>>
>>Oh, I see, name calling. Your agrument has been reduced to this.
>>mindless windbags,
>
>
> It only appears to you that my argument has been reduced to this b/c you
> refuse to address or accept all my other winning points.
What winning points? You talk in circles, and make no sense. Please show
me your winning points. (and I will refrain from the remove your hat
comments).
>
>>>>reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
>>>
>>>
>>>My knee-didn't jerk, I didn't react, I didn't defend him. Stop being
>>
> such a
>
>>>jack-booted thug (I call you that because you run around stating my
>>
> position
>
>>>for me, refuse to respond to my points in response to your points and
>>
> then
>
>>>there's your sigfile).
>>
>>Uhmm... yes you did defend him, your knee did jerk, and you did react.
>
>
> Someday, you may yet grow up and learn that just because you say something
> doesn't make it so. I've just checked my sent items folder and there is no
> way anyone other than a/an (insert much name calling here) can construe my
> posts to be a defense of his initial crime.
Really? Just because I say something doesn't make it so? So you claim
winning points, because you say so? You are trying to tell me how to
debate, hey buddy, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
>
>>Why are you so quick to backpedal? Can't you admit you are wrong? Stop
>
>
> No, I'm not backpedaling and yes, I can, and tried to admit when I was wrong
> before but you did your best to obfuscate what I said so I retracted it. I
> won't make that mistake again.
>
>
>
>>changing what you previously posted. You told me I was wrong to snap so
>
>
> Not only are you a liar, you're really bad at it. And since you like
> telling others what to do so much, post what you accuse me of saying instead
> of just putting things into my mouth, you attempted rapist, you!
attempted rapist? When did I lie.
>>quickly to call him a child rapist. And it was a knne jerk reaction. You
>>told me the judge double crosses him, he didn't drug anybody, and the
>
>
> I posted to the NG, I didn't tell you; the world is much, much larger than
> that vast empty space between your ears. Superior Court Judge Laurence J.
> Rittenband *did* "double-cross" him by agreeing to give him a relatively
> mild sentence and then reneging due to public outcry (maybe b/c Roman's
> famous? nah, couldn't be!). You keep claiming otherwise w/o posting a
> single link supporting your position. I said, and this is a direct quote:
> "(I don't recall but I believe it was the legal "drug" known as alcohol that
> was used)" Feel free to look up any word in that sentence which you don't
> understand @ http://dictionary.com
>
Judges don't go easy on rapists. Ever consider this... the judge
initially went easy on the rapist, since he was famous, then retracted
because the judge realized he made a mistake, and a rapist should go to
jail, famous or not.
>
>
>>victims mother was suspect.
>
>
> She is, was, should have been. From:
>
> http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
>
> "The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of
> engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the
> girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity
> expected to accompany such a trial."
>
> Also, the girl was photographed topless by Polanski at the first
> "photo-session." What kind of "mother" allows her barely teenage daughter
> to go unsupervised to a *second* "photo-session" after that?
You're right, the mother should not have let her continue to see the
rapist alone. But it doesn't justify the rapist.
you tlak in circles, you make no sense, and then when I say "you make no
sense", you bounce back with "no, you make no sense"
this thread is pointless. I have no idea what Oprah has to do with this,
and I am sick of your yammer. Agrue with me on another thread, I think
the NG has kill-filed us by now anyway.
Sri Krsna
[Worthless spin snipped]
>
>Besides, I was challenging a poster who has spewed BS and then refused to
>answer a challenge to it previously. If you had to let him off the hook
>couldn't you do it w/something factual instead of just disseminating more
>misinformation? Or just let the thread die?
>
>
>
>
At some point, you'll realize incessant whining makes you sound like a
total pussy. Starting OT threads like "Just another dead Jew" doesn't
help nor does whining and sulking about it when someone's called you on
the classlessness of such a post. In other words, I'll choose to waste
my time on trolls when I feel like it. But since you're such an
objective arbiter of middle east affairs and domestic US policy, I'm
sure you'll exhibit much more intellectual credibility and honesty than
the preponderance of reading found in the pages of the following search
results:
Google terms and results:
Cheney + trotsky = 813
Rumsfeld +trotsky = 681
-the two above in all fairness were never liberals.
Wolfowitz + trotsky = 281
Perle + trotsky = 297
-a Scoop Jackson aid
neocon + idealism = 181
and so forth....
Go knock yourself out, man.
dwo'ski
> >>
> >>You never did, but you are were quick too.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you think that was quick wait til you see my "40" times on PSU's
track!
>
> well, good for you.
>
>
> >>>>defend Polanski? They are more valid liberal opinions out there that
are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why are you so quick to say 1) I asked you to defend Polanski 2) to
say
> >>>that I defend Polanski?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>based on compassion and logic, yet just because the people of the far
> >>>>right are the quickest to criticize the child rapist, your knee jerk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The people of the far right are hypocrites, mindless windbags and
> >>
> > dittoheads
> >
> >>>(and proud of it). I don't see the far-right screaming about
> >>
> > Shcwarzenegger
> >
> >>>(sic?) being a pedophile, child rapist scumbag.
> >>
> >>Oh, I see, name calling. Your agrument has been reduced to this.
> >>mindless windbags,
> >
> >
> > It only appears to you that my argument has been reduced to this b/c you
> > refuse to address or accept all my other winning points.
>
> What winning points? You talk in circles, and make no sense. Please show
> me your winning points. (and I will refrain from the remove your hat
> comments).
Feh; there you go again. Scoring in debate works such that there's a judge
in the room and if one side fails to respond to the other's argument then
the side making the argument scores the point. Try going back and looking
at all the things I've said in numerous responses to your drivel that you've
never responded to. Not that this is formal debate; I just called them
winning points.
>
> >
> >>>>reaction is too defend him. Stop being such a damn puppet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My knee-didn't jerk, I didn't react, I didn't defend him. Stop being
> >>
> > such a
> >
> >>>jack-booted thug (I call you that because you run around stating my
> >>
> > position
> >
> >>>for me, refuse to respond to my points in response to your points and
> >>
> > then
> >
> >>>there's your sigfile).
> >>
> >>Uhmm... yes you did defend him, your knee did jerk, and you did react.
> >
> >
> > Someday, you may yet grow up and learn that just because you say
something
> > doesn't make it so. I've just checked my sent items folder and there is
no
> > way anyone other than a/an (insert much name calling here) can construe
my
> > posts to be a defense of his initial crime.
>
>
> Really? Just because I say something doesn't make it so? So you claim
> winning points, because you say so? You are trying to tell me how to
> debate, hey buddy, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
lol; you're funny.
>
> >
> >>Why are you so quick to backpedal? Can't you admit you are wrong? Stop
> >
> >
> > No, I'm not backpedaling and yes, I can, and tried to admit when I was
wrong
> > before but you did your best to obfuscate what I said so I retracted
it. I
> > won't make that mistake again.
> >
> >
> >
> >>changing what you previously posted. You told me I was wrong to snap so
> >
> >
> > Not only are you a liar, you're really bad at it. And since you like
> > telling others what to do so much, post what you accuse me of saying
instead
> > of just putting things into my mouth, you attempted rapist, you!
>
> attempted rapist? When did I lie.
April 6th-9th, 2003. Repeatedly. Look it up.
> >>quickly to call him a child rapist. And it was a knne jerk reaction. You
> >>told me the judge double crosses him, he didn't drug anybody, and the
> >
> >
> > I posted to the NG, I didn't tell you; the world is much, much larger
than
> > that vast empty space between your ears. Superior Court Judge Laurence
J.
> > Rittenband *did* "double-cross" him by agreeing to give him a relatively
> > mild sentence and then reneging due to public outcry (maybe b/c Roman's
> > famous? nah, couldn't be!). You keep claiming otherwise w/o posting a
> > single link supporting your position. I said, and this is a direct
quote:
> > "(I don't recall but I believe it was the legal "drug" known as alcohol
that
> > was used)" Feel free to look up any word in that sentence which you
don't
> > understand @ http://dictionary.com
> >
>
> Judges don't go easy on rapists. Ever consider this... the judge
> initially went easy on the rapist, since he was famous, then retracted
> because the judge realized he made a mistake, and a rapist should go to
> jail, famous or not.
Look, you've already made it clear that you're spouting stuff w/o knowing
the facts of the case. Go ahead and make up more all you want. He cut a
deal (fair or not it's the deal that was cut) w/a celebrity judge (most
likely crooked), pled guilty, was in custody and then when there was public
outcry, the judge reneged. But you're a real anti-pedophile ain't ya? I
see that you've posted your outrage over the Catholic Church far more often
than you vent your spleen over Polanski's Oscar.
> >
> >
> >>victims mother was suspect.
> >
> >
> > She is, was, should have been. From:
> >
> > http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
> >
> > "The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of
> > engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of
the
> > girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity
> > expected to accompany such a trial."
> >
> > Also, the girl was photographed topless by Polanski at the first
> > "photo-session." What kind of "mother" allows her barely teenage
daughter
> > to go unsupervised to a *second* "photo-session" after that?
>
> You're right, the mother should not have let her continue to see the
> rapist alone. But it doesn't justify the rapist.
Never said it did.
I only make no sense to you cause you skip past all the stuff that you can't
understand.
> this thread is pointless. I have no idea what Oprah has to do with this,
Then get a clue. You're the one that posted your tirade in this thread.
> and I am sick of your yammer. Agrue with me on another thread, I think
You're sick of my yammer? uh, ok, then shut up and go away.
dwo'ski
news:3E949BB...@spamdam.verizon.net...
> dwo'ski wrote:
>
>
> [Worthless spin snipped]
>
> >
> >Besides, I was challenging a poster who has spewed BS and then refused to
> >answer a challenge to it previously. If you had to let him off the hook
> >couldn't you do it w/something factual instead of just disseminating more
> >misinformation? Or just let the thread die?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> At some point, you'll realize incessant whining makes you sound like a
At some point, you'll realize that what seems like incessant whining to you
is just entertainment to me.
> total pussy. Starting OT threads like "Just another dead Jew" doesn't
Eh! Eh! Mommy! Sri called me a pussy! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
And responding to threads calling Jews genocidal puts you in the clear?
Especially when you run away and hide from responses to your drivel that you
can't handle?
> help nor does whining and sulking about it when someone's called you on
Eh! Eh! Mommy! Sri's saying I whine and sulk again!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
> the classlessness of such a post. In other words, I'll choose to waste
I didn't get called on the classlessness of the post, you revisionist you.
I got called out for something that is clearly accepted in this group; there
are OT posts in here all the time. I didn't appreciate getting singled out.
You responded to an OT post. So I guess you're calling yourself classless.
Besides, do you know the name of the innocent Jew that was killed that day?
It didn't make a single media outlet that I'm aware of. But you know the
name of the poor, stupid, bitch who likes to play w/bulldozers, don't you?
> my time on trolls when I feel like it. But since you're such an
Sure, go ahead and waste your time being a troll all you want. Who's
stopping you?
> objective arbiter of middle east affairs and domestic US policy, I'm
Never claimed to be objective. Was responding to your mindless assertion
whcih you ran away from when I called you on it.
> sure you'll exhibit much more intellectual credibility and honesty than
> the preponderance of reading found in the pages of the following search
> results:
>
> Google terms and results:
>
> Cheney + trotsky = 813
> Rumsfeld +trotsky = 681
> -the two above in all fairness were never liberals.
> Wolfowitz + trotsky = 281
> Perle + trotsky = 297
> -a Scoop Jackson aid
> neocon + idealism = 181
>
>
> and so forth....
> Go knock yourself out, man.
Oh, man! Are you serious? You think this is how it works? Ok, free lesson
for you since you've obviously gotten screwed out of a decent education:
Just because you google a search term and it appears in the same item as
another search term doesn't equate the two. Cheney makes pro-capitalist
speeches all the time. If he makes an offhand remark at the beginning in
order to get a laught about how much of an idiot Trotsky was, you think that
makes Cheney a Trotskyist? No wonder none of your posts make any sense!
You've actually got to *read* the items! It's like googling "Hitler" +
"vegetarian" and "vegetarian" + "gentle, peace loving people" and then
concluding Hitler was gentle and peace loving.
SOMLAW
>>me your winning points. (and I will refrain from the remove your hat
>>comments).
>
>
> Feh; there you go again. Scoring in debate works such that there's a judge
> in the room and if one side fails to respond to the other's argument then
> the side making the argument scores the point. Try going back and looking
> at all the things I've said in numerous responses to your drivel that you've
> never responded to. Not that this is formal debate; I just called them
> winning points.
Just because you call them winning points, doesn't make them winning
points. And just because I say they are not winning points, does not
mean they are winning points.
blah, blah, blah, this is going to come down to whoever gets the last
post, you want the last post that bad don't you? Fine have, reply and
you have, whatever makes you happy.
Rapists belong in jail, not in Europe making movies.
J Lark
Not to stick my neck into a head-butting contest, but the victim of
this rape publicly stated shortly before the Oscars that Polanski's
work should be judged separately from his crime against her. End of
discussion. Art and morality are not the same thing. People tried to
make them that, once upon a time when the Church dominated the land
and outlawed theater except for morality plays. I believe we call
those the "Dark Ages." Polanski received an award for artwork. He
didn't receive an award for being a decent human being. The Oscar did
not imbue justification or a presidential pardon upon him, any more
than it suddenly sainted Jack Nicholson.
Why is this so hard to understand? Are these the same people who get
upset when the protagonist of a movie isn't a paragon of virtue, or
the "good guys" don't win? Should we not have given an award to the
director of the Godfather, which romanticizes the mafia, if it was
directed by a murderer? And if not, where do we draw the line?
Manslaughter? Armed robbery? Indecent exposure? Speeding? What
exactly?
-Lark
Sri Krsna
dwo'ski wrote:
>"Sri Krsna" <vze3...@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:3E949BB...@spamdam.verizon.net...
>
>>dwo'ski wrote:
>>
>>
>>[Worthless spin snipped]
>>
>>
>>>Besides, I was challenging a poster who has spewed BS and then refused to
>>>answer a challenge to it previously. If you had to let him off the hook
>>>couldn't you do it w/something factual instead of just disseminating more
>>>misinformation? Or just let the thread die?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>At some point, you'll realize incessant whining makes you sound like a
>>
>
>At some point, you'll realize that what seems like incessant whining to you
>is just entertainment to me.
>
>
Whining as form of entertainment? Interesting. Sorry but I fail to see
the entertainment value when you post things like:
"Yesterday's hate-filled post came on Purim. How appropriate. Passover is just around the corner. I wonder
which Passover Seder the "Palestinians" will target this year. You know what a Passover Seder is? It's the meal that Jesus was having which is
commonly referred to as "The Last Supper."
Nice try though, troll. I especially like the condescending phrase "You
know what Passover Seder is?" And nice to see you degenerate your
religion as an apparatus to garner sympathy if not to bolster your petty
internet arguments. Something I learned from a rabbi at the Longwood
synagogue a couple months ago: "Mighty is he who is in control of his
impulses." In other words little man, learn to conduct yourself
according to your faith.
>
>>total pussy. Starting OT threads like "Just another dead Jew" doesn't
>>
>
>Eh! Eh! Mommy! Sri called me a pussy! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
>
Interesting overreaction. It'll pass man. I assure you. You'll feel better.
>
>And responding to threads calling Jews genocidal puts you in the clear?
>
Obviously, you missed the point of my post in that thread. But it's
clear now where your vendetta originates from. LOL. Pathetic geek.
>
>Especially when you run away and hide from responses to your drivel that you
>can't handle?
>
>
Run away and hide? On the internet? Are you like 12 yrs old? Yeah man,
your keystrokes and internet warrior persona are so omnipotent and so
intimidating. I shudder to think how lethal and frightening you'd be if
you were to type in all caps. Brrrr...
>
>>help nor does whining and sulking about it when someone's called you on
>>
>
>Eh! Eh! Mommy! Sri's saying I whine and sulk again!
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
>
Mommy's not here, troll. Suck on a pacifier instead.
>
>>the classlessness of such a post. In other words, I'll choose to waste
>>
>
>I didn't get called on the classlessness of the post, you revisionist you.
>
Problems with reading comprehension too? Pity.
>
>I got called out for something that is clearly accepted in this group; there
>are OT posts in here all the time. I didn't appreciate getting singled out.
>You responded to an OT post. So I guess you're calling yourself classless.
>
You've missed the point, troll. OT is accepted. Starting OT threads, be
they "Good guy genocide" or "Another dead Jew" is classless trolling.
Get a clue. And since you missed the point of my post on "good guy
genocide", it was a reaction of another poster who's constantly labeling
people as "anti Semitic" and "anti American" and who's prone to jumping
to false, hysterical conclusions without knowing the full details. But
you're a troll so you spin this anyway you'd like to suit your argument.
>
>Besides, do you know the name of the innocent Jew that was killed that day?
>It didn't make a single media outlet that I'm aware of. But you know the
>name of the poor, stupid, bitch who likes to play w/bulldozers, don't you?
>
>
Pointless horse shit. But do keep trying, troll.
>
>>my time on trolls when I feel like it. But since you're such an
>>
>
>Sure, go ahead and waste your time being a troll all you want. Who's
>stopping you?
>
>
I hardly think I need your permission or consent if I were to begin
trolling. So in essence, all you're saying here is "you called me a
troll so I'll call you a troll back". Get back to me with something past
second grade level, troll.
>
>>objective arbiter of middle east affairs and domestic US policy, I'm
>>
>
>Never claimed to be objective. Was responding to your mindless assertion
>whcih you ran away from when I called you on it.
>
>
Like I said, I'll choose if and when I want to address you. "Run away"
or "challenging" or "I called you on it" are just convoluted
manifestations of a troll's proclivity for cerebral and emotional
masturbation. You, a troll, will not dictate to me how I choose to
conduct myself here.
>
>
>>sure you'll exhibit much more intellectual credibility and honesty than
>>the preponderance of reading found in the pages of the following search
>>results:
>>
>> Google terms and results:
>>
>> Cheney + trotsky = 813
>> Rumsfeld +trotsky = 681
>> -the two above in all fairness were never liberals.
>> Wolfowitz + trotsky = 281
>> Perle + trotsky = 297
>> -a Scoop Jackson aid
>> neocon + idealism = 181
>>
>>
>>and so forth....
>>Go knock yourself out, man.
>>
>
>Oh, man! Are you serious? You think this is how it works? Ok, free lesson
>for you since you've obviously gotten screwed out of a decent education:
>
Indeed. Having a committee chair, a Russian Jew who did two years of
hard labor in Siberia and who later became a Nobel laureate, will do
that to anyone's education. But then, he dropped out in the 8th grade so
you might be on to something about my being "screwed out of a decent
education". :-)
>
>Just because you google a search term and it appears in the same item as
>another search term doesn't equate the two. Cheney makes pro-capitalist
>speeches all the time. If he makes an offhand remark at the beginning in
>order to get a laught about how much of an idiot Trotsky was, you think that
>makes Cheney a Trotskyist? No wonder none of your posts make any sense!
>You've actually got to *read* the items! It's like googling "Hitler" +
>"vegetarian" and "vegetarian" + "gentle, peace loving people" and then
>concluding Hitler was gentle and peace loving.
>
Go look at the sites before you flap you fingers about assuming you know
all that's present on the internet. You might actually learn something.
But then, you're a troll so I never expected any more than a clumsy
attempt to discredit. Go look at the sites. If you really believe the
over 2000 websites that come up are all frivolous, then you're a bigger
idiot than you led on. But your antics are nevertheless transparent, troll.
Now, I just don't care about anything you have to say here. You've no
credibility for me to discuss anything worthwhile with you nor do you
have any insights which compel me to read your posts. So all that's
going to come out of this degenerative discourse is childish name
calling which I really want no further part in. So whine and spin all
you want. Whether I'm running away in fear of you, internet
warrior/dominator dwo'ski, or just not interested in being baited by a
troll, in the end it's all the same:
-PLONK-
dwo'ski
do my best to make sure that your thoughts reach our
"neo-Trotskyite/neo-Con" friends in the Bush Admin.
"Sri Krsna" <vze3...@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E960E74...@spamdam.verizon.net...
PatsWickedPissah
>Not to stick my neck into a head-butting contest, but the victim of
>this rape publicly stated shortly before the Oscars that Polanski's
>work should be judged separately from his crime against her. End of
>discussion. Art and morality are not the same thing. People tried to
>make them that, once upon a time when the Church dominated the land
>and outlawed theater except for morality plays. I believe we call
>those the "Dark Ages."
Art and morality are not the same thing. I would most probably not enjoy the
personal relationship company of many great artists. I reserve the right to
judge a Polanski for his illegal behaviour and my freedom to ignore his
contributions to art.
-p
dwo'ski
news:20030411123556...@mb-fo.aol.com...
No doubt. Though one would hope you'd agree that members of the Academy
have just as much right to make up their minds as they see fit.