I am sick of these gun-grabbing Leftists!
Richard G Cheek
From: Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com>
Subject: I am sick of these gun-grabbing fascists....
Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:19 AM
For so many years now, I have labored under the illusion that these
power-mongering bastards have any regard for truth or fairness or even
common decency. I am awake now, as I watch California begin confiscating
legitimate semi-automatic rifles, under the libel of "assault weapon".
These people are not just ignorant-they are willfully ignorant. They lie
about what is plain and established fact. They make a pretense of being
concerned for childeren, but they want no facts that suggest that gun
ownership makes life safer for childeren. They make a pretense at respecting
the Constitution, but simply throw out the parts they find inconvenient,
like the second and tenth amendments. But this I have recognized for the
last several years. The Leftists are lying, insencere, phony cretins. And
there is no disuading them from their intentions, because their intentions
are not about serving the common good; it is about them monopolizing power.
One look at where Tony Blair's Brittain is going is enough to convince any
rational civil-rights minded person that we CANNOT allow ourselves to be
disarmed.
What has severely changed my attitude over night was reading Courtois' "The
Black Book of Communism." It is an enlightening book, because the
statistics of Communist slaughter are generally not identified with names
and faces of the perpetrators and victims. This leaves the reader with a
feeling of artificial numbers, of mere abstraction. It is true; one freind
dying is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. Courtois brings the victims
of communism to life and gives them a face, a name, a beating heart that you
know is stilled by the bloody hand of oppression. Just one picture can
bring about this change, and for me it was the one of a Polish officer being
impaled. He is contorting in obvious pain. And standing around him are
scores of Communists watching, with smiles across their faces, eyes
transfixed on the mans suffering and enjoying it. It is horrid. It is an
awaking alarm.
Then, when you look back at how the Left in Western society has steadfastly
tolerated and excused Communism, it makes you enraged. The Left declared
Communism the future of mankind, and savagely attacked anyone that opposed
them, from Whiticker Chambers, to Richard Nixon, the only President hounded
from office. When you realize that our current President and his top
administrative officers gave aid and comfort to this monstrous enemy both
today and as our boys bravely fought against it in SE Asia, you feel
nauseated. The Left is as guilty of these crimes as the original
perpetrators are, because they lied for them, they covered up for them, they
interfered with opposition to them and disarmed the Communist's opposition
whenever they could. The Left is apparently tolerant of the Communist
"excesses" at best, in agreement with the slaughters that have been
committed and merely pretend ethical objection at worst. Either case goes
beyond the pale for me. The same lying that is evident at the Stalinist
show-trials, with complete solid block voting and intolerance of dissent, is
manifested by the Democrats of today anytime that Clinton is criticized.
During the impeachment, Clinton's guilt or innocense was immaterial to them.
They couldnt care less what he did as long as he was their man, and they
voted for him at every turn as a party block. You can be a rapist like
Clinton and stay in office if your politics is Leftist, but if you steal a
kiss under the misltoe like Packwood and oppose them, then you go off to
jail or unemployeement or a firing squad. The crimes are really irrelevant,
only the politics of the perpetrator is important. To the Left, the only
crimes are political crimes, and I understand that now.
What I also understand is that the Left wants no opposition at all, and that
includes gun ownership. They WILL disarm American citizens if they can, and
only violence will stop them. They know and understand nothing less than
brute force, of a boot on their neck holding them to the ground and a cocked
gun muzzle to their face. Only Then will they stop their clawing for power
over our daily lives, only then will they stop wrecking families, burning
churches, confiscating peoples homes, and sending innocent men to jail to be
raped and killed. And for many of them, not even then, only the grave will
stop them.
The day that such violence is necesary is fast approaching us. We must
prepare for it. I am not speaking of Y2K, I am speaking of the further
gun-confiscation that the Left will pursue once they claim victory in
California. Gun owners will soon have to choose between obeying the law and
following their conscience. It will be necessary that gun owners learn to
make their way in the black market, and find a commuity that agrees with
them and will support them, such as a church or hunting club. Read about
underground resistance groups, especially the Islamic resistance groups who
have been so successful against both Western and Russian forces. Learn how
to forge documents, change identities, break into an office undetected, and
evade pursuit or surveilance.
Prepare now before the opportunity passes you by, and the Left leaves you
without defence or alternatives.
RGlenCheek
The-Trainers
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> From: Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com>
> Subject: I am sick of these gun-grabbing fascists....
> Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:19 AM
>
> For so many years now, I have labored under the illusion that these
> power-mongering bastards have any regard for truth or fairness or even
> common decency.
What a silly assumption.
> I am awake now, as I watch California begin confiscating
> legitimate semi-automatic rifles, under the libel of "assault weapon".
Well, they can try.
> These people are not just ignorant-they are willfully ignorant.
That is what is REQUIRED in order to keep their dogma going, if they allow
themselves to learn the truth, they know they will be
"Losing their religion"...
> They lie about what is plain and established fact.
If they did not, they would have nothing else to say.
> They make a pretense of being concerned for childeren,
Most fanatics do.
> but they want no facts that suggest that gun
> ownership makes life safer for childeren.
You could have stopped that statement after the word "facts".
> They make a pretense at respecting
> the Constitution,
They DO? When?
> but simply throw out the parts they find inconvenient,
> like the second and tenth amendments. But this I have recognized for the
> last several years. The Leftists are lying, insencere, phony cretins. And
> there is no disuading them from their intentions, because their intentions
> are not about serving the common good; it is about them monopolizing power.
That is what government does.
> One look at where Tony Blair's Brittain is going is enough to convince any
> rational civil-rights minded person that we CANNOT allow ourselves to be
> disarmed.
I also look at Australia and Canada for more such examples, and Taiwan,
China, etc...
> Then, when you look back at how the Left in Western society has steadfastly
> tolerated and excused Communism, it makes you enraged. The Left declared
> Communism the future of mankind, and savagely attacked anyone that opposed
> them, from Whiticker Chambers, to Richard Nixon, the only President hounded
Don't get me started on Nixon.
> Clinton and stay in office if your politics is Leftist, but if you steal a
> kiss
Uh, the OPERATIVE word there was "steal", by the way.
> under the misltoe like Packwood and oppose them, then you go off to
> prepare for it. I am not speaking of Y2K, I am speaking of the further
> gun-confiscation that the Left will pursue once they claim victory in
> California. Gun owners will soon have to choose between obeying the law and
> following their conscience.
Most of us already have.
> It will be necessary that gun owners learn to
> make their way in the black market,
Just find ANY drug dealer, they will provide you with guns, all the
guns you want.
Geeeez, and you guys thought I was verbose!
MT
lone...@webtv.net
some sort of secret motivation.
I think many of them just want to feel safe. As our owning of weapons
makes them feel unsafe, they want us not to own them.
But of course, none of that really matters. In 20 years or so, the
people who are in power today won't be in power any longer; people get
old.
However innocent these people might be, it won't matter if -- 20 years
from today -- we have someone worse than Hitler running this country.
Up until the end of the First World War, Germany was a monarchy.
Then, (in 1920, I think) it became a democracy.
Good thing too, otherwise something bad could have happened over
there.
I think mass, government-sponsored murders could happen here, too.
Our ignorance of the murders committed by the communists may be our
undoing.
We do a pretty good job of guarding against the racially-motivated
killings that happened in the Holocaust. I think this is because of our
own racist past.
But we're not even aware of the millions murdered by the communists.
So as long as a future Stalin doesn't wear a white sheet or a
swastika, the vast majority of Americans will think he's fine.
It's too bad you went and alienated everyone in the NG, Richard. If
you hadn't, maybe some of the people here would have read this with an
open mind.
-- Kirk
glen...@mindspring.com wrote:
(Richard G Cheek) I am sick of these gun-grabbing Leftists!
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics."
-- Fletcher Knebel
Richard G Cheek
Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
news:F9k34.117951$V4.14...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> "Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:82j1k6$1dd$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > These people are not just ignorant-they are willfully ignorant. They
lie
> > about what is plain and established fact. They make a pretense of being
> > concerned for childeren, but they want no facts that suggest that gun
> > ownership makes life safer for childeren.
>
childeren,
> just like you.
How can you say this, when you dont know what extent I am concerned about
children? I too have some "leftist" leanings, but I prefer to think of them
as "liberal"; there is nothing respectable about the Left anymore since the
"New Left" took over. They are hardly better than Communists.
> BTW - just so we're on the same wavelength, are these creatures related in
any way to
> the wood nymphs?
I met a nymph in the woods once; does that count? Otherwise, I just gotta
take a pass on this one since I dont what "wood nymphs" are related to at
all.
RGlenCheek
Barney Gumble
"Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:82j1k6$1dd$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> These people are not just ignorant-they are willfully ignorant. They lie
> about what is plain and established fact. They make a pretense of being
> concerned for childeren, but they want no facts that suggest that gun
> ownership makes life safer for childeren.
Nonsense. I have some leftist leanings, but I am indeed concerned for the childeren,
just like you.
BTW - just so we're on the same wavelength, are these creatures related in any way to
the wood nymphs?
Richard G Cheek
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.991207...@shell11.ba.best.com...
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> >
> > Subject: I am sick of these gun-grabbing fascists....
> > Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:19 AM
> >
> > For so many years now, I have labored under the illusion that these
> > power-mongering bastards have any regard for truth or fairness or even
> > common decency.
>
I know. I still havent forgiven myself for it either.
> > I am awake now, as I watch California begin confiscating
> > legitimate semi-automatic rifles, under the libel of "assault weapon".
>
> Well, they can try.
Well, if everyone calls it a goose, after a while, it might as well be a
damned goose. Everyone I know now refers to ANY military style weapon as an
"assault weapon", I even catch myself from time to time.
> > These people are not just ignorant-they are willfully ignorant.
>
> That is what is REQUIRED in order to keep their dogma going, if they allow
> themselves to learn the truth, they know they will be
> "Losing their religion"...
Now YOU are bringing the "religion" word into the thread!
> > They lie about what is plain and established fact.
>
> If they did not, they would have nothing else to say.
Isnt that a tempting thought?
> > They make a pretense of being concerned for childeren,
>
> Most fanatics do.
Hitler sure did.
> > but they want no facts that suggest that gun
> > ownership makes life safer for childeren.
>
> You could have stopped that statement after the word "facts".
True, but I wanted to make a contrasting statement.
> > They make a pretense at respecting
> > the Constitution,
>
> They DO? When?
You know, when the ACLU (American Communist-Leftist Union) defends the first
amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less what the
original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
> > but simply throw out the parts they find inconvenient,
> > like the second and tenth amendments. But this I have recognized for the
> > last several years. The Leftists are lying, insencere, phony cretins.
And
> > there is no disuading them from their intentions, because their
intentions
> > are not about serving the common good; it is about them monopolizing
power.
>
> That is what government does.
Not ideally, but that word doesnt really square with government anymore,
does it?
> > One look at where Tony Blair's Brittain is going is enough to convince
any
> > rational civil-rights minded person that we CANNOT allow ourselves to be
> > disarmed.
>
> I also look at Australia and Canada for more such examples, and Taiwan,
> China, etc...
True, again.
> > Then, when you look back at how the Left in Western society has
steadfastly
> > tolerated and excused Communism, it makes you enraged. The Left declared
> > Communism the future of mankind, and savagely attacked anyone that
opposed
> > them, from Whiticker Chambers, to Richard Nixon, the only President
hounded
>
> Don't get me started on Nixon.
OK, I wont; a very "complex" man.
> > Clinton and stay in office if your politics is Leftist, but if you steal
a
> > kiss
>
> Uh, the OPERATIVE word there was "steal", by the way.
Heh, that wasnt ALL he stole in office, I'm sure!
> > under the misltoe like Packwood and oppose them, then you go off to
>
> > prepare for it. I am not speaking of Y2K, I am speaking of the further
> > gun-confiscation that the Left will pursue once they claim victory in
> > California. Gun owners will soon have to choose between obeying the law
and
> > following their conscience.
>
> Most of us already have.
Yeah, I know, but many are still sitting on the fence, and prefer thinking
elsewhere.
> > It will be necessary that gun owners learn to
> > make their way in the black market,
>
> Just find ANY drug dealer, they will provide you with guns, all the
> guns you want.
Yep, we shouldnt deal in drugs, because that product eventually consumes its
distributer; but a little black market freon and 3.6 gallon toilet tanks can
make some damn good money these days!
> Geeeez, and you guys thought I was verbose!
Yeah, hell, you'd almost think I was a Demoncrat!
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
<lone...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3067-384...@storefull-217.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> There is one thing I don't agree with you on: that "gun-grabbers" have
> some sort of secret motivation.
> I think many of them just want to feel safe. As our owning of weapons
> makes them feel unsafe, they want us not to own them.
That is the speil that the general public morons get, but the Left's
ideological leadership wants disarmament without a doubt.
> I think mass, government-sponsored murders could happen here, too.
> Our ignorance of the murders committed by the communists may be our
> undoing.
>
> We do a pretty good job of guarding against the racially-motivated
> killings that happened in the Holocaust. I think this is because of our
> own racist past.
>
> But we're not even aware of the millions murdered by the communists.
>
> So as long as a future Stalin doesn't wear a white sheet or a
> swastika, the vast majority of Americans will think he's fine.
Some very good points, Loneshoe. I agree totally. In fact, we have seen
this to a great degree already with Clinton.
> It's too bad you went and alienated everyone in the NG, Richard. If
> you hadn't, maybe some of the people here would have read this with an
> open mind.
I doubt that any Leftists had an open mind to begin with, and as to the
moderate types that are alienated, I cant help it. I LOATHE gun-grabbers.
And it would eventually come out no matter what I did to hide it; might as
well be frank from the start. I hold nothing but hate, disgust, ill-wishes,
spite, disrespect, and low regard for these cretins.
Honestly,
RGlenCheek
Randy
lone...@webtv.net wrote:
> There is one thing I don't agree with you on: that "gun-grabbers" have
> some sort of secret motivation.
Please tell me who in here is a gun grabber? Not one person has ever
advocated taking away guns. MT and now Cheek have made the quantum
leap that those that oppose their views want to pry the glocks from their
hands. Simply bullshit.
>
> I think many of them just want to feel safe. As our owning of weapons
> makes them feel unsafe, they want us not to own them.
Again, not true of anyone in here. Yes, there are many anti gun loons out
there and I oppose them, although not as fervently as the gun loons. Please
cite where anyone in here has stated that?
>
> But of course, none of that really matters. In 20 years or so, the
> people who are in power today won't be in power any longer; people get
> old.
That's what they said about Jesse Helms 40 years ago or Strom Thurmond
60 years ago.
>
> However innocent these people might be, it won't matter if -- 20 years
> from today -- we have someone worse than Hitler running this country.
>
> Up until the end of the First World War, Germany was a monarchy.
> Then, (in 1920, I think) it became a democracy.
>
> Good thing too, otherwise something bad could have happened over
> there.
>
> I think mass, government-sponsored murders could happen here, too.
> Our ignorance of the murders committed by the communists may be our
> undoing.
>
> We do a pretty good job of guarding against the racially-motivated
> killings that happened in the Holocaust. I think this is because of our
> own racist past.
>
> But we're not even aware of the millions murdered by the communists.
>
> So as long as a future Stalin doesn't wear a white sheet or a
> swastika, the vast majority of Americans will think he's fine.
>
> It's too bad you went and alienated everyone in the NG, Richard. If
> you hadn't, maybe some of the people here would have read this with an
> open mind.
He doesn't care about alienating or trying to convince others of his opinions.
He meremy came here to stir up the group, troll or whatever you want to
call it. Hunting season opens soon, I'm sure he'll be a going.
>
Randy
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
(snipped)
> You know, when the ACLU (American Communist-Leftist Union) defends the first
> amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less what the
> original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
And there we have it folks. Another pro gun person wanting to limit
the First but thinking the Second is absolute.
Barney Gumble
"Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:82kode$tt8$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > BTW - just so we're on the same wavelength, are these creatures related in
> any way to
> > the wood nymphs?
>
> I met a nymph in the woods once; does that count? Otherwise, I just gotta
> take a pass on this one since I dont what "wood nymphs" are related to at
> all.
We got a swift one here folks.
Richard G Cheek
Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:rdowns-0812...@user-2ivea49.dialup.mindspring.com...
The ACLU claims to defend freedom of speech, but they do it in cases where
the threatened spech would advance thier cause by being either Leftist
propaganda or extreme right propaganda that they think will help keep the
Leftwing donor's fear of the "boogeyman" alive. But if someone wants to
read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross in
honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free speech
because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
RGlenCheek
Erasmus Brown
But if someone wants to
> read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross in
> honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free speech
> because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
> forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
> violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
>
> Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
That's not true, pal. You're oversimplifying them.
z
new CT policy of confiscating weapons from people suspected of being
dangerous. (Whether they've done anything more than opine, I don't
know). So now you're going to have to support that policy.
In article <82lote$tsi$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G Cheek"
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:rdowns-0812...@user-2ivea49.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <82kp1u$9r$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G
> Cheek"
> > <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > (snipped)
> > > You know, when the ACLU (American Communist-Leftist Union)
> defends the
> first
> > > amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less
> what the
> > > original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
> >
> >
> > And there we have it folks. Another pro gun person wanting to
> limit
> > the First but thinking the Second is absolute.
> >
> >
> You really ARe an idiot, arent you?
> The ACLU claims to defend freedom of speech, but they do it in
> cases where
> the threatened spech would advance thier cause by being either
> Leftist
> propaganda or extreme right propaganda that they think will help
> keep the
> Leftwing donor's fear of the "boogeyman" alive. But if someone
> wants to
> read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a
> cross in
> honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that
> free speech
> because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply
> bleach all
> forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again,
> this
> violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
> RGlenCheek
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The-Trainers
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:rdowns-0812...@user-2ivea49.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > And there we have it folks. Another pro gun person wanting to limit
> > the First but thinking the Second is absolute.
> You really ARe an idiot, arent you?
Well, you see, RGC, Randy had a head injury a few months ago and ever
since he has been buying up all the un-used "stupidity credit allowances"
that Haele and a few others here have no use for. Randy has LOADS of
money so he can afford to buy up all the un-used "stupidity credit
allowances" that money can buy.
Randy even tried to buy mine, he offered a pretty good price too!
However, as it happens, I already sold all of mine to Jody English!
I SWEAR, this was long BEFORE I knew how he was going to use them.
If I knew what Jody was going to use them for, I NEVER would have
agreed to sell!
I just wish people would STOP SELLING their "stupidity credit allowances"
to Randy.
I KNOW he offers a lot of money, but PLEASE people, THINK what you are
doing by selling your un-used "stupidity credit allowances" to Randy!
I KNOW it may be a financial hardship for a few of you, but I ask you
to try to find other places and ways of selling those credits elsewhere.
The USA government does have a subsidy program that can help, it sort of
works like the Farm Subsidies where they PAY you NOT to use or sell
your un-used "stupidity credit allowances".
Please, any of you that have been selling your un-used "stupidity credit
allowances" to Randy Downs, please stop.
We will all be better off if you do.
> Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
Uh, nobody here will sell Randy any "thinking tokens", don't bother
asking him to try.
MT
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
scruffy
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The ACLU claims to defend freedom of speech, but they do it in cases
> where
> the threatened spech would advance thier cause by being either Leftist
> propaganda or extreme right propaganda that they think will help keep the
> Leftwing donor's fear of the "boogeyman" alive. But if someone wants to
> read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross in
> honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free
> speech
> because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
> forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
> violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
>
> Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
the ACLU does not oppose voluntary prayer in school. they oppose, as
does the U.S. Supreme Court, organized prayer in school. they are
totally in favor of little johnny being able to sit at his desk and say
a prayer on his own.
"Every child in the United States already has the right to pray in
school on a voluntary basis -- it's called the First Amendment."
< http://www.aclu.org/library/aaprayer.html>
and they would even defend your right to hurl hateful wishes of death at
those who disagree with you.
The-Trainers
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> You know, when the ACLU (American Communist-Leftist Union) defends the first
> amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less what the
> original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
I would dis-agree with you here fully.
The ACLU copy of the Constitution may be missing the Second Amendment,
but they do a fine job on the rest.
> > > are not about serving the common good; it is about them monopolizing
> power.
> >
> > That is what government does.
>
> Not ideally, but that word doesnt really square with government anymore,
> does it?
It NEVER did. Jefferson and Washington and the rest said government
is always about monopolizing power, the trick was to set up a system to
slow down the process as much as possible.
> > > Then, when you look back at how the Left in Western society has
> steadfastly
> > > tolerated and excused Communism, it makes you enraged. The Left declared
> > > Communism the future of mankind, and savagely attacked anyone that
> opposed
> > > them, from Whiticker Chambers, to Richard Nixon, the only President
> hounded
> >
> > Don't get me started on Nixon.
>
> OK, I wont; a very "complex" man.
See, you just HAD to go do it!!!!
:-P on Nixon!
> > > Clinton and stay in office if your politics is Leftist, but if you steal
> a
> > > kiss
> >
> > Uh, the OPERATIVE word there was "steal", by the way.
>
> Heh, that wasnt ALL he stole in office, I'm sure!
Except for our Constitutional rights, Clinton can steal anything he likes
I don't give a shit, all presidents do.
If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as yet,
we don't have any evidense of that.
But that's another thread.
> > > It will be necessary that gun owners learn to
> > > make their way in the black market,
> >
> > Just find ANY drug dealer, they will provide you with guns, all the
> > guns you want.
> Yep, we shouldnt deal in drugs, because that product eventually consumes its
> distributer;
BINGO!
> but a little black market freon and 3.6 gallon toilet tanks can
> make some damn good money these days!
Indeed. Makes a lot of money for the Mexicans and Canadians too!
> > Geeeez, and you guys thought I was verbose!
> Yeah, hell, you'd almost think I was a Demoncrat!
Naaaaa, you're not nearly polite enough for that!
;-)
MT
>
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 lone...@webtv.net wrote:
> There is one thing I don't agree with you on: that "gun-grabbers" have
> some sort of secret motivation.
Well, ok, it ain't a real "secret" we ALL KNOW what their goal is,
totally dis-arming the good people so they will be totally at the mercy
of evil people.
> I think many of them just want to feel safe.
Then they should stay in their homes and dig a hole in the ground
and crawl in. Driving to/from work is the greatest danger they face.
> As our owning of weapons
> makes them feel unsafe, they want us not to own them.
Their irrational and IGNORANT fear is NO excuse.
Ask ANY "Jap" in the USA during WWII about what irrational fears do to
people.
Ask any phobic the same.
> But of course, none of that really matters. In 20 years or so, the
> people who are in power today won't be in power any longer; people get
> old.
No, the idiot generation will be.
> However innocent these people might be, it won't matter if -- 20 years
> from today -- we have someone worse than Hitler running this country.
Or the world.
> Up until the end of the First World War, Germany was a monarchy.
> Then, (in 1920, I think) it became a democracy.
hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Do some reading.
> Good thing too, otherwise something bad could have happened over
> there.
>
> I think mass, government-sponsored murders could happen here, too.
> Our ignorance of the murders committed by the communists may be our
> undoing.
Ignorance in general is.
> We do a pretty good job of guarding against the racially-motivated
> killings that happened in the Holocaust. I think this is because of our
> own racist past.
I doubt that.
> But we're not even aware of the millions murdered by the communists.
SOME are not.
> So as long as a future Stalin doesn't wear a white sheet or a
> swastika, the vast majority of Americans will think he's fine.
That's about right.
> It's too bad you went and alienated everyone in the NG, Richard.
He just did it to help my image out, maybe you guys will appreciate
me more now that you know what other people are like.
> If
> you hadn't, maybe some of the people here would have read this with an
> open mind.
If you had an honestly open-mind you would not care about the packaging.
Do you want people to judge you on your looks?
MT
Randy
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:rdowns-0812...@user-2ivea49.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <82kp1u$9r$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G Cheek"
> > <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > (snipped)
> > > You know, when the ACLU (American Communist-Leftist Union) defends the
> first
> > > amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less what the
> > > original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
> >
> >
> > And there we have it folks. Another pro gun person wanting to limit
> > the First but thinking the Second is absolute.
> >
> >
> You really ARe an idiot, arent you?
>
> The ACLU claims to defend freedom of speech, but they do it in cases where
> the threatened spech would advance thier cause by being either Leftist
> propaganda or extreme right propaganda that they think will help keep the
> Leftwing donor's fear of the "boogeyman" alive. But if someone wants to
> read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross in
> honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free speech
> because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
> forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
> violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
>
> Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
>
> RGlenCheek
Simply your warped take on it. You are really sad.
The-Trainers
Someone is going to get a nasty letter from Clinton!
MT
Richard G Cheek
Erasmus Brown <ebr...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:384EA4CD...@monmouth.com...
> Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> But if someone wants to
>
> > read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross
in
> > honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free
speech
> > because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
> > forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
> > violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> >
> > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
>
>
I could be wrong, sure, but can you tell me in what way I am
over-simplifying this??
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
z <gzuckier...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2107d358...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com...
> Well, you'll be saddened to note that the ACLU has come out against the
> new CT policy of confiscating weapons from people suspected of being
> dangerous. (Whether they've done anything more than opine, I don't
> know). So now you're going to have to support that policy.
Why? I will support the ACLU when they just happen to get something right.
But they have gone far from the individual rights/ First Amendment stuff
that made them famous. IMO.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
> Wait, who the hell gave the ACLU a complete copy of the Bill Of Rights?
>
> Someone is going to get a nasty letter from Clinton!
>
> MT
Eh, I think they only gave them the First Amendment; they cant read the
other ones!
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
scruffy <zena...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:ULz34.2556$En6....@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <82lote$tsi$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G Cheek"
> <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > The ACLU claims to defend freedom of speech, but they do it in cases
> > where
> > the threatened spech would advance thier cause by being either Leftist
> > propaganda or extreme right propaganda that they think will help keep
the
> > read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross
in
> > honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free
> > speech
> > because it is insensitive! The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all
> > forms and traces of christianity from the public arena, and again, this
> > violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> >
> > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
>
> does the U.S. Supreme Court, organized prayer in school. they are
> totally in favor of little johnny being able to sit at his desk and say
> a prayer on his own.
Well, I cant argue this point, since I havent read up on it in a while. I
do seem to recall them challenging some kids reading his Bible during lunch,
but its very foggy.
> "Every child in the United States already has the right to pray in
> school on a voluntary basis -- it's called the First Amendment."
> < http://www.aclu.org/library/aaprayer.html>
>
> and they would even defend your right to hurl hateful wishes of death at
> those who disagree with you.
I dont hate all those who disagree with me; just the gun-grabbers. Them I
have no respect for at all, and very little for the "New Left" ( same as the
Old Reds, IMO)
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
RGlenCheek
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com...
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> > Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> > news:rdowns-0812...@user-2ivea49.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > > And there we have it folks. Another pro gun person wanting to limit
> > > the First but thinking the Second is absolute.
>
> > You really ARe an idiot, arent you?
>
> Well, you see, RGC, Randy had a head injury a few months ago and ever
> since he has been buying up all the un-used "stupidity credit allowances"
> that Haele and a few others here have no use for. Randy has LOADS of
> money so he can afford to buy up all the un-used "stupidity credit
> allowances" that money can buy.
>
> Randy even tried to buy mine, he offered a pretty good price too!
> However, as it happens, I already sold all of mine to Jody English!
> I SWEAR, this was long BEFORE I knew how he was going to use them.
> If I knew what Jody was going to use them for, I NEVER would have
> agreed to sell!
>
> I just wish people would STOP SELLING their "stupidity credit allowances"
> to Randy.
>
> I KNOW he offers a lot of money, but PLEASE people, THINK what you are
> doing by selling your un-used "stupidity credit allowances" to Randy!
>
> I KNOW it may be a financial hardship for a few of you, but I ask you
> to try to find other places and ways of selling those credits elsewhere.
>
> The USA government does have a subsidy program that can help, it sort of
> works like the Farm Subsidies where they PAY you NOT to use or sell
> your un-used "stupidity credit allowances".
>
> Please, any of you that have been selling your un-used "stupidity credit
> allowances" to Randy Downs, please stop.
>
> We will all be better off if you do.
>
> > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
>
Richard G Cheek
Swift enough, I suppose; I caught her, heh
RGlenCheek
Randy
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
buttcheek, sorry, wood nymphs are all male.
Barney Gumble
> > >
> > > I met a nymph in the woods once; does that count? Otherwise, I just
> gotta
> > > take a pass on this one since I dont what "wood nymphs" are related to
> at
> > > all.
> >
> > We got a swift one here folks.
> >
>
> Swift enough, I suppose; I caught her, heh
Time for another test of the ol' cranial plate on this lovely oak desk:
*thump thump thump*
Barney Gumble
> MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
"Kick him again!"- yet another patented example of Christian Love.
Praise that man!
Erasmus Brown
> Erasmus Brown <ebr...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
> news:384EA4CD...@monmouth.com...
> > Richard G Cheek wrote:
> >
> > But if someone wants to
> >
> > > read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross
> in
> > > honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free
> speech
> > > because it is insensitive! T
> > >
> > > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
> >
> > That's not true, pal. You're oversimplifying them.
> >
>
> I could be wrong, sure, but can you tell me in what way I am
> over-simplifying this??
>
> RGlenCheek
When you said "The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all forms and traces of
christianity from the public arena, and again, this violates freedom of speech
and freedom of religion."
You TRULY believe that is the ACLU's real goal?
Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie further said
goal?
The-Trainers
Lemme guess, showing Christians at their worst?
MT
The-Trainers
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
Naaaaaa, he ain't worth the effort anymore, but I will re-post a little
play I wrote for your amusement.
MT
> > > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
> >
Randy
> Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> > Erasmus Brown <ebr...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
> > news:384EA4CD...@monmouth.com...
> > > Richard G Cheek wrote:
> > >
> > > But if someone wants to
> > >
> > > > read a Bible at their school cafeteria during lunch, or put up a cross
> > in
> > > > honor of their slaughtered children, then the ACLU attacks that free
> > speech
> > > > because it is insensitive! T
> > > >
> > > > Can you actually follow all that? Come on, think really hard now!
> > >
> > > That's not true, pal. You're oversimplifying them.
> > >
> >
> > I could be wrong, sure, but can you tell me in what way I am
> > over-simplifying this??
> >
> > RGlenCheek
>
> When you said "The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all forms and
traces of
> christianity from the public arena, and again, this violates freedom of speech
> and freedom of religion."
>
> You TRULY believe that is the ACLU's real goal?
> Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie further said
> goal?
Or the Klan's recent rally in NYC?
Randy
Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote:
> "Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:82nb6s$diu$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
>
> "Kick him again!"- yet another patented example of Christian Love.
>
> Praise that man!
Every time I fart, I am praising buttcheek.
Barney Gumble
We have to find a way to get the Church of the SubGenius folk to discover this group.
:)
lazarus
>
> <lone...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:3067-384...@storefull-217.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > There is one thing I don't agree with you on: that "gun-grabbers" have
> > some sort of secret motivation.
>
> > makes them feel unsafe, they want us not to own them.
>
> ideological leadership wants disarmament without a doubt.
>
> > I think mass, government-sponsored murders could happen here, too.
> > Our ignorance of the murders committed by the communists may be our
> > undoing.
> >
> > killings that happened in the Holocaust. I think this is because of our
> > own racist past.
> >
> >
> > swastika, the vast majority of Americans will think he's fine.
>
> this to a great degree already with Clinton.
>
> > It's too bad you went and alienated everyone in the NG, Richard. If
> > you hadn't, maybe some of the people here would have read this with an
> > open mind.
>
> moderate types that are alienated, I cant help it. I LOATHE gun-grabbers.
> And it would eventually come out no matter what I did to hide it; might as
> well be frank from the start. I hold nothing but hate, disgust,
ill-wishes,
> spite, disrespect, and low regard for these cretins.
>
Proclaiming vile beliefs doesn't cleanse your soul of this filth. This is
god talking. Really, you can believe me. Just have faith. god told me to
tell you to stop this. If you have faith, you will.
> Honestly,
>
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
Richard G Cheek
> > >
> >
> > I could be wrong, sure, but can you tell me in what way I am
> > over-simplifying this??
> >
> > RGlenCheek
>
> When you said "The ACLU's real goal is to simply bleach all forms and
traces of
> christianity from the public arena, and again, this violates freedom of
speech
> and freedom of religion."
> You TRULY believe that is the ACLU's real goal?
I think that is a goal, conscious or not. It explains a pattern they have
of defending some free speech rights but not others. Why cant a man erect a
cross in dedication to his daughter on public land, when the government does
this all the time in Arlington national cemetary? Why cant a student lead a
prayer before something as silly as a football game, when the Supreme Court
and Congress both open each of their own sesssions with prayer? Why is it
against a child painting a picture of Jesus or His mother as a famous public
figure for a High School art assignment, but the New York museums can spend
public money to show paintings of Mary that are smeared with excrement? Is
religious expression in the public square acceptable only if it is
derogatory or insulting to religion?
> Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie further
said
> goal?
>
It continues a convenient specter for the Left to solicit donations in the
cause of opposing them. The definition of a "racist group", is 100 FBI
agents under cover, and one fool naive enough to beleive their lies. The
Left needs such irrational and vicious groups to exist so they can warn
everyone of what will happen if they dont get that money. In some respects,
the ACLU is only half a step above a TV Evangelist.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Erasmus Brown wrote:
>
said
> > goal?
>
Oh, and Stalin and his Communists were, what, atheists at their best?
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:rdowns-0912...@user-2ive6im.dialup.mindspring.com...
>
> Or the Klan's recent rally in NYC?
Well, Randy, there are more important civil rights issues today than whether
a bunch of idiots can march their dirty laundry in Times Square. Which is
why I dont think the ACLU is really on the cutting edge of civil liberty
issues anymore. What have they done on the issure of the property forfeiture
laws, for instance?
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
> > MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
>
> "Kick him again!"- yet another patented example of Christian Love.
>
> Praise that man!
Why, thank you, though it was only metaphorical, I will still accept your
incensere congratulations for what they are worth, - zilch.
Oh, and lets not forget, Stalin's many examples of secular love for
humankind as well. He could really leave one with an impression!
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Randy <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:rdowns-0912...@user-2ive6im.dialup.mindspring.com...
> Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > news:82nb6s$diu$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
> >
> > "Kick him again!"- yet another patented example of Christian Love.
> >
> > Praise that man!
>
>
No, thats just what passes for witty conversation for a Lefty.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
>
> "Randy" <rdo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:rdowns-0912...@user-2ive6im.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <H1O34.122936$V4.15...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Barney
> > Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:82nb6s$diu$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > MT, LOL! You are merciless! (kick him again!)
> > >
> > > "Kick him again!"- yet another patented example of Christian Love.
> > >
> > > Praise that man!
> >
> > Every time I fart, I am praising buttcheek.
>
this group.
> :)
>
You mean, you're NOT a member already! Well, there is my surprise for the
day! Maybe your in their sister organization, the "Church of the
Sub-Normal"?
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.991209...@shell11.ba.best.com...
>
>
>
>
> play I wrote for your amusement.
>
> MT
>
Heh, cant wait!
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
> In article <82nd87$3k6$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G Cheek"
Heh, more lies from the Left! It says in the Bible that wood nymphs are
female, as are Sylphs! It is the Satyrs that are male! They were the ones
with the horns, etc.
But its ok, because it is entirely understandable for a "girlie-man" such as
yourself to get confused on such topics.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
>
> "Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:82nd87$3k6$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >
> > > > I met a nymph in the woods once; does that count?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> *thump thump thump*
You know, Barney, you apparently do far too much of that.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
first
> > amendment, it is largely a charade. They couldnt care less what the
> > original intent behind it, as long as it fits their polemics.
>
> I would dis-agree with you here fully.
>
> The ACLU copy of the Constitution may be missing the Second Amendment,
> but they do a fine job on the rest.
I am less than impressed with their dis-sire to defend religious expression
in the public square. Just because I work for the government does NOT mean
I left my values systems at the door.
> > > > are not about serving the common good; it is about them monopolizing
> > power.
> > >
> > > That is what government does.
> >
> > Not ideally, but that word doesnt really square with government anymore,
> > does it?
>
> It NEVER did. Jefferson and Washington and the rest said government
> is always about monopolizing power, the trick was to set up a system to
> slow down the process as much as possible.
Agreed.
> > > > Then, when you look back at how the Left in Western society has
> > steadfastly
> > > > tolerated and excused Communism, it makes you enraged. The Left
declared
> > > > Communism the future of mankind, and savagely attacked anyone that
> > opposed
> > > > them, from Whiticker Chambers, to Richard Nixon, the only President
> > hounded
> > >
> > > Don't get me started on Nixon.
> >
> > OK, I wont; a very "complex" man.
>
> See, you just HAD to go do it!!!!
>
> :-P on Nixon!
Heheheh, for what its worth, more growth in government regulation and power
occured on Nixons watch than under any other President except FDR himself.
Remember who the only president was to institute peace-time price controls?
I am non too fond of him either.
> > > > Clinton and stay in office if your politics is Leftist, but if you
steal
> > a
> > > > kiss
> > >
> > > Uh, the OPERATIVE word there was "steal", by the way.
> >
> > Heh, that wasnt ALL he stole in office, I'm sure!
>
> Except for our Constitutional rights, Clinton can steal anything he likes
> I don't give a shit, all presidents do.
I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
> If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as yet,
> we don't have any evidense of that.
>
> But that's another thread.
Yeah, it is about twelve threads. I am truly surprised here. Perjury IS a
crime, though not an impeachable crime, IMO. I think it is clear that he
was involved in the theft of funds in White Water, and the antics going on
at Mena Airport. And thats just a start!
> > > > It will be necessary that gun owners learn to
> > > > make their way in the black market,
> > >
> > > Just find ANY drug dealer, they will provide you with guns, all the
> > > guns you want.
>
> > Yep, we shouldnt deal in drugs, because that product eventually consumes
its
> > distributer;
>
> BINGO!
>
> > but a little black market freon and 3.6 gallon toilet tanks can
> > make some damn good money these days!
>
> Indeed. Makes a lot of money for the Mexicans and Canadians too!
The black market on both sides of the border is going to make alot more
money too if Gore gets elected.
> > > Geeeez, and you guys thought I was verbose!
>
> > Yeah, hell, you'd almost think I was a Demoncrat!
>
> Naaaaa, you're not nearly polite enough for that!
>
> ;-)
Polite? Have you ever actually read some of their speeches? I think Schumer
is in a permanent froth!
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
lazarus <laza...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:82ps9e$qos$3...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Proclaiming vile beliefs doesn't cleanse your soul of this filth. This is
> god talking. Really, you can believe me. Just have faith. god told me
to
> tell you to stop this. If you have faith, you will.
>
I knew a girl once who claimed that God spoke to her, not in some mysterious
way, but audibally.. She later went off the deep end and was put in a
psycharatrists care when she spent all her money on a scheme to build a
rocket ship to go to Mars. I was just wondering if you've seen her on your
weekend visits to the shrink ward.
Oh, and dont forget to check for drool on your chin. Remember what happened
last time you forgot. You almost lost your membership in NAMBLA.
Take care,
RGlenCheek
Erasmus Brown
> Erasmus Brown <ebr...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
> news:384FEF9E...@monmouth.com...
>
> > You TRULY believe that is the ACLU's real goal?
>
> I think that is a goal, conscious or not. It explains a pattern they have
> of defending some free speech rights but not others. Why cant a man erect a
> cross in dedication to his daughter on public land, when the government does
> this all the time in Arlington national cemetary? Why cant a student lead a
> prayer before something as silly as a football game, when the Supreme Court
> and Congress both open each of their own sesssions with prayer? Why is it
> against a child painting a picture of Jesus or His mother as a famous public
> figure for a High School art assignment, but the New York museums can spend
> public money to show paintings of Mary that are smeared with excrement? Is
> religious expression in the public square acceptable only if it is
> derogatory or insulting to religion?
It was my understanding that the "excremental" art is a form of high praise in
certain parts of Africa...hey, I have no problem with religious artwork. The
Sistine Chapel is great, even if a dirty homo painted it. I also have no problem
with certain religious expressions as long as they aren't veiled attempts to
spread religious homogeneity.
> > Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie further
> said > goal?
> >
> It continues a convenient specter for the Left to solicit donations in the
> cause of opposing them.
Forgive me, but that sounds like cynicism at least, and possibly paranoia.
Erasmus Brown
>
> I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
1) Obviously Carter wasn't EXACTLY Presidential timbre, but was honest.
2) Reagan, unfortunately, was senile when he took his first step into the Oval
Office. Do you know he was actually asking about the location of the White
House War Room, which he had seen in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove?" (There IS No
War Room.)
The-Trainers
That has always been his occupation, as proven by the bulk of his posts
under BOTH identities.
MT
>
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
Reagan was brain-dead from the second year, he was also an asshole
as California governor, I recall he was a Democrat then. He destroyed
the school system here, well most of it anyway.
> > If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as yet,
> > we don't have any evidense of that.
> >
> > But that's another thread.
> Yeah, it is about twelve threads. I am truly surprised here. Perjury IS a
> crime,
Well, by the definition of what he did we would have to convict half the
people who ever testified in a court of law then.
> though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
> I think it is clear that he
> was involved in the theft of funds in White Water, and the antics going on
> at Mena Airport. And thats just a start!
Oh, PUH-LEASE!
Not only is there no reason other than hate for the guy to think that,
but I don't give a shit anyway, they have nothing to do with the job
we highered him for.
> The black market on both sides of the border is going to make alot more
> money too if Gore gets elected.
They already have.
> Polite? Have you ever actually read some of their speeches? I think Schumer
> is in a permanent froth!
You beat him all to hell, er heck.
MT
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.991209...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Erasmus Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie further
> said
> > > goal?
> >
> > Lemme guess, showing Christians at their worst?
>
> Oh, and Stalin and his Communists were, what, atheists at their best?
Naaaaaa, atheism is a handy excuse for oppression in the hands of
dictators, especially dictators who look around and see they now
control a nation consisting of many different religions.
Look at the atheist dictatorships, you will find that their
nation was multi-religious prior to the dictatorship take-over.
MT
>
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Erasmus Brown wrote:
> Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
>
> 1) Obviously Carter wasn't EXACTLY Presidential timbre, but was honest.
He just "felt our pain" a little too deeply.
> 2) Reagan, unfortunately, was senile when he took his first step into the Oval
> Office.
Or at least withint the first year.
> Do you know he was actually asking about the location of the White
> House War Room, which he had seen in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove?" (There IS No
> War Room.)
Well, I ALWAYS said, Reagan THOUGHT he was just in a long-running play!
MT
lazarus
2-year-old boy with pubic hair, acne and an enlarged penis as a result of
accidental, repeated contact with his father's high-testosterone
body-building cream.
See, there's hope for you yet. god still wants you to die. Of course,
he/she/it is not able to do anything about it. Maybe if you eat just a
little more........
--
lazarus
I shave with Occam's Razor every morning.
Barney Gumble
> > Time for another test of the ol' cranial plate on this lovely oak desk:
> >
> > *thump thump thump*
>
>
> You know, Barney, you apparently do far too much of that.
No great shock that you define the "cranial plate" as your penis. Nice to see at
least one head is working - to some degree.
The-Trainers
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, lazarus wrote:
> In a summer issue of the journal Pediatrics, doctors reported on a
> 2-year-old boy with pubic hair, acne and an enlarged penis as a result of
> accidental, repeated contact with his father's high-testosterone
> body-building cream.
Laz, I thought you were the one bitching about MY "sharing" too much!
MT
Richard G Cheek
>
> "Richard G Cheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:82r9gc$lo3$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > > Time for another test of the ol' cranial plate on this lovely oak
desk:
> > >
> > > *thump thump thump*
> >
> >
> > You know, Barney, you apparently do far too much of that.
>
> No great shock that you define the "cranial plate" as your penis.
I assumed you were banging your head against your desk, not that you were
masturbating. Freudian slip here, Barney? Just what do you do during your
breaks?
>Nice to see at
> least one head is working - to some degree.
Well, I do find more pleasure with my cranium than my penis, but it is a
very close second. You seem to completely confuse the two as you mentaly
masturbate in this NG.
BTW, its men like you that cause women to beleive that men's dominant brain
is located in their penis.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
>
> In a summer issue of the journal Pediatrics, doctors reported on a
> 2-year-old boy with pubic hair, acne and an enlarged penis as a result of
> accidental, repeated contact with his father's high-testosterone
> body-building cream.
I bet that got your mind to racing, heh.
> See, there's hope for you yet.
Nah, I have plenty of Testosterone. Hair all over my body, big muscular
build (and no work outs), a clear rational mind, heh, I have plenty of
testosterone.
> god still wants you to die.
If this were so, then I would be dead. Apparently, He does not. And you are
wrong again, as if that ever needs statement.
>Of course,
> he/she/it is not able to do anything about it. Maybe if you eat just a
> little more........
One needs to eat to survive, why would that be relevant to your statement?
Sheesh! It seems that you are rapidly sliding into incoherence, laz. Maybe
you should stop snortin the Draino.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
heh, I was engaging in "tit-for-tat" nothing more.
I have respect for honest atheism.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
What great artists are not claimed by the Lavender Lobby as closeted members
of their "persuasion"? I am just curious and thought I would ask for the far
shorter list.
> > > Well, explain how defending the Nazi's right to march at Skokie
further
> > said > goal?
> > >
> > It continues a convenient specter for the Left to solicit donations in
the
> > cause of opposing them.
>
> Forgive me, but that sounds like cynicism at least, and possibly paranoia.
It is very cynical, but then the evidence seems to support such a view. Eit
her the ACLU is too stupid to realise they are fighting 1990's issues with
1950's approaches, or else they just dont care that much about civil rights
anymore. I know these guys are NOT stupid, so I am left with the latter.
What other alternatives do you see?
RGlenCheek
>
Richard G Cheek
> Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
>
> 1) Obviously Carter wasn't EXACTLY Presidential timbre, but was honest.
Oval
White
> House War Room, which he had seen in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove?" (There
IS No
> War Room.)
>
Well, on that kind of evidence, Algore is already senile as well. He was in
Mnt Vernon (IIRC) with Clinton and the WH staffers that shadow the
President, and they entered a room that was filled with busts. Gore looked
around and said, "Who are all these guys?" The President was first
embarrassed, then busted out laughing; they were in a room filled with the
busts of the various Founding Fathers. Men like, you know, Madison,
Jefferson, Monroe, Mason, Franklin, etc. And of course we shouldnt overlook
his claims to be invineter of the Internet, and that his romance with Tipper
was the basis for "Love Story"!
LOL!
RGlenCheek
qjohnshaft
> overlook
> his claims to be invineter of the Internet, and that his romance
> with Tipper
> was the basis for "Love Story"!
> LOL!
> RGlenCheek
Or that he discovered Love Canal or co-sponsored
McCain-Fiengold(eventhough he wasn't in congress at the time), or that
his father was voted out for supporting civil rights.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The-Trainers
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> Well, on that kind of evidence, Algore is already senile as well. He was in
> Mnt Vernon (IIRC) with Clinton and the WH staffers that shadow the
> President, and they entered a room that was filled with busts. Gore looked
> around and said, "Who are all these guys?" The President was first
> embarrassed, then busted out laughing; they were in a room filled with the
> busts of the various Founding Fathers. Men like, you know, Madison,
> Jefferson, Monroe, Mason, Franklin, etc.
Well, that's pretty easy to understand, Al Gore has erased all pro-gun
people from his memory!
MT
Richard G Cheek
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99121...@shell11.ba.best.com...
>
>
>
> >
> > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
>
> > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
>
> as California governor, I recall he was a Democrat then. He destroyed
> the school system here, well most of it anyway.
He may have given it a good nudge, but I suspect it was well on its way
befor ehand. Amerca spends 4 times more on education today than in 1960.
Obviously we are doing something wrong in terms of methodology that money
cant cure. The DC government spends nearly $10,000 per student, and has some
of the worst results in the country.
> > > If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as yet,
> > > we don't have any evidense of that.
> > >
> > > But that's another thread.
>
> > Yeah, it is about twelve threads. I am truly surprised here. Perjury IS
a
> > crime,
>
> Well, by the definition of what he did we would have to convict half the
> people who ever testified in a court of law then.
Is that your experience? In all my life, I only know of one person,
personally, to have committed perjury, and he was a cop. Who do you hang
around, MT?
> > though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
>
> GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
> lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
> stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
I dont see it exactly that way. I think it is very much wrpped up in
partisan politics, true, as is the tobaco issue, IMO. But the Republicans
did what they saw as being in their own partisan interests, leaving a tarred
Algore weakened in 2000. In fact it was so predictable, I predicted it it
about a year before the Senate finally voted on it, as have others. There
are three parties in Washington, a friend told me; the Democratic Party, the
Republican Party, and the Appropriations Party. The latter party has been in
power without interuption for 67 years.
> > I think it is clear that he
> > was involved in the theft of funds in White Water, and the antics going
on
> > at Mena Airport. And thats just a start!
>
> Oh, PUH-LEASE!
>
> Not only is there no reason other than hate for the guy to think that,
> but I don't give a shit anyway, they have nothing to do with the job
> we highered him for.
Why is concern about whether we have a criminal in the WH nothing more than
a "hate" issue, instead of a "good government" issue, or a "justice" issue?
Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway? Yes, I hate
theives, crooks, rapists, drug addicts, and murderers, but that is only
relevant to Clinton if applicable to him. Lets get the facts out; but he has
done everything possible to prevent this. Why?
> > The black market on both sides of the border is going to make alot more
> > money too if Gore gets elected.
>
> They already have.
Impossible, Gore isnt elected yet. They are making money hand over fist now,
true, but that isnt hinged on Algores election, obviously. Algore will
simply expand the market exponentially as the WH and a Democrat controled
Congress bans nearly everything in sight.
> > Polite? Have you ever actually read some of their speeches? I think
Schumer
> > is in a permanent froth!
>
> You beat him all to hell, er heck.
I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a virtue.
RGlenCheek
The-Trainers
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99121...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> >
> > > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
> >
> > Reagan was brain-dead from the second year, he was also an asshole
> > as California governor, I recall he was a Democrat then. He destroyed
> > the school system here, well most of it anyway.
>
> He may have given it a good nudge, but I suspect it was well on its way
> befor ehand.
Having lived here during the Reagan governor years, I can assure you
that it was just fine before Reagan destroyed it. Even my parents could
see that, as did I.
> Amerca spends 4 times more on education today than in 1960.
We spend 10 times more on movies, so what?
Ever hear of inflation?
> Obviously we are doing something wrong in terms of methodology that money
> cant cure.
Indeed. But poverty will make any solutions impossible.
> The DC government spends nearly $10,000 per student, and has some
> of the worst results in the country.
Interestingly enough, they have the highest black concentration, high
poverty and unemployment for blacks and lots of drugs, even in City-Hall,
total gun-ban, highest homicide rates and violent crima rates...
They ALSO have Congress, a coincidence? You decide!
> > > > If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as yet,
> > > > we don't have any evidense of that.
> > > >
> > > > But that's another thread.
> >
> > > Yeah, it is about twelve threads. I am truly surprised here. Perjury IS
> a
> > > crime,
> >
> > Well, by the definition of what he did we would have to convict half the
> > people who ever testified in a court of law then.
> Is that your experience? In all my life, I only know of one person,
> personally, to have committed perjury, and he was a cop. Who do you hang
> around, MT?
I know that the words:
"Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
Is a MAJOR bitch to accomplish, especially that "whole truth" part.
I know that perosecutors AND defense lawyers tell witnesses to keep
their answers short and ONLY give exactly the minimum info REQUIRED
for the answer not to be a lie.
That REQUIRES failing the "whole truth" portion for almost every witness.
> > > though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
> >
> > GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
> > lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
> > stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
> I dont see it exactly that way.
Really? Then you have not paid enough attention to the elections results.
Were you awake during the 1998 election? I know most people were not.
> I think it is very much wrpped up in
> partisan politics, true, as is the tobaco issue, IMO. But the Republicans
> did what they saw as being in their own partisan interests,
And they were WRONG! Why do you think Grinch, er Ginggrinch, er...
you know who I mean, LEFT, basically in disgrace?
> leaving a tarred Algore weakened in 2000.
In the mean-time they LOST seats instead of GAINING seats, how was that
in their "best-interests"?
> In fact it was so predictable, I predicted it it
> about a year before the Senate finally voted on it, as have others. There
> are three parties in Washington, a friend told me; the Democratic Party, the
> Republican Party, and the Appropriations Party. The latter party has been in
> power without interuption for 67 years.
And your point would be?
> > > I think it is clear that he
> > > was involved in the theft of funds in White Water, and the antics going
> on
> > > at Mena Airport. And thats just a start!
> >
> > Oh, PUH-LEASE!
> >
> > Not only is there no reason other than hate for the guy to think that,
> > but I don't give a shit anyway, they have nothing to do with the job
> > we highered him for.
> Why is concern about whether we have a criminal in the WH nothing more than
> a "hate" issue, instead of a "good government" issue, or a "justice" issue?
Because "criminal" has a meaning, and it does NOT mean a bit of
white-collar funny-biz that may or may not have even been illegal.
And MORE IMPORTANTLY, it in NO MANNER relates to his job as prez.
> Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway?
THe shoe fits quite often.
> Yes, I hate
> theives, crooks, rapists, drug addicts, and murderers,
We ALL hate politicians, what was your point?
> but that is only
> relevant to Clinton if applicable to him. Lets get the facts out; but he has
> done everything possible to prevent this. Why?
Are you really that dumb? How many politicians do the same to cover their
skelitons? ALL of them!
> > > The black market on both sides of the border is going to make alot more
> > > money too if Gore gets elected.
> >
> > They already have.
> Impossible, Gore isnt elected yet. They are making money hand over fist now,
> true,
Just from the possiblity of his election has increased the black market
as more people take precautions for the future.
Just like how gun sales skyrocket even on RUMORS of new bad laws in
the works, the same applies to bad politicians possible election.
> but that isnt hinged on Algores election, obviously.
All they need is the fear of the possibility, sort of like Y2K fears
selling things BEFORE hand.
> Algore will
> simply expand the market exponentially as the WH and a Democrat controled
> Congress bans nearly everything in sight.
That is why the black market has been expanding for the last few years
to be prepared.
> > > Polite? Have you ever actually read some of their speeches? I think
> Schumer
> > > is in a permanent froth!
> >
> > You beat him all to hell, er heck.
> I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a virtue.
Sometimes it can help get the message out though.
MT
>
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
Richard G Cheek
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> >
> > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99121...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> > >
> > > > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
> > >
> > > Reagan was brain-dead from the second year, he was also an asshole
> > > as California governor, I recall he was a Democrat then. He destroyed
> > > the school system here, well most of it anyway.
> >
> > He may have given it a good nudge, but I suspect it was well on its way
> > befor ehand.
>
> Having lived here during the Reagan governor years, I can assure you
> that it was just fine before Reagan destroyed it. Even my parents could
> see that, as did I.
Somehow, your highly partisan pov does not make you an objective witness,
IMO.
> > Amerca spends 4 times more on education today than in 1960.
>
> We spend 10 times more on movies, so what?
Well, at least the movies are getting BETTER! Our unionised education
system is getting measurabley WORSE each year!
> Ever hear of inflation?
Yes, and the numbers are adjusted for inflation.
> > Obviously we are doing something wrong in terms of methodology that
money
> > cant cure.
>
> Indeed. But poverty will make any solutions impossible.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bad education and poverty are not
cause and effect relationships, but are simply parralel causes to the SAME
root cause? That cause being that the heavily pro-Democratic partisan
nature of the black community has left them with NOWHERE ELSE TO GO EXCEPT
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! So the Dems can shit all over the blacks as much as
they want, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will run all over each other
trying to get the spot-light so they can cut a deal that will bring the
black community back into line behind the Democrats. Unionised educational
systems, gun bans, high taxes, indulgent law-enforcement, and over-regulated
markets are all Democratic Party standards, and ALSO the biggest reason WHY
the black community was doing better BEFORE desegregation economically,
educationally, and in personal safety!
> > The DC government spends nearly $10,000 per student, and has some
> > of the worst results in the country.
>
> Interestingly enough, they have the highest black concentration, high
> poverty and unemployment for blacks and lots of drugs, even in City-Hall,
> total gun-ban, highest homicide rates and violent crima rates...
>
> They ALSO have Congress, a coincidence? You decide!
No, and it was a Democratic controled institution for 40YEARS! The
Republicans cannot possibley clean up in 5 years what the Dems spent FOUR
DECADES SCREWING UP!
> > > > > If he has done any REAL crimes, that would be different, but as
yet,
> > > > > we don't have any evidense of that.
> > > > >
> > > > > But that's another thread.
> > >
> > > > Yeah, it is about twelve threads. I am truly surprised here.
Perjury IS
> > a
> > > > crime,
> > >
> > > Well, by the definition of what he did we would have to convict half
the
> > > people who ever testified in a court of law then.
>
> > Is that your experience? In all my life, I only know of one person,
> > personally, to have committed perjury, and he was a cop. Who do you
hang
> > around, MT?
>
> I know that the words:
> "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
>
> Is a MAJOR bitch to accomplish, especially that "whole truth" part.
>
> I know that perosecutors AND defense lawyers tell witnesses to keep
> their answers short and ONLY give exactly the minimum info REQUIRED
> for the answer not to be a lie.
>
> That REQUIRES failing the "whole truth" portion for almost every witness.
Then both those lawyers on the defense and prosecution should be disbarred!
The public is not served well by such unethical conduct; they should be run
out on a rail!
> > > > though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
> > >
> > > GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
> > > lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
> > > stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
>
> > I dont see it exactly that way.
>
> Really? Then you have not paid enough attention to the elections results.
No, I have followed them quite well, thanks anyway.
> Were you awake during the 1998 election? I know most people were not.
Yes, and who was voted into the majority in BOTH chambers of Congress?
> > I think it is very much wrpped up in
> > partisan politics, true, as is the tobaco issue, IMO. But the
Republicans
> > did what they saw as being in their own partisan interests,
>
> And they were WRONG! Why do you think Grinch, er Ginggrinch, er...
> you know who I mean, LEFT, basically in disgrace?
Oh, you mean, the Dems FINALLY found something that they could push on
Gingrich? The Republicans are world class experts on PREMPTIVE COMPROMISE!
That is why they are USELESS as an opposition Party!
> > leaving a tarred Algore weakened in 2000.
>
> In the mean-time they LOST seats instead of GAINING seats, how was that
> in their "best-interests"?
They still HELD their MAJORITY, NO? That is a sure sign of being a loser;
bragging that you didnt lose by so much means you have actually WON! LOL!
> > In fact it was so predictable, I predicted it it
> > about a year before the Senate finally voted on it, as have others.
There
> > are three parties in Washington, a friend told me; the Democratic Party,
the
> > Republican Party, and the Appropriations Party. The latter party has
been in
> > power without interuption for 67 years.
>
> And your point would be?
That what the Republican whores in Congress would do was exactly predictable
because it was based on what they saw as their own best interests. If you
would read these things in context, you might understand them better.
> > > > I think it is clear that he
> > > > was involved in the theft of funds in White Water, and the antics
going
> > on
> > > > at Mena Airport. And thats just a start!
> > >
> > > Oh, PUH-LEASE!
> > >
> > > Not only is there no reason other than hate for the guy to think that,
> > > but I don't give a shit anyway, they have nothing to do with the job
> > > we highered him for.
>
> > Why is concern about whether we have a criminal in the WH nothing more
than
> > a "hate" issue, instead of a "good government" issue, or a "justice"
issue?
>
> Because "criminal" has a meaning, and it does NOT mean a bit of
> white-collar funny-biz that may or may not have even been illegal.
Perjury IS illegal! It simply isnt a "high crime" in the context of a
deposition on a civil suit over sexual harrassment before the current
President began to serve.
> And MORE IMPORTANTLY, it in NO MANNER relates to his job as prez.
HIS JOB IS TO BE CHEIF EXECUTOR OF THE LAW AND THAT INCLUDES OBEYING THE
LAW! Damn! No wonder you Democrats have allowed your party to become a nest
of theives, drug addicts, and perverts!
> > Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway?
>
> THe shoe fits quite often.
Bullshit! Clinton is a criminal and a disgrace and it has NOTHING to do
with hatred of him personally. The Democrats are just a bunch of whining
children caught in the act, and now pleading that it was someone else's
fault, someone "made them do it"! LOL! Clinton is an assiciate of known
drug dealers (including his brother Roger), perverts, theives, and liars. I
doubt he is innocent of the criminal morass swirling around him!
> > Yes, I hate
> > theives, crooks, rapists, drug addicts, and murderers,
>
> We ALL hate politicians, what was your point?
Heheh, well I particularly hate the ones that are good at getting away with
it! Remember Sen Bob Kerreys description of Clinton as "a natural born
liar"? Even another poilitician was left in reverent awe of how good
Clinton was at ejectiong his moral compass, gyroscope and sextant all in one
fell swoop!
> > but that is only
> > relevant to Clinton if applicable to him. Lets get the facts out; but he
has
> > done everything possible to prevent this. Why?
>
> Are you really that dumb?
No, are you? Its called a rhetorical question, and what you did is called a
"cheap shot".
>How many politicians do the same to cover their
> skelitons? ALL of them!
No, not true! We still have some very moral men in politics; Kerrey,
Moynahan, Armey, and Byrd immediately come to mind.
< black market snippage >
> > > > Polite? Have you ever actually read some of their speeches? I think
> > Schumer
> > > > is in a permanent froth!
> > >
> > > You beat him all to hell, er heck.
>
> > I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a
virtue.
>
> Sometimes it can help get the message out though.
Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its bearer belies it.
RGlenCheek
lazarus
>
>
> Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its bearer belies
it.
>
> RGlenCheek
>
Hence the fact that we all ignore you.
The-Trainers
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99122...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99121...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> > > >
> > > > > I think Carter was honest, and Reagan, before he was senile.
> > > >
> > > > Reagan was brain-dead from the second year, he was also an asshole
> > > > as California governor, I recall he was a Democrat then. He destroyed
> > > > the school system here, well most of it anyway.
> > >
> > > He may have given it a good nudge, but I suspect it was well on its way
> > > befor ehand.
> >
> > Having lived here during the Reagan governor years, I can assure you
> > that it was just fine before Reagan destroyed it. Even my parents could
> > see that, as did I.
>
> Somehow, your highly partisan pov does not make you an objective witness,
> IMO.
Hey, I always call a spade a spade, even when it dis-agrees with my
politics.
I agreed strongly with many things Reagan did and said, and I said so
at the time. But on a whole, he did more harm than good.
Oh, and I might want to point out that Reagan was a DEMOCRAT when he was
gov of Calif.... Or am I remembering that wrong?
> > > Amerca spends 4 times more on education today than in 1960.
> >
> > We spend 10 times more on movies, so what?
> Well, at least the movies are getting BETTER!
Geeeez, you don't REALLY think Siskle died of natural causes, do you?
The movies killed him!
Where have you been hiding? The movies have been mostly crap this decade.
Great special effects though.
> Our unionised education
> system is getting measurabley WORSE each year!
Someplaces worse than others some better.
The real problem has been the "experimental" "ideas" of the 60s
idiots combined with the stupidity of the cult of "self-esteem".
> > Ever hear of inflation?
> Yes, and the numbers are adjusted for inflation.
By whom?
> > > Obviously we are doing something wrong in terms of methodology that
> money
> > > cant cure.
> >
> > Indeed. But poverty will make any solutions impossible.
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bad education and poverty are not
> cause and effect relationships, but are simply parralel causes to the SAME
> root cause?
Uh, not quite, bad education can be a big contributing factor to poverty,
but not the only one.
> That cause being that the heavily pro-Democratic partisan
> nature of the black community has left them with NOWHERE ELSE TO GO EXCEPT
> THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Now who is being irrationally partisan?
> So the Dems can shit all over the blacks as much as
> they want, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will run all over each other
> trying to get the spot-light so they can cut a deal that will bring the
> black community back into line behind the Democrats.
Makes no sense at all unless you think the Demos are deliberatly causing
poverty.
Stupid 60s exeriments in education are as much to blame.
> Unionised educational
> systems, gun bans, high taxes, indulgent law-enforcement, and over-regulated
> markets are all Democratic Party standards,
Reps supported most of that too.
> and ALSO the biggest reason WHY
> the black community was doing better BEFORE desegregation economically,
> educationally, and in personal safety!
Uh, NO they were not actually, they were just not being counted, thus
their living conditions were not a part of any stats.
> > > The DC government spends nearly $10,000 per student, and has some
> > > of the worst results in the country.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, they have the highest black concentration, high
> > poverty and unemployment for blacks and lots of drugs, even in City-Hall,
> > total gun-ban, highest homicide rates and violent crima rates...
> >
> > They ALSO have Congress, a coincidence? You decide!
> No, and it was a Democratic controled institution for 40YEARS! The
> Republicans cannot possibley clean up in 5 years what the Dems spent FOUR
> DECADES SCREWING UP!
Hey, I count them all pretty much equally guilty in Congress, just
on different bits of the problem.
> > I know that the words:
> > "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
> >
> > Is a MAJOR bitch to accomplish, especially that "whole truth" part.
> >
> > I know that perosecutors AND defense lawyers tell witnesses to keep
> > their answers short and ONLY give exactly the minimum info REQUIRED
> > for the answer not to be a lie.
> >
> > That REQUIRES failing the "whole truth" portion for almost every witness.
> Then both those lawyers on the defense and prosecution should be disbarred!
That would leave ZERO lawyers left!
Hey, wait a sec, you might be on to something...
> The public is not served well by such unethical conduct; they should be run
> out on a rail!
Why don't you take a few days off and go sit in a criminal court or two
and watch a REAL trial, you might get an education. I know I did.
> > > > > though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
> > > >
> > > > GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
> > > > lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
> > > > stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
> >
> > > I dont see it exactly that way.
> >
> > Really? Then you have not paid enough attention to the elections results.
> No, I have followed them quite well, thanks anyway.
As a result of the public being pissed-off at the Republicans, they LOST
seats that they should have won, that is what allowed Al Gore to get a
50-50 tie to break.
> > Were you awake during the 1998 election? I know most people were not.
> Yes, and who was voted into the majority in BOTH chambers of Congress?
The Republicans were already the majority in 1998, but if it had not been
for pissing everyone off, they would have gotten more of a majority.
Or did you mis-read that year? Did you think I said 1996?
> > > I think it is very much wrpped up in
> > > partisan politics, true, as is the tobaco issue, IMO. But the
> Republicans
> > > did what they saw as being in their own partisan interests,
> >
> > And they were WRONG! Why do you think Grinch, er Ginggrinch, er...
> > you know who I mean, LEFT, basically in disgrace?
> Oh, you mean, the Dems FINALLY found something that they could push on
> Gingrich? The Republicans are world class experts on PREMPTIVE COMPROMISE!
> That is why they are USELESS as an opposition Party!
Indeed, but they are all we got, the other parties are useless for
anything since we are fresh-out of Jesse Venturas!
> > > leaving a tarred Algore weakened in 2000.
> >
> > In the mean-time they LOST seats instead of GAINING seats, how was that
> > in their "best-interests"?
> They still HELD their MAJORITY, NO? That is a sure sign of being a loser;
> bragging that you didnt lose by so much means you have actually WON! LOL!
The Reps LOST seats that they SHOULD have won, that was the point
and what was important.
> > > In fact it was so predictable, I predicted it it
> > > about a year before the Senate finally voted on it, as have others.
> There
> > > are three parties in Washington, a friend told me; the Democratic Party,
> the
> > > Republican Party, and the Appropriations Party. The latter party has
> been in
> > > power without interuption for 67 years.
> >
> > And your point would be?
>
> That what the Republican whores in Congress would do was exactly predictable
> because it was based on what they saw as their own best interests. If you
> would read these things in context, you might understand them better.
I read in-context, but your remarks were irrelevant to the point I raised.
Which was the Reps pissed-off so many people prior to the 1998 election
they LOST seats that would have prevented the 50-50 problem.
> > Because "criminal" has a meaning, and it does NOT mean a bit of
> > white-collar funny-biz that may or may not have even been illegal.
> Perjury IS illegal!
Yawn, as I said, by that standard just abut everyone who ever testified
in a court would be guilty.
> It simply isnt a "high crime" in the context of a
> deposition on a civil suit over sexual harrassment before the current
> President began to serve.
Then the Reps were guilty of wasting our time/money on the witch-hunt.
> > And MORE IMPORTANTLY, it in NO MANNER relates to his job as prez.
> HIS JOB IS TO BE CHEIF EXECUTOR OF THE LAW AND THAT INCLUDES OBEYING THE
> LAW!
In the PAST?????
What laws did he violate in the PRESENT, you know DURING his term?
> Damn! No wonder you Democrats have allowed your party to become a nest
> of theives, drug addicts, and perverts!
Oh, you mean like all those Reps in Congress?????
> > > Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway?
> >
> > THe shoe fits quite often.
> Bullshit! Clinton is a criminal
I see, so when it comes to Democrats, especially winners, you just
toss-out the innocent untill proven guilty bit, right?
> and a disgrace
How is Clinton ANY different from any other prez?
Oh, yeah, we spent 50 million outing his dirty laundry while he was
in office instead of later on.
> and it has NOTHING to do with hatred of him personally.
Sure it does, especially when you make Reagan into a god by comparison.
> The Democrats are just a bunch of whining
> children caught in the act,
And that differes from Reps, how exactly?
> and now pleading that it was someone else's fault,
See above.
> someone "made them do it"! LOL!
"Youthful indiscretion" at 48....
You have yet to show any difference between Reps and Dems.
> Clinton is an assiciate of known drug dealers
Oh, you mean like Noreiga? Oh, wait, that was Reagan and Bush...
> (including his brother Roger), perverts,
Hey, we perverts are fun people, you really are not helping your case.
Besides, the Reps have some pretty kinky candidates too!
> theives, and liars. I
> doubt he is innocent of the criminal morass swirling around him!
Fortunately we have innocent untill proven guilty, or do you prefer to
forget that part where Clinton is concerned?
> > > Yes, I hate
> > > theives, crooks, rapists, drug addicts, and murderers,
> >
> > We ALL hate politicians, what was your point?
> Heheh, well I particularly hate the ones that are good at getting away with
> it!
I KNEW IT!!!!!!!
It all boils down to jealosy over how good he is at getting away
with things!
> Remember Sen Bob Kerreys description of Clinton as "a natural born
> liar"?
And that differes from Reagan in what way????
> Even another poilitician was left in reverent awe of how good
> Clinton was at ejectiong his moral compass, gyroscope and sextant all in one
> fell swoop!
And that makes him different in what way????
> > > but that is only
> > > relevant to Clinton if applicable to him. Lets get the facts out; but he
> has
> > > done everything possible to prevent this. Why?
> >
> > Are you really that dumb?
> No, are you? Its called a rhetorical question, and what you did is called a
> "cheap shot".
IT was surprise that you failed to get the point.
> > How many politicians do the same to cover their
> > skelitons? ALL of them!
> No, not true! We still have some very moral men in politics; Kerrey,
> Moynahan, Armey, and Byrd immediately come to mind.
Too few, too far between, assuming you are even right about them.
> > > I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a
> virtue.
> >
> > Sometimes it can help get the message out though.
> Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its bearer belies it.
These days, the opposite is just as often true.
MT
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
Richard G Cheek
>
> Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:84c9a7$9er$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >
> it.
> >
> > RGlenCheek
> >
>
>
>
>
LOL! Can there be a better example of a self-contradicting statement?
Can there be a better example of Leftist logic?
Thanks, you made my day.
RGlenCheek
lazarus
>
> lazarus <laza...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3Aia4.1963$9e3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:84c9a7$9er$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > >
belies
> > it.
> > >
> > > RGlenCheek
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> LOL! Can there be a better example of a self-contradicting statement?
>
Yes. The bible.
> Can there be a better example of Leftist logic?
>
Whatever that might mean. You still haven't responded to my repeated
requests to document your conclusion that I'm a leftist. But then, you also
haven't responded to anything else you can't simply laugh at. Anytime
someone has posted something you can't handle, you have ignored it.
--
lazarus
I shave with Occam's Razor every morning.
"Question with boldness even the existence of God;
because if there be one, He must approve the homage
of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."
Thomas Jefferson
Richard G Cheek
ok, sure.
> I agreed strongly with many things Reagan did and said, and I said so
> at the time. But on a whole, he did more harm than good.
I think he did some harm, but more good. I think he and John Paull II are
the primary two people responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Reagan's Star Wars programs pushed the Kremlin into bankruptcy, and John
Pauls willingness to go to Polands defense personally paralyzed the Kremlins
will to crush Solidarity. With this in mind, I cannot give Dutch a failing
grade, and he still surpasses his predecessor.
> Oh, and I might want to point out that Reagan was a DEMOCRAT when he was
> gov of Calif.... Or am I remembering that wrong?
I know he was a Democrat before the Party left him, but I think he was a
Publican while he was govenor, in fact, I think he was running for the
Publican nomination in 68, wasnt he?
> > > > Amerca spends 4 times more on education today than in 1960.
> > >
> > > We spend 10 times more on movies, so what?
>
> > Well, at least the movies are getting BETTER!
>
> Geeeez, you don't REALLY think Siskle died of natural causes, do you?
> The movies killed him!
LOL! I wouldnt be surprised! I can never remember, was he the fat one or
the skinny one?
> Where have you been hiding? The movies have been mostly crap this decade.
> Great special effects though.
Oh, I disagree. "Legends of the fall", "Silence of the Lambs", "The Edge",
"Unforgiven", "Pale Rider", "Pulp Fiction" were all inprovements on the
genre, IMO. I especially like "From Dusk till Dawn"!
> > Our unionised education
> > system is getting measurabley WORSE each year!
>
> Someplaces worse than others some better.
>
> The real problem has been the "experimental" "ideas" of the 60s
> idiots combined with the stupidity of the cult of "self-esteem".
That is the core of it, yes. Thinking that throwing money at problems will
solve them is another.
> > > Ever hear of inflation?
>
> > Yes, and the numbers are adjusted for inflation.
>
> By whom?
Crap, cant find the article. Hell, cant remember. I hate to say you can
find it if you need to, but... well, there it is.
> > > > Obviously we are doing something wrong in terms of methodology that
> > money
> > > > cant cure.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But poverty will make any solutions impossible.
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bad education and poverty are
not
> > cause and effect relationships, but are simply parralel causes to the
SAME
> > root cause?
>
> Uh, not quite, bad education can be a big contributing factor to poverty,
> but not the only one.
Yes, one major contributing factor, but only one.
> > That cause being that the heavily pro-Democratic partisan
> > nature of the black community has left them with NOWHERE ELSE TO GO
EXCEPT
> > THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
>
> Now who is being irrationally partisan?
What is rational about leaving no competition for your votes? W Bush shows
that the Publicans have essentially given up on the black community, and are
pursuing Hispanics instead. This solid block voting pattern that the black
community engages in benefits no one but the Democrats; and the state of the
inner cities demonstrates this.
> > So the Dems can shit all over the blacks as much as
> > they want, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will run all over each
other
> > trying to get the spot-light so they can cut a deal that will bring the
> > black community back into line behind the Democrats.
>
> Makes no sense at all unless you think the Demos are deliberatly causing
> poverty.
I think that the guys at the top are committed Leftists for whom results are
secondary to ideology. Damn Rouseau.
> Stupid 60s exeriments in education are as much to blame.
Agreed.
> > Unionised educational
> > systems, gun bans, high taxes, indulgent law-enforcement, and
over-regulated
> > markets are all Democratic Party standards,
>
> Reps supported most of that too.
Much less so. They are very well trained lap-dogs, after 40 years, you have
to give credit where its due.
> > and ALSO the biggest reason WHY
> > the black community was doing better BEFORE desegregation economically,
> > educationally, and in personal safety!
>
> Uh, NO they were not actually, they were just not being counted, thus
> their living conditions were not a part of any stats.
Well, I can get the data here for you, I think. It is an eye opener. Not
nearly as many blacks were lynched by the Klan as are killed by gangs every
year in the US, for instance. You would like that if you were a Klansman;
more dead blacks with no effort and no risk of trial. Still, better freedom
in poverty and crime than security in peasantry, so they HAVE had a step up,
no doubt. It COULD be better if they developed some more political options.
> > > > The DC government spends nearly $10,000 per student, and has some
> > > > of the worst results in the country.
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough, they have the highest black concentration, high
> > > poverty and unemployment for blacks and lots of drugs, even in
City-Hall,
> > > total gun-ban, highest homicide rates and violent crima rates...
> > >
> > > They ALSO have Congress, a coincidence? You decide!
>
> > No, and it was a Democratic controled institution for 40YEARS! The
> > Republicans cannot possibley clean up in 5 years what the Dems spent
FOUR
> > DECADES SCREWING UP!
>
> Hey, I count them all pretty much equally guilty in Congress, just
> on different bits of the problem.
You have a point, but I think it unfair to equate 40 years of corruption
with 5 years of stupidity!
> > > I know that the words:
> > > "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
> > >
> > > Is a MAJOR bitch to accomplish, especially that "whole truth" part.
> > >
> > > I know that perosecutors AND defense lawyers tell witnesses to keep
> > > their answers short and ONLY give exactly the minimum info REQUIRED
> > > for the answer not to be a lie.
> > >
> > > That REQUIRES failing the "whole truth" portion for almost every
witness.
>
> > Then both those lawyers on the defense and prosecution should be
disbarred!
>
> That would leave ZERO lawyers left!
>
> Hey, wait a sec, you might be on to something...
Heheh, but, seriously, most lawyers, IMO, are ethical, if mostly legalistic.
Their reputation for corruption, I think, is not warranted when carefully
considered.
> > The public is not served well by such unethical conduct; they should be
run
> > out on a rail!
>
> Why don't you take a few days off and go sit in a criminal court or two
> and watch a REAL trial, you might get an education. I know I did.
Well, I have been in several, though not on a jury as my wife has twice.
She said it reminds her of that old saying about never watching balogna
being made.
> > > > > > though not an impeachable crime, IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > GOOD, then maybe you understand that our current mess with Federal
> > > > > lawmakers trying to push gun-control is a direct result of the
> > > > > stupid attempt at destroying Clinton, right?
> > >
> > > > I dont see it exactly that way.
> > >
> > > Really? Then you have not paid enough attention to the elections
results.
>
> > No, I have followed them quite well, thanks anyway.
>
> As a result of the public being pissed-off at the Republicans, they LOST
> seats that they should have won, that is what allowed Al Gore to get a
> 50-50 tie to break.
Well, you are lumping in the "moderate" Publicans with the Dems here. The
next election will be interesting, as they all are to me. I respect
Bradley, but cant abide his anti-gun positions. Algore is just a googoo from
the South. The only two Publicans I find much respect for are Steve Forbes
and Allen Keyes, but Keyes is too radical. McCain was implicated in the
"Keating Five" scandal and I know the Dems would rather run against him. If
Buchanon takes the Reform Party nomination, I dont know who I will vote for;
probably Libertarian.
> > > Were you awake during the 1998 election? I know most people were not.
>
> > Yes, and who was voted into the majority in BOTH chambers of Congress?
>
> The Republicans were already the majority in 1998, but if it had not been
> for pissing everyone off, they would have gotten more of a majority.
>
> Or did you mis-read that year? Did you think I said 1996?
No, but since the House re-elects its members every two years, that the
Publicans still got a majority, though a smaller one, they still represent
the majority of Americans, IMO.
> > > > I think it is very much wrpped up in
> > > > partisan politics, true, as is the tobaco issue, IMO. But the
> > Republicans
> > > > did what they saw as being in their own partisan interests,
> > >
> > > And they were WRONG! Why do you think Grinch, er Ginggrinch, er...
> > > you know who I mean, LEFT, basically in disgrace?
>
> > Oh, you mean, the Dems FINALLY found something that they could push on
> > Gingrich? The Republicans are world class experts on PREMPTIVE
COMPROMISE!
> > That is why they are USELESS as an opposition Party!
>
> Indeed, but they are all we got, the other parties are useless for
> anything since we are fresh-out of Jesse Venturas!
Well, just wait on that one-in a few more years, you may get your wish!
> > > > leaving a tarred Algore weakened in 2000.
> > >
> > > In the mean-time they LOST seats instead of GAINING seats, how was
that
> > > in their "best-interests"?
>
> > They still HELD their MAJORITY, NO? That is a sure sign of being a
loser;
> > bragging that you didnt lose by so much means you have actually WON!
LOL!
>
> The Reps LOST seats that they SHOULD have won, that was the point
> and what was important.
"Should have one" is an often self-serving evaluation, and an integral part
of "spinning" the elections. A majority is still a majority. Were it not for
Perot, and his supporters like me, we would be looking at a President Dole
leading a Publican Congress into deep waters of Social Darwinism Light. You
Dems owe us Perotistas.
> > > > In fact it was so predictable, I predicted it it
> > > > about a year before the Senate finally voted on it, as have others.
> > There
> > > > are three parties in Washington, a friend told me; the Democratic
Party,
> > the
> > > > Republican Party, and the Appropriations Party. The latter party has
> > been in
> > > > power without interuption for 67 years.
> > >
> > > And your point would be?
> >
> > That what the Republican whores in Congress would do was exactly
predictable
> > because it was based on what they saw as their own best interests. If
you
> > would read these things in context, you might understand them better.
>
> I read in-context, but your remarks were irrelevant to the point I raised.
Honestly, I dont remember your original point now, lol. The counter-point I
was trying to make, was that the Publicans were just as cynical in their use
of the impeachment process as were the partisan Dems. That a number of
people I know personally predicted what happened EXACTLY based on the purely
political pov view of Senate Publicans illustrates how hypocrital the Senate
Publicans were and are.
> Which was the Reps pissed-off so many people prior to the 1998 election
> they LOST seats that would have prevented the 50-50 problem.
Oh, bother.
> > > Because "criminal" has a meaning, and it does NOT mean a bit of
> > > white-collar funny-biz that may or may not have even been illegal.
>
> > Perjury IS illegal!
>
> Yawn, as I said, by that standard just abut everyone who ever testified
> in a court would be guilty.
Oh, that is preposterous, and you know it. It confirms that you have no
sense of compulsion when under oath, but perhaps that is related to your
atheism.
> > It simply isnt a "high crime" in the context of a
> > deposition on a civil suit over sexual harrassment before the current
> > President began to serve.
>
> Then the Reps were guilty of wasting our time/money on the witch-hunt.
I disagree. Once the Prosecuter brought the charges to the House, they had
a duty to carry out their roles. Other than the partisan cynicism, I am
glad that the Constitutional process was respected.
> > > And MORE IMPORTANTLY, it in NO MANNER relates to his job as prez.
>
> > HIS JOB IS TO BE CHEIF EXECUTOR OF THE LAW AND THAT INCLUDES OBEYING THE
> > LAW!
>
> In the PAST?????
>
> What laws did he violate in the PRESENT, you know DURING his term?
MT, please check your calendar. Clinton committed perjury while testifying
in the Paula Jones Suit and probably again in the grand jury investigation
of this initial perjury, and all of it was during his term. But the weight
of a perjury charge is relative, once again, to the gravity of the charges
being lied about, IIUIC.
> > Damn! No wonder you Democrats have allowed your party to become a nest
> > of theives, drug addicts, and perverts!
>
> Oh, you mean like all those Reps in Congress?????
Ha! Thats at the national level, I am talking about corruption down to the
local precincts!
> > > > Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway?
> > >
> > > THe shoe fits quite often.
>
> > Bullshit! Clinton is a criminal
>
> I see, so when it comes to Democrats, especially winners, you just
> toss-out the innocent untill proven guilty bit, right?
If he were not President, he would be in jail right alongside his other
buddies, Hubbel and Tucker. He may still be prosecuted after he leaves
office. Besides, my personal opinion about what probably is true, is not
subject to legalistic reeds like that. If Clinton we on trial before me, I
would be much more careful, but as a matter of personal opinion I have more
range and I feel free to use it.
> > and a disgrace
>
> How is Clinton ANY different from any other prez?
Draft-dodger, sexual predator, theif, and a perjurer; huh, you tell me. You
have ust demonstrated hwo far the Dems have slid for Truman, the BEST damned
president we had in this century!
> Oh, yeah, we spent 50 million outing his dirty laundry while he was
> in office instead of later on.
Eh, Starrs investigation bagged a lot of crooks, even though he didnt get
the Big Turkey! And that Turkey may yet find itself in the cooker.
> > and it has NOTHING to do with hatred of him personally.
>
> Sure it does, especially when you make Reagan into a god by comparison.
Pishaw! Reagan was an adorable, boyant optimist, who was suffering from
advancing dementia. But even so, he still did a better job than Mondale
would have, IMO. That hardly makes Reagan a god!
> > The Democrats are just a bunch of whining
> > children caught in the act,
>
> And that differes from Reps, how exactly?
They dont whine, they just tuck tail and scamper under the couch.
> > and now pleading that it was someone else's fault,
>
> See above.
>
> > someone "made them do it"! LOL!
>
> "Youthful indiscretion" at 48....
>
> You have yet to show any difference between Reps and Dems.
Nah, I showed it in a kalaidoscope of ways, but you wont let yourself see
it. The only reason that the Publicans are not as corrupt as the Dems is
because they are too stupid to get away with it for very long, but at least
that leaves them more honest! heheheh, I am actually enjoying the hell out
of this. When discussing the corruption of the major parties, I am in a
target-rich environment!
> > Clinton is an assiciate of known drug dealers
>
> Oh, you mean like Noreiga? Oh, wait, that was Reagan and Bush...
Like Lassiter, and his bubba Roger.
> > (including his brother Roger), perverts,
>
> Hey, we perverts are fun people, you really are not helping your case.
I keep seeing these references to your preference for masks and whips, but I
honestly thought you'd be into dripping wax and hot wires by now.
> Besides, the Reps have some pretty kinky candidates too!
Well, I uspect that Barney Frank had a "fondness" for Bushes Senate gymn
locker for SOME reason! lol
> > theives, and liars. I
> > doubt he is innocent of the criminal morass swirling around him!
>
> Fortunately we have innocent untill proven guilty, or do you prefer to
> forget that part where Clinton is concerned?
In matters of opinion, I subscribe to the "water-sinks-to-its-own-level"
theory. It works quie well enough.
> > > > Yes, I hate
> > > > theives, crooks, rapists, drug addicts, and murderers,
> > >
> > > We ALL hate politicians, what was your point?
>
> > Heheh, well I particularly hate the ones that are good at getting away
with
> > it!
>
> I KNEW IT!!!!!!!
>
> It all boils down to jealosy over how good he is at getting away
> with things!
That isnt jealousy, it is a recognition of the danger it poses to our
Republic. Corruption is the death knell to most democracies, by far, even
going back to ancient times.
> > Remember Sen Bob Kerreys description of Clinton as "a natural born
> > liar"?
>
> And that differes from Reagan in what way????
While Reagan may have lied, he isnt a "natural" at it.
> > Even another poilitician was left in reverent awe of how good
> > Clinton was at ejectiong his moral compass, gyroscope and sextant all in
one
> > fell swoop!
>
> And that makes him different in what way????
See above.
> > > > but that is only
> > > > relevant to Clinton if applicable to him. Lets get the facts out;
but he
> > has
> > > > done everything possible to prevent this. Why?
> > >
> > > Are you really that dumb?
>
> > No, are you? Its called a rhetorical question, and what you did is
called a
> > "cheap shot".
>
> IT was surprise that you failed to get the point.
Your comfortableness with openly partisan dishonesty is not universally
shared in this country. You need to get out more and meet some genuine
people, and fewer politicians and tort lawyers..
> > > How many politicians do the same to cover their
> > > skelitons? ALL of them!
>
> > No, not true! We still have some very moral men in politics; Kerrey,
> > Moynahan, Armey, and Byrd immediately come to mind.
>
> Too few, too far between, assuming you are even right about them.
But it is a sign of life; so it isnt too late, not yet.
> > > > I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a
> > virtue.
> > >
> > > Sometimes it can help get the message out though.
>
> > Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its bearer belies
it.
>
> These days, the opposite is just as often true.
Were I to claim that an insult of my wife were offensive, yet showed no
emotion or intransigent opposition, my conduct would disprove my claims
implicitly. When Freedom is in jeopardy, the time for polite measures is
over, and resolute steps have to be implemented.
It is, and they are.
RGlenCheek
The-Trainers
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Richard G Cheek wrote:
>
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.21.99122...@shell11.ba.best.com...
> > Hey, I always call a spade a spade, even when it dis-agrees with my
> > politics.
> ok, sure.
Sarcasm?
> > I agreed strongly with many things Reagan did and said, and I said so
> > at the time. But on a whole, he did more harm than good.
> I think he did some harm, but more good. I think he and John Paull II are
> the primary two people responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
YOU would!
The USSR was doomed to die a sudden-death from the start, no option.
It is no co-inky-dink that the USSR fell apart when the very first
post-revolution enlightened leader finally took the reigns once
all the old-school communist true-believers finally DIED!
The USSR lived only as long as the life-times of the original group
of true believers did.
Same will be true of Cuba, it will ONLY remain as it is untill
Castro dies.
Now I do give a little nod to John-Paul for Poland getting it's act
together early, but more to that little long-shoreman.
> Reagan's Star Wars programs pushed the Kremlin into bankruptcy,
Well, you got that one right, and NOW we Americans and the rest of the
world are PAYING the COST of a bankrupt Russia!
I call that a serious bit of severe dammage done by Reagan.
The financial pressure put on the USSR was utterly irrelevant DURING
the USSR and ONLY made a difference AFTER the collapse and we will
all be paying that bill for a few generation.
> and John
> Pauls willingness to go to Polands defense personally paralyzed the Kremlins
> will to crush Solidarity.
Perhaps a little, but really, solidarity was it's own force and it's own
protection.
> With this in mind, I cannot give Dutch a failing
> grade, and he still surpasses his predecessor.
What?
> > Oh, and I might want to point out that Reagan was a DEMOCRAT when he was
> > gov of Calif.... Or am I remembering that wrong?
> I know he was a Democrat before the Party left him, but I think he was a
> Publican while he was govenor, in fact, I think he was running for the
> Publican nomination in 68, wasnt he?
Don't recall.
> > Where have you been hiding? The movies have been mostly crap this decade.
> > Great special effects though.
> Oh, I disagree. "Legends of the fall",
Utter crap.
> "Silence of the Lambs",
Excellant.
> "The Edge", "Unforgiven", "Pale Rider",
All utter crap.
> "Pulp Fiction"
Excellant.
> were all inprovements on the
> genre, IMO. I especially like "From Dusk till Dawn"!
That was the vampire one? That was cool, but harldy a new high
on the subject.
Maybe you really don't know how crappy the movies have been.
> > The real problem has been the "experimental" "ideas" of the 60s
> > idiots combined with the stupidity of the cult of "self-esteem".
> That is the core of it, yes. Thinking that throwing money at problems will
> solve them is another.
Well, more money would have helped a lot if not for the idiots in-charge
trying all these moronic experiments.
As far as schools are concerned I fall back on:
"If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it!"
The problem was that many idiots decided to "fix" what was NOT BROKEN
untill they "fixed" it.
For most of the bad shools in the 60s & 70s, money was indeed the cure,
if it had not been de-railed by all the experiments.
> > > Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bad education and poverty are
> not
> > > cause and effect relationships, but are simply parralel causes to the
> SAME
> > > root cause?
> >
> > Uh, not quite, bad education can be a big contributing factor to poverty,
> > but not the only one.
> Yes, one major contributing factor, but only one.
One could at least have admitted it was the biggest factor.
> > > That cause being that the heavily pro-Democratic partisan
> > > nature of the black community has left them with NOWHERE ELSE TO GO
> EXCEPT
> > > THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
> >
> > Now who is being irrationally partisan?
>
> What is rational about leaving no competition for your votes?
It's called not wanting to waste your votes on those who have no chance of
winning.
Remember, we are fresh out of Jesse Venturas right now.
> W Bush shows
> that the Publicans have essentially given up on the black community, and are
> pursuing Hispanics instead.
Estimates show that California will be 48% mexicans in the next census,
31% whites, 15% asians, 6% blacks...
Uh, who would YOU be courting?
> This solid block voting pattern that the black
> community engages in benefits no one but the Democrats; and the state of the
> inner cities demonstrates this.
Indeed, and what choice do they have?
Oh, I know, Ross Perot, right?
> > > Unionised educational
> > > systems, gun bans, high taxes, indulgent law-enforcement, and
> over-regulated
> > > markets are all Democratic Party standards,
> >
> > Reps supported most of that too.
>
> Much less so. They are very well trained lap-dogs, after 40 years, you have
> to give credit where its due.
Ok, 60% for the Demos, 40% for the Reps, gee, that makes it all better,
right?
> > > and ALSO the biggest reason WHY
> > > the black community was doing better BEFORE desegregation economically,
> > > educationally, and in personal safety!
> >
> > Uh, NO they were not actually, they were just not being counted, thus
> > their living conditions were not a part of any stats.
> Well, I can get the data here for you, I think. It is an eye opener.
Not likely, I've been all through stuff like that ages ago.
> Not
> nearly as many blacks were lynched by the Klan as are killed by gangs every
> year in the US, for instance.
That is the same idiotic method of comparison as the gun-haters use
as an excuse to hate guns.
It is irrelevant AND un-verifyable besides.
How many people have been killed by the mafia?
> You would like that if you were a Klansman;
WHY?
> more dead blacks with no effort and no risk of trial.
NOT the point of the Klan and NEVER was, they were about terror and
control over blacks, those stats would show how impotent the Klan
really was, that does not help their goals one bit.
> Still, better freedom
> in poverty and crime than security in peasantry, so they HAVE had a step up,
> no doubt. It COULD be better if they developed some more political options.
Perhaps.
> > Hey, I count them all pretty much equally guilty in Congress, just
> > on different bits of the problem.
> You have a point,
I always do.
> but I think it unfair to equate 40 years of corruption
> with 5 years of stupidity!
Naaaa, I count them all as 200 years of corruption.
> > > > That REQUIRES failing the "whole truth" portion for almost every
> witness.
> >
> > > Then both those lawyers on the defense and prosecution should be
> disbarred!
> >
> > That would leave ZERO lawyers left!
> >
> > Hey, wait a sec, you might be on to something...
> Heheh, but, seriously,
Hey, wait, I though I WAS being serious...
> most lawyers, IMO, are ethical, if mostly legalistic.
> Their reputation for corruption, I think, is not warranted when carefully
> considered.
There is NOTHING un-ethical in telling a witness to stick to short
simple answers and not offering up extra info.
> > Why don't you take a few days off and go sit in a criminal court or two
> > and watch a REAL trial, you might get an education. I know I did.
> Well, I have been in several,
Well, I think as defendant you would be a tad distracted to pay
close attention.... ;-)
> though not on a jury as my wife has twice.
> She said it reminds her of that old saying about never watching balogna
> being made.
Not a bad comment.
> > As a result of the public being pissed-off at the Republicans, they LOST
> > seats that they should have won, that is what allowed Al Gore to get a
> > 50-50 tie to break.
> Well, you are lumping in the "moderate" Publicans with the Dems here.
Irrelevant to the point.
> The next election will be interesting, as they all are to me. I respect
> Bradley,
Jackass on guns and other issues, right on some.
> but cant abide his anti-gun positions. Algore is just a googoo from
> the South.
Irrelevant, he is right on most issues, but so far wrong on guns I can't
stomach him.
> The only two Publicans I find much respect for are Steve Forbes
Utterly insane.
> and Allen Keyes, but Keyes is too radical.
WRONG on many issues, abortion for one.
> McCain was implicated in the
> "Keating Five" scandal and I know the Dems would rather run against him.
And that is the ONLY reason why that issue matters at all.
He would be a loser for the Reps unless he can somhow de-fuse that.
> If
> Buchanon takes the Reform Party nomination, I dont know who I will vote for;
> probably Libertarian.
Another wasted vote for a serious nut-case.
Wouldn't you like to vote for a candidate who could win?
> No, but since the House re-elects its members every two years, that the
> Publicans still got a majority, though a smaller one, they still represent
> the majority of Americans, IMO.
NOT! They LOST seats becaus they pissed people off going after Clinton
for no good reason and that was why we are in danger of losing our
gun-rights now.
> > anything since we are fresh-out of Jesse Venturas!
> Well, just wait on that one-in a few more years, you may get your wish!
Sorry, I would rather NOT let Dems take away my gun-rights in four years
flat while we wait.
> > The Reps LOST seats that they SHOULD have won, that was the point
> > and what was important.
> "Should have one" is an often self-serving evaluation, and an integral part
> of "spinning" the elections.
Uh, the Dems were shocked by the wins they had, the loss of those seats
for the Reps was a results of people being pissed and that was why we lost
the 50-50 vote in the Senate.
> A majority is still a majority.
NOT when you got Al Gore sitting there breaking ties!
> Were it not for
> Perot, and his supporters like me,
Yuo are not helping the cause of showing rational gun-owners.
> we would be looking at a President Dole
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Nothing was going to un-seat Clinton, except Monica, and that is
figurative.
> Honestly, I dont remember your original point now, lol.
The point was that as a result of the idiotic witch-hunt against Clinton
the Reps LOST vital seats in Congress when they COULD have GAINED vital
seats instead.
That loss is what put Clinton in the position of being able to place
anti-gun laws on the agenda.
> > > Perjury IS illegal!
> >
> > Yawn, as I said, by that standard just abut everyone who ever testified
> > in a court would be guilty.
>
> Oh, that is preposterous, and you know it.
Not at all.
> It confirms that you have no
> sense of compulsion when under oath, but perhaps that is related to your
> atheism.
Not at all.
I know full-well that there are many correct answers to questions,
the law as applied does NOT require you to answer fully all possible
answers, but ONLY those which are proper.
> > > It simply isnt a "high crime" in the context of a
> > > deposition on a civil suit over sexual harrassment before the current
> > > President began to serve.
> >
> > Then the Reps were guilty of wasting our time/money on the witch-hunt.
> I disagree.
You disagree with yourself then.
> Once the Prosecuter brought the charges to the House, they had
> a duty to carry out their roles.
It should have been shut-down LONG BEFORE that point, and even when the
jud-comm got it, they shoudl have dropped it and taken the high-road
instead.
A good speech by Hyde would have shamed Clinton, put the whol mess behind
us AND would have won public favor to the point of WINNING seats
as a bonus.
Star should NEVER have been allowed to look at Clintons sex-life.
> Other than the partisan cynicism, I am
> glad that the Constitutional process was respected.
It was pissed on, not respected.
I guess on a religious scale, a cigar is of more importance than our
Constitution.
> > > > And MORE IMPORTANTLY, it in NO MANNER relates to his job as prez.
> >
> > > HIS JOB IS TO BE CHEIF EXECUTOR OF THE LAW AND THAT INCLUDES OBEYING THE
> > > LAW!
> >
> > In the PAST?????
> >
> > What laws did he violate in the PRESENT, you know DURING his term?
> MT, please check your calendar.
YOU should, this is the 1990s, NOT the 1600s, they don't tatto
scarlet letters on peoples foreheads these days.
> Clinton committed perjury while testifying
> in the Paula Jones Suit and probably again in the grand jury investigation
> of this initial perjury, and all of it was during his term. But the weight
> of a perjury charge is relative, once again, to the gravity of the charges
> being lied about, IIUIC.
All of whic are horse-shit and should never been allowed to proceed
at the time, NOR should many of the questions have been allowed
at that time.
Show me a REAL crime, not idiotic perjury relating to sex.
> > > Damn! No wonder you Democrats have allowed your party to become a nest
> > > of theives, drug addicts, and perverts!
> >
> > Oh, you mean like all those Reps in Congress?????
> Ha! Thats at the national level, I am talking about corruption down to the
> local precincts!
And there is any difference there?
> > > > > Why are Demoncrats so quick to sling that word around, anyway?
> > > >
> > > > THe shoe fits quite often.
> >
> > > Bullshit! Clinton is a criminal
> >
> > I see, so when it comes to Democrats, especially winners, you just
> > toss-out the innocent untill proven guilty bit, right?
> If he were not President, he would be in jail right alongside his other
> buddies, Hubbel and Tucker.
LOL!
If so then he will be soon, but he won't be, and he would NOT have been
then. He was ONLY pursued BECAUSE he was prez.
> He may still be prosecuted after he leaves office.
Yawn, only out of spite.
> > > and a disgrace
> >
> > How is Clinton ANY different from any other prez?
> Draft-dodger,
Quayle?
> sexual predator,
Kennedy?
> theif,
Pick a prez?
> and a perjurer;
Pick a prez?
> huh, you tell me.
Fits them all as far as I can see.
> You
> have ust demonstrated hwo far the Dems have slid for Truman, the BEST damned
> president we had in this century!
The "New-Deal" was not bad as an experiment, we just took it too far
since.
> > Oh, yeah, we spent 50 million outing his dirty laundry while he was
> > in office instead of later on.
>
> Eh, Starrs investigation bagged a lot of crooks,
Yeah, sure, a lot of un-lucky bastards doing what was common biz
and was only un-lucky because they had been touched by Clinton
who later became prez.
I don't consider that a bargain, especially when we consider the price
paid, NO not the money.
> > > and it has NOTHING to do with hatred of him personally.
> >
> > Sure it does, especially when you make Reagan into a god by comparison.
> Pishaw! Reagan was an adorable, boyant optimist, who was suffering from
> advancing dementia. But even so, he still did a better job than Mondale
Ok, I'll buy that.
> would have, IMO. That hardly makes Reagan a god!
Anyone who fails to see how much damage he did and how long the world
will be paying for it is seeing him as a god.
> > > The Democrats are just a bunch of whining
> > > children caught in the act,
> >
> > And that differes from Reps, how exactly?
>
> They dont whine, they just tuck tail and scamper under the couch.
Ah, cockroaches then, ok.
> > > and now pleading that it was someone else's fault,
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > someone "made them do it"! LOL!
> >
> > "Youthful indiscretion" at 48....
> >
> > You have yet to show any difference between Reps and Dems.
> Nah, I showed it in a kalaidoscope of ways, but you wont let yourself see
> it.
I see that all your supposed differences fit both sides equally.
> The only reason that the Publicans are not as corrupt as the Dems is
That is one you would have to prove, they are indeed as corrupt,
but they have different motives and slightly different methods,
but they are equally corrupt.
> > > (including his brother Roger), perverts,
> >
> > Hey, we perverts are fun people, you really are not helping your case.
> I keep seeing these references to your preference for masks and whips, but I
> honestly thought you'd be into dripping wax and hot wires by now.
Oh, I been there done that for years, all I need is a willing sub.
> > Besides, the Reps have some pretty kinky candidates too!
> Well, I uspect that Barney Frank had a "fondness" for Bushes Senate gymn
> locker for SOME reason! lol
lol, but a little one.
> > > theives, and liars. I
> > > doubt he is innocent of the criminal morass swirling around him!
> >
> > Fortunately we have innocent untill proven guilty, or do you prefer to
> > forget that part where Clinton is concerned?
>
> In matters of opinion, I subscribe to the "water-sinks-to-its-own-level"
> theory. It works quie well enough.
It only seems to work because it supports your prefered opinions, but even
that is an illusion.
> > It all boils down to jealosy over how good he is at getting away
> > with things!
> That isnt jealousy, it is a recognition of the danger it poses to our
> Republic. Corruption is the death knell to most democracies, by far, even
> going back to ancient times.
Well, we only have to live with such a guy for 8 years max, and that is
our advantage.
> > > Remember Sen Bob Kerreys description of Clinton as "a natural born
> > > liar"?
> >
> > And that differes from Reagan in what way????
>
> While Reagan may have lied, he isnt a "natural" at it.
Uh, do I have to remind you he was an ACTOR????
That not only made him a "natural" liar, but a trained PROFESSIONAL at it!
> > IT was surprise that you failed to get the point.
> Your comfortableness with openly partisan dishonesty
Where am I dis-honest? Where am I "comfy" with the dis-honesty
of politicians?
I am simply clear about reality.
> > > No, not true! We still have some very moral men in politics; Kerrey,
> > > Moynahan, Armey, and Byrd immediately come to mind.
> >
> > Too few, too far between, assuming you are even right about them.
> But it is a sign of life; so it isnt too late, not yet.
Well, when the boomers have all passed into the soil and their
screwed-up children are in old-age homes, maybe.
> > > > > I would truly like to. Moderation in defense of freedomn is NOT a
> > > virtue.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it can help get the message out though.
> >
> > > Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its bearer belies
> it.
> >
> > These days, the opposite is just as often true.
> Were I to claim that an insult of my wife were offensive, yet showed no
> emotion or intransigent opposition, my conduct would disprove my claims
> implicitly.
OR simply that you are civilised and you hold enough respect for your wife
to know that she can stand up for herself without your needing to
pretend the role of shining knight!
> When Freedom is in jeopardy, the time for polite measures is
> over, and resolute steps have to be implemented.
Often the quiet guy working behnd the scenes has more effect than
all the protestors in the streets.
> It is, and they are.
Sometimes, but sometimes not.
MT
> RGlenCheek
>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, lazarus wrote:
>
> Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:84dpgo$feg$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > LOL! Can there be a better example of a self-contradicting statement?
> Yes. The bible.
Indeed, in so many ways it would take a whole nuther book to examine
all of them.
MT
z
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> lazarus <laza...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3Aia4.1963$9e3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes a message is dismissed because the ardor of its
> bearer belies
> > it.
> > >
> > > RGlenCheek
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> statement?
> Thanks, you made my day.
> RGlenCheek
thread sound any more like it was written by Chandler Bing?
z
In article <84c9a7$9er$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard G Cheek"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The-Trainers
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, z wrote:
> Can there be any more examples of rhetorical questions? Could this
> thread sound any more like it was written by Chandler Bing?
Quick, the "good" apartment to anyone who can correctly name
Chandler Bing's JOB!!!!
;-)
MT
Randy
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote:
Something about reading WENIS reports is all I can remember.