Re: Liberals HATE Fox News
E.Bola
> "Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:cdmgkv$k5u$1...@drizzle.com...
> > In article <78e3ffc4.04072...@posting.google.com>,
> > Yang Da Liberal Moron <yang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Liberals HATE Fox News
> >
> > No, I don't.
I don't hate FOX news, all US news media is conservative in my
opinion. Where were the pictures of coffins? Where was the media
outcry about the IRAQ-911 fabrication before invasion? Why were the
independent news anchors covering the Iraq War supervised by the USA
military?
Right Wing=Conservativism=CONTROL
The Right Wing dosen't believe in freedom as proven by the
Conservative Brown Shirt Party led by Adolf Hitler.
This is another example of the Right Wing trying to start a civil war
within the United States.
Arab Terrorists and Right Wing Extremists are from the same mold only
varying in which GOD they worship.
> > The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's
> > "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the
> > Islamic world.
> >
>
> Maybe he's playing at misdirecting the Anti-Bush crowd with a little bit of
> Psy-Op.
The Right Wing have to hire Liberals to do their psych-ops for them.
The right wing have historically had no more than knee jerk reactions
to events. Now the Right Wing Overlords of Corporations have an agenda
and the brain washed Right will follow blindly as long as some
political puppet waves a flag and bans abortions.
Hanity
to be some kid.
Gunner
>
> The Right Wing have to hire Liberals to do their psych-ops for them.
>The right wing have historically had no more than knee jerk reactions
>to events. Now the Right Wing Overlords of Corporations have an agenda
>and the brain washed Right will follow blindly as long as some
>political puppet waves a flag and bans abortions.
Im glad to see that they are offering occupational programs down at
the Home and Mr. Steal is obviously taking advantage of the program.
Its also just as obvious he has not been taking his meds as
prescribed.
Gunner
"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'
Gunner
Sigh..a brain damaged one. Damned shame about those crack babies.
Michael Johnathan McDonald
>
> I don't hate FOX news,
Sure you do.
>all US news media is conservative in my
> opinion.
well maybe to much of Europe's main news groups which have been shown
to hardly get American facts right, even in their rightwing papers,
so-to-speak, they champion Fahrenheit 9/11 as a factual movie.
Although, talk radio in England is extremely no-holds-bared when it
comes to free expression - which is good, but that's not the main news
sources I am talking about.
lol.
> is Where were the pictures of coffins? Where was the media
> outcry about the IRAQ-911 fabrication before invasion?
What are you talking about? Either you are blind deaf and dumb or have
not been paying attention.
lol.
Snip the extreme lefty post.
Isosceles
>opinion.
Don't you mean to say "all US news media is to the right of my view(s)
in my opinion"? You sound like a charter member of the looney-left
to me.
______________________________________________________________________
SteveM
-Life would be much easier if I had the source code-
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > >
> > > >Liberals HATE Fox News
> > >
> > > No, I don't.
> I don't hate FOX news, all US news media is conservative in my
> opinion.
I tend to agree. There exist fewer and fewer bigger and bigger owners of
traditional media. Their intent is to make America safe for big
corporations (like themselves) to prosper.
The cliche "liberal media" is a joke. It is most often spouted by huge
far right media broadcasters like Rush and O'Reilly. They would like you
to believe that they are somehow not part of the "media", when in fact,
they are a large voice in the media.
Some cite CNN and the New York Times as examples of liberal bias in the
media. Personally, I don't see it.
--
...I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
Gunner
<stephen.moore@nospamhere_ipa.net> wrote:
>>I don't hate FOX news, all US news media is conservative in my
>>opinion.
>
>Don't you mean to say "all US news media is to the right of my view(s)
>in my opinion"? You sound like a charter member of the looney-left
>to me.
>
ayup.
Gunner
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
Gunner
wrote:
I think Steves point was just proven.
DnaDan56
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote
> Sigh..a brain damaged one. Damned shame about those crack babies.
Says the poster-child for crack babies...
Dan
DnaDan56
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:30d2g0d6f0cpcl0fu...@4ax.com...
> >Some cite CNN and the New York Times as examples of liberal bias in the
> >media. Personally, I don't see it.
>
> I think Steves point was just proven.
Perhaps you could point out some evidence. Even your own drunken fantasies,
but what you say does not make sense.
Let's see some numbers. C'mon. Put up or shut up.
To be considered "liberal," these organizations must, of course, publish 50%
plus one articles trashing conservatives as compared with articles
supporting
Bush.
No, wait, many Republicans and most conservatives might be "liberal" on that
basis...
Well, sure, we'll START with that basis. Then we can extract material that
supports
Democratic politicians which is not liberal (surely 90%).
Oh, you mean using the definition of "liberal" is to the left of MY
political views.
Didn't I just see that descriptions somewhere? Oh yeah, with Runner sighing
in agreement,
to boot.
Well, have fun!
Dan
gruhn
50%
> plus one articles trashing conservatives as compared with articles
> supporting Bush.
Not at all.
> Well, sure, we'll START with that basis
No, it is wrong, false, untrue, poorly conceived... Please try again.
insurgent0001
> I don't hate FOX news, all US news media is conservative in my
> opinion.
They seem conservative because public schools are even more liberal.
They are liberal because they are competing for federal dollars with
other states because the Dept. of Education that controls federal
education money and hands it out as they see fit.
> Where were the pictures of coffins? Where was the media
> outcry about the IRAQ-911 fabrication before invasion?
No kidding. They read the same intelligence as Bush did. Before the
invasion it was agreed pretty much around the world that Saddam had WMD.
Heck, even Clinton agreed. In fact, he bombed them:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html
nearly 2 tons of dirty bomb material removed from Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
It's now then WMD in Iraq = Bush gets re-elected that now WMD in Iraq is
now politically incorrect.
> Why were the independent news anchors covering the Iraq War supervised by
> the USA military?
It's because the press became so hostile against Bush and the war that
they access became restricted.
> Right Wing=Conservativism=CONTROL
And liberals aren't?? Remember Clinton and Reno were using federal funds
to motivate various police to go after "anti-government types". Clinton
did many of the same things Bush has done, but Clinton turned them
against the people.
> The Right Wing dosen't believe in freedom as proven by the
> Conservative Brown Shirt Party led by Adolf Hitler.
You have no clue what you're talking about, but you sound like a good
Nazi, totally convinced you are right with few facts to back up what you
are saying.
> This is another example of the Right Wing trying to start a civil war
> within the United States.
How, by resisting the left?
> Arab Terrorists and Right Wing Extremists are from the same mold only
> varying in which GOD they worship.
Muslem extremists want Kerry to get elected. Kerry cast his senate vote
against the death penality for terrorists. He also wants to turn much of
the US military under UN control just as Clinton did. He also voted to
cut military spending and against funding the troops in Iraq. And you
know Bush has done 100 times more to fight the war on terror than Gore
ever would. With Bush there have been no more attacks on US soil and
Iraq is coming together much faster than Germany did at the end of World
War 2.
Compare Kerry to terrorists, not Bush.
> > > The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's
> > > "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the
> > > Islamic world.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe he's playing at misdirecting the Anti-Bush crowd with a little bit of
> > Psy-Op.
>
>
> The Right Wing have to hire Liberals to do their psych-ops for them.
It is the left who has people giving phony apologies for no WMD on
national news.
> The right wing have historically had no more than knee jerk reactions
> to events. Now the Right Wing Overlords of Corporations have an agenda
> and the brain washed Right will follow blindly as long as some
> political puppet waves a flag and bans abortions.
Your mind is full of liberal poo.
JTEM
"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
> Before the invasion it was agreed pretty much around the
> world that Saddam had WMD.
I'm not sure what world that is, but here on Earth the "WMD"
thing was never believed outside the U.S. and Britian.
After all, is was BEFORE the war when Bush's forged "evidence"
of an attempted Uranium purchase was exposed, and it was
BEFORE the war when U.N. weapons inspectors refuted Every.
Single. Claim. of "WMDs" in Iraq.
Even Bush's pre-war "intelligence" contradicted all of his claims,
and this fact was widely reported outside the United States,
beyond the leash Bush keeps on the American media.
Nope, no "WMDs," not according to Bush. Instead Iraq had a
missile which did not exceed U.N. imposed limits on range, but
Bush insisted could be altered at some future date so as to exceed
those range limits.
And, oh yeah, Iraq had a balsa wood drone that supposedly could
carry chemical & biological weapons. How? Nobody knows, but
it is one of the "WMDs" Bush revealed to the U.N.
Outside the U.S., these facts were widely reported as they were
happening.
Dr_Postman
wrote:
>
>"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
>
>> Before the invasion it was agreed pretty much around the
>> world that Saddam had WMD.
>
>I'm not sure what world that is, but here on Earth the "WMD"
>thing was never believed outside the U.S. and Britian.
Then why was it that the UN sent inspectors off and on for
many years? The intel units of France and Germany
believed they were there. Otherwise the UN resolutions
would not have passed.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com
"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<lbd3g05t4sld50bg5...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:23:31 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
>>
>>> Before the invasion it was agreed pretty much around the
>>> world that Saddam had WMD.
>>
>>I'm not sure what world that is, but here on Earth the "WMD"
>>thing was never believed outside the U.S. and Britian.
>
>
>Then why was it that the UN sent inspectors off and on for
>many years? The intel units of France and Germany
>believed they were there. Otherwise the UN resolutions
>would not have passed.
He obviously had them at one point, and he obviously *doesn't* have
them anymore, which begs the one question that *really* scares the
bejeebers out of me,
WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s81...@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Reformed Anarchist
news:1ghdpx0.t6u1f1ybp93vN%YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us:
> And you
> know Bush has done 100 times more to fight the war on terror
than Gore
> ever would. With Bush there have been no more attacks on US soil
While terrorist attacks worldwide have risen almost 50%.The fact
is that Saddam,brutal psycho that he was,posed no threat to the
US,had no WMD's,was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and was in
the process of complying with all of our demands when Bush decided
to tell the rest of the world to go to hell,and invaded.Yes Saddam
was a bloodthirsty dictator,but it is our habit of trying to
police the world that has fanned the flames of anti-American
sentiment.Also by diverting resources to Iraq,we are left with the
problem of Bin Laden,who did and does pose a threat to us,still at
large.Bush has acomplished nothing in the war on international
terror.For every terrorist killed or captured ten more have taken
their place.As for Saddam,he was a threat to Iraq not America,and
by invading two muslim countries in a row,we have made it easier
for extremists to convince potential members of the "Jihad" that
we are trying to destroy Islam.IMO Bush took advantage of Americas
anger over 9/11 to settle a personal grudge.He used the cold
blooded murder of thousands to further his own agenda,placing our
troops in harms way without just cause.Now hundreds of soldiers
have been wounded and died,that blood is on Bush's hands,as will
be the blood of any victims who may die in Bin Laden's next move
against us.As for Kerry,he is a selfcentered,emotionless,poll
pandering,power hungry SOB,but I'd rather see him in office than
Bush.
Brian E. Clark
> They are liberal because they are competing for federal dollars with
> other states because the Dept. of Education that controls federal
> education money and hands it out as they see fit.
The Bush-controlled Department of Education hands out federal dollars on
the basis of a school district's promotion of liberal ideas?
I think you added too much nutmeg to the spice cake, friend.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Gunner
(insurgent0001) wrote:
>> Arab Terrorists and Right Wing Extremists are from the same mold only
>> varying in which GOD they worship.
>
>Muslem extremists want Kerry to get elected. Kerry cast his senate vote
>against the death penality for terrorists. He also wants to turn much of
>the US military under UN control just as Clinton did. He also voted to
>cut military spending and against funding the troops in Iraq. And you
>know Bush has done 100 times more to fight the war on terror than Gore
>ever would. With Bush there have been no more attacks on US soil and
>Iraq is coming together much faster than Germany did at the end of World
>War 2.
One should also note that Al Jazeera will have a full delegation of
reporters at the Democratic Convention next week. I wonder if they
will so honor the Republican one?
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell
Gunner
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
>He obviously had them at one point, and he obviously *doesn't* have
>them anymore, which begs the one question that *really* scares the
>bejeebers out of me,
>
>WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?
>--
>V.G.
Syria most likely.
Gunner
Bush Controlled? Since when was the NEA a Bush mouthpiece?
Duck Dog
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 02:21:52 GMT, Brian E. Clark
><re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>
>>insurgent0001 <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote:
>>
>>> They are liberal because they are competing for federal dollars with
>>> other states because the Dept. of Education that controls federal
>>> education money and hands it out as they see fit.
>>
>>The Bush-controlled Department of Education hands out federal dollars on
>>the basis of a school district's promotion of liberal ideas?
>>
>>I think you added too much nutmeg to the spice cake, friend.
>
>Bush Controlled? Since when was the NEA a Bush mouthpiece?
Dept. of Education != NEA.
Gunner
>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 05:09:10 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 02:21:52 GMT, Brian E. Clark
>><re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>>
>>>insurgent0001 <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are liberal because they are competing for federal dollars with
>>>> other states because the Dept. of Education that controls federal
>>>> education money and hands it out as they see fit.
>>>
>>>The Bush-controlled Department of Education hands out federal dollars on
>>>the basis of a school district's promotion of liberal ideas?
>>>
>>>I think you added too much nutmeg to the spice cake, friend.
>>
>>Bush Controlled? Since when was the NEA a Bush mouthpiece?
>
>Dept. of Education != NEA.
>
Indeed they do equate.
Gunner
>>
>>Gunner
>>
>>That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
>>cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
>>there.
>> - George Orwell
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
R. Foreman
> In misc.survivalism E.Bola <steel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Liberals HATE Fox News
>> > >
>> > > No, I don't.
>
>> I don't hate FOX news, all US news media is conservative in my
>> opinion.
I don't like all the ads. I can just laugh at ignorant scoundrels
like Bill Oreilly and turn him off. All the ads get really
annoying, especially all the drug companies telling me I could
have such a better life if I pop their pill 3 times a day (then
they talk real fast and tell me I may die or get real sick for
using their pill), then the ad winds down again with birds
chirping and flowers blooming.
R. Foreman
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:48:27 -0800, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
> <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>He obviously had them at one point, and he obviously *doesn't* have
>>them anymore, which begs the one question that *really* scares the
>>bejeebers out of me,
>>
>>WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?
>>--
>>V.G.
>
> Syria most likely.
The good news is the real dangerous stuff (like vx nerve agent,
or some bio agents) often kill the perps before they can deliver
it to the target.
That's probably why it wasn't more widely used, it's just
really dangerous stuff to handle.
insurgent0001
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:48:27 -0800, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
> <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >He obviously had them at one point, and he obviously *doesn't* have
> >them anymore, which begs the one question that *really* scares the
> >bejeebers out of me,
> >
> >WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?
> >--
> >V.G.
>
> Syria most likely.
It's been reported that just before the US invasion of Iraq, a convoy of
35 trucks traveling from Iraq to Syria were spotted by satellite. This
tidbit of news quickly became politically incorrect :o/
Gunner
Indeed. And you can put a shitload of material of this type in 35
semis. Not to mention milk tankers, fuel tankers etc.
Gunner
JTEM
"Dr_Postman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote
> >I'm not sure what world that is, but here on Earth the "WMD"
> >thing was never believed outside the U.S. and Britian.
> Then why was it that the UN sent inspectors off and on for
> many years?
The U.N. inspectors went in before the war to dig up all the
WMDs that Bush said were there. They didn't find any.
> The intel units of France and Germany believed they were there.
Past tense? Like, back in the 1990s?
> Otherwise the UN resolutions would not have passed.
Yup, that *Is* what you're talking about.
Amazingly ignorant of you, wouldn't you say?
JTEM
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote
> The good news is the real dangerous stuff (like vx nerve agent,
> or some bio agents) often kill the perps before they can deliver
> it to the target.
The reality is that this stuff has a limited shelf life, and that shelf
life has long since expired.
Not that they're no longer dangerous, but more so for the propaganda
value than military effectiveness.
JTEM
"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
> It's been reported that just before the US invasion of Iraq,
> a convoy of 35 trucks traveling from Iraq to Syria were
> spotted by satellite.
It's been reported that just before the Bush invasion of Iraq,
Saddam Hussein was six months away from a nuclear bomb.
It's been reported that just before the Bush invasion of Iraq,
Saddam Hussein could launch a chemical weapons attack
on 45 minutes notice.
It's been reported that just before the Bush invasion of Iraq,
there were ties between Saddam Hussein & Al Qaida.
Mark
news:3gt5g0d3duui33mp9...@4ax.com...
> "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
> miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
> demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
> Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"At the core of Conservatism is the controlling white man -
miserable, as all control freak men are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Conservatism is the philosophy of wife beating punks" -- Jack Meoff
Frank White
You should have pointed out that all these reports have turned
out to be mistaken/lies/just plain wrong, and that therefore the
OP's statement is questionable.
I know MOST people already know that, but there are those who
don't read the newspapers and may not have gotten the word...
FW
Gunner
wrote:
Interesting sig. Were you off your meds when you came up with it? Or
on your way home from a Hitler Youth meeting?
Gunner
Frank White
Less politically incorrect than of dubious value...
Syria was not a close ally of Saddam. In fact there was considerable
friction between them, not the least because Saddam was a bully and
Syria didn't like being bullied. Although it might make sense in to
someone with little knowledge of the Middle East and a childish,
completely superficial view of how things work - you know, like your
average NeoCon - that two American hating tyrannies would work
together on the state level, there's nothing to show this happened.
In fact Syria has been cooperating with the U.S as of late in
providing information on terrorist organizations - quietly, and
behind the scenes, according to the Wall Street Journal - and was
mucho upset and startled when Dubya put them in the Axis of Evil
roster. But as I said, your average NeoCon doesn't let reality
stand in the way of their beliefs... as we're finding out in
Iraq ("Sure, we'll be able to march in, the people will shower
us with flowers for getting rid of Saddam, we'll set up a
permanent democracy in no time, and be out before the election!
No DOUBT about it!")
More probably those trucks contained the families and wealth of
Saddam and his merry men, and/or records they didn't want the
Coaltion getting but didn't want destroyed, either. If they
had contained WMD the Syrians would have treated them like the
incredibly hot potato they were and either denied them entrance
(having them on Syrian soil with a MASSIVE US invasion force
right next door would have been like waving a T-bone steak at
a starving Doberman), or quietly turned them over to the U.S.
in exchange for more cordial relations. In fact I wouldn't be
suprised if, assuming those trucks stopped in Syria instead of
heading for the nearest port and setting sail on the first ship
available, U.S. operatives aren't looking them over even now
while they Syrians are carefully looking the other way...
FW
Gunner
wrote:
>>
>>It's been reported that just before the US invasion of Iraq, a convoy of
>>35 trucks traveling from Iraq to Syria were spotted by satellite. This
>>tidbit of news quickly became politically incorrect :o/
>
>Less politically incorrect than of dubious value...
>
>Syria was not a close ally of Saddam. In fact there was considerable
>friction between them, not the least because Saddam was a bully and
>Syria didn't like being bullied. Although it might make sense in to
>someone with little knowledge of the Middle East and a childish,
>completely superficial view of how things work - you know, like your
>average NeoCon - that two American hating tyrannies would work
>together on the state level, there's nothing to show this happened.
>In fact Syria has been cooperating with the U.S as of late in
>providing information on terrorist organizations - quietly, and
>behind the scenes, according to the Wall Street Journal - and was
>mucho upset and startled when Dubya put them in the Axis of Evil
>roster. But as I said, your average NeoCon doesn't let reality
>stand in the way of their beliefs... as we're finding out in
>Iraq ("Sure, we'll be able to march in, the people will shower
>us with flowers for getting rid of Saddam, we'll set up a
>permanent democracy in no time, and be out before the election!
>No DOUBT about it!")
>
One need only to look at Gulf War 1, when the Iraqis flew their
aircraft to Iranian airports in order to protect them. Iran was their
#1 enemy up to that point, and had been engaged in a multi year war
that killed literally millions.
Btw..your constant jabber about "neocons" is getting to be a bit
overused, and quite frankly..you use it incorrectly, making you look a
bit of an idiot. Shrug. Might want to review what exactly is a
neocon..and use it accordingly.
>More probably those trucks contained the families and wealth of
>Saddam and his merry men, and/or records they didn't want the
>Coaltion getting but didn't want destroyed, either. If they
>had contained WMD the Syrians would have treated them like the
>incredibly hot potato they were and either denied them entrance
>(having them on Syrian soil with a MASSIVE US invasion force
>right next door would have been like waving a T-bone steak at
>a starving Doberman), or quietly turned them over to the U.S.
>in exchange for more cordial relations. In fact I wouldn't be
>suprised if, assuming those trucks stopped in Syria instead of
>heading for the nearest port and setting sail on the first ship
>available, U.S. operatives aren't looking them over even now
>while they Syrians are carefully looking the other way...
>
>FW
Its indeed possible. And monkeys could fly out your ass. Syria, is
another hotbed of corruption and graft. One wonders exactly how much
of Saddams money it would take to get himself some nice private
storage areas that the central government doesnt know about?
As a side note..there were two ships that left Iraq immediately prior
to the war, that were tracked meandering all over the various oceans
for a few months, not stopping at any port of call. By your
inference, they were carrying the families and wealth of Saddam and
his Merry men. One wonders what happened to them?
Mark
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:24:08 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:3gt5g0d3duui33mp9...@4ax.com...
> >> "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
> >> miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
> >> demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
> >> Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
> >
> >"At the core of Conservatism is the controlling white man -
> >miserable, as all control freak men are, unsatisfied,
> >demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
> >Conservatism is the philosophy of wife beating punks" -- Jack Meoff
> >
> Interesting sig.
Thanks, but it's not a sig.
Just a Ying-Yang response to an idiotic sig. by some idiotic poster who
thinks that 'labeling' others helps identify some self perceived threat to
themselves or humanity.
Lotta fascist right-wing religious weirdo nutters out there, eh?
> Were you off your meds when you came up with it? Or
> on your way home from a Hitler Youth meeting?
Well, I promised not to tell... but... well, I guess I COULD give you a
hint...
"Tell Mummsy and 'Sista' I said 'Hi'."
Oh, and by the way...
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:6fg7g09n89jmsdv0q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:24:08 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3gt5g0d3duui33mp9...@4ax.com...
>> >> "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
>> >> miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
>> >> demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
>> >> Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
>> >
>> >"At the core of Conservatism is the controlling white man -
>> >miserable, as all control freak men are, unsatisfied,
>> >demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
>> >Conservatism is the philosophy of wife beating punks" -- Jack Meoff
>> >
>> Interesting sig.
>
>Thanks, but it's not a sig.
>
>Just a Ying-Yang response to an idiotic sig. by some idiotic poster who
>thinks that 'labeling' others helps identify some self perceived threat to
>themselves or humanity.
>
>Lotta fascist right-wing religious weirdo nutters out there, eh?
Well, as long as you aren't labeling anyone...
Gunner
wrote:
Oh come now..given todays delight in Diversity..you no longer have to
hide that you belong to the Hitler Youth and are on prescription
psychotropic.
In fact the Left loves dis functional individuals like you. Im sure if
you hunted a bit..there are even some grants and some programs to
assist you in your day to day living.
Good luck and God Speed.
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
William
Frank White, huh? You sound more like Frank Burns.
"Sure, we'll be able to march in, the people will shower us with
flowers for getting rid of Saddam, we'll set up a permanent democracy
in no time, and be out before the election! No DOUBT about it!"
Where the hell did that come from? Who were you quoting?
I'll admit that they're pushing the schedule on the handover in Iraq,
but it's the liberal press continually asking for closure, not the
American People. For my money, I like that Iraq is the magnet for
terrorist insurgents, and that America can fight them there rather
than here. Wouldn't mind at all if we took a couple more years over
there mopping up the bad guys. Unless you'd like them flooding into
America, which appears to be the next step.
bb
Mark
news:0rq7g0tgidn0th6h2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:21:59 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> <H6RMc.13816$f4.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:6fg7g09n89jmsdv0q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:24:08 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
> >
>
> Well, as long as you aren't labeling anyone...
Me? Never!
But if it walks like a duck... and talks like a duck... I just gotta ask
it...
... are you a duck?
Oh, and BTW....
John Griffin
"JTEM" -- a candidate for Poster Boy for Aphasia -- wrote
> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>
> > <snicker> It's always funny to see another drone take that
> > "weapons inspectors" nonsense seriously. You or I
> > could hide a truckload of nukes somewhere in the
> > 100,000 square miles of sand in Iraq and those
> > pretenders would have no hope of finding them.
>
> Yet, you idiots insist that Bush really did find them, that he
> wasn't lying, even without any boots on the ground.
Can you even begin to imagine how funny it is for you to assert that I
have insisted that Bush really did find them, and for you to believe
that those who did, if any, are the idiots in your life?! Hint: No,
if you were bright enough to do that, you wouldn't be dumb enough to
think I said that.
If you're lucky enough to make some vast improvements in your ability
to comprehend what you're reading, you're going to learn that
disagreeing with you has a very low correlation with idiocy. By very
low, I mean less than zero (way less). You can call it a very high
negative correlation if that makes you feel the power or something.
> You're not just pretending that it's an impossible job, you're
> pretending that it's an impossible job AND the Bush
> campaign...errr.. "administration" did it.
What a fucking idiotic and puerile misconstruction. Where do you get
these ideas, kid? You need to get some of the other little guys to
explain things to you instead of depending on your own obviously
defective logic circuits. Ask your mom if I said it was impossible. (I
said those few people couldn't do it.) Ask your mom if I said Bush
did it. Be careful, she'll probably want to slap you for being so
stupid.
Boy, your "...err.. 'administration'" was sure cute. I bet your peers
all laughed and giggled at that before their moms made them go home
for dinner.
> Another blaringly obvious fact you're missing is that those
> U.N. inspectors did find plenty of banned weapons and
> materials. Back in the 1990s, that is. So you're actually
> claiming that it's impossible for people with a history of
> uncovering banned materials to uncover banned materials,
> but Bush could manage it from a distance of thousands of
> miles even though he has never produced a single one.
Holy shit. You're even more stupid than I thought. What I said was
that you or I could hide that shit effectively. Damn, when you go
into all-out tantrum mode, you have no idea how far astray you're
going to go. A repeat of your imbecilic claim that I said Bush found
the shit was good, though, since you seem determined to stake a claim
to the lowest rung of the intellectual ladder.
Apparently you weren't able to specifically disagree with what I said,
but still, that was a rather entertaining tantrum. Maybe if you
understood my mention of the fact that the shit could be hidden well
enough so that a few people being herded around by Saddam Hussein
couldn't find them, you could find a way to at least address it.
> That's retarded. That's seriously retarded.
Try to work your way up to the retarded level. Given the huge climb
you face if you try, there's little hope, but at least it would give
you something to do other than parrot the things you've been
programmed to blurt when prodded.
By the way, I hope your mom has extra diapers on hand in case nukes or
whatever have been found in Iraq or are found before November, and
Bush announces it sometime around a week before the election. You'll
be shitting from both ends if that happens.
P.S. If you really don't understand that the reason I laugh at you is
not that your a distant left drone but only that you're funny, call me
a "neocon" or one of those other things fools like you like to throw
at people who don't agree with all the stuff you've been manipulated
into chanting.
JTEM
"John Griffin" <theonetru...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> > > <snicker> It's always funny to see another drone take that
> > > "weapons inspectors" nonsense seriously. You or I
> > > could hide a truckload of nukes somewhere in the
> > > 100,000 square miles of sand in Iraq and those
> > > pretenders would have no hope of finding them.
> Can you even begin to imagine how funny it is for you to assert
> that I have insisted that Bush really did find them, and for you
> to believe that those who did, if any, are the idiots in your life?!
No. Why don't you explain it. After that you can explain your
original comment (above). Please take into account that those
inspectors combed Iraq in the 1990s and found plenty.
So back when the U.N. was saying that Saddam had WMDs, the
weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, and were
uncovering banned materials. Later, in 2003, those same
inspectors said Iraq had nothing, and you denounce them.
> What a fucking idiotic and puerile misconstruction.
You need to get out more.
Frank White
Dan Quayle? That you? You get tired of getting your
butt kicked by one TV character and you decided to
take on one from a different show?
>"Sure, we'll be able to march in, the people will shower us with
>flowers for getting rid of Saddam, we'll set up a permanent democracy
>in no time, and be out before the election! No DOUBT about it!"
>
>Where the hell did that come from? Who were you quoting?
What, you weren't here when the Neocons were making all
their promises about how this wouldn't be another Viet Nam?
Or were you too busy goosestepping in joy at the prosepct of
the U.S. beating up a third world country and making you feel
like a man that you weren't listening?
>I'll admit that they're pushing the schedule on the handover in Iraq,
They're panicking like mice when the lights suddenly go on in the
kitchen.
>but it's the liberal press continually asking for closure, not the
>American People.
Ah. I didn't know you were God and could speak for the American
people.
(Latest poll results show a majority of Americans think the war
was a mistake. BTW.)
(Being God, you of course knew that.)
> For my money, I like that Iraq is the magnet for
>terrorist insurgents, and that America can fight them there rather
>than here.
900+ American service men and women killed since Dubya stood there
in his flight suit with gold wings on his name tag and said "Mission
accomplished".
It's Christmas in the desert for al Qaeda. We have not only
come out from behind our Siegfied Wall where they can shoot
the hell out of us as they desire, but our actions have so
inflamed anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world and
beyond that folks are flocking to their banner.
I fear WE are the ones who have awaken a sleeping dragon by
invading Iraq. And it's not going back to sleep anytime soon...
> Wouldn't mind at all if we took a couple more years over
>there mopping up the bad guys. Unless you'd like them flooding into
>America, which appears to be the next step.
"We"? We who? I didn't know you were over in Iraq/Afganistan,
as several of MY family and friends are, in harm's way. Well,
if you're in uniform and where the bullets are flying, that's
different.
Because if you were posting about sticking it out for several
years over there, taking casualties, while you WEREN'T at
risk but rather had your fat yellow butt in a comfortable chair
here in the States, safe and secure, then I'd say you were one
of the filthiest and most disgusting pieces of shit I've
ever encountered - and I've encountered some REAL scum - and
that I had more respect for al Qaeda than you because they're
are least willing to bleed and die for what they believe, while
you are happy to send decent Americans to die for your pleasure.
And that taking you to a battlefield, showing you the silent
dead and screaming wounded - and then shooting you in the gut
with a hollowpoint bullet and leaving you to die in prolonged
mortal agony, giving you a taste of reality - would be the
best thing that could be done with you.
But of course, since you're active military, that's not the case,
is it?
Where are you posted?
FW
John Baker
>
> Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
> clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
> Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Mr. Barry is quite adept at projection, isn't he? ;-)
John Griffin
>
> "John Griffin" <theonetru...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> > "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>> > > <snicker> It's always funny to see another drone take that
>> > > "weapons inspectors" nonsense seriously. You or I
>> > > could hide a truckload of nukes somewhere in the
>> > > 100,000 square miles of sand in Iraq and those
>> > > pretenders would have no hope of finding them.
>
>> Can you even begin to imagine how funny it is for you to assert
>> that I have insisted that Bush really did find them, and for you
>> to believe that those who did, if any, are the idiots in your life?!
>
> No. Why don't you explain it. After that you can explain your
> original comment (above). Please take into account that those
> inspectors combed Iraq in the 1990s and found plenty.
It's hilarious. I hope that's enough explanation. By the way, you or I
could hide a truckload of chemical weapons somewhere in the 100,000
square miles of sand in Iraq in such a way that those pretenders would
have no hope of finding them. It doesn't matter what they found before.
> So back when the U.N. was saying that Saddam had WMDs, the
> weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, and were
> uncovering banned materials. Later, in 2003, those same
> inspectors said Iraq had nothing, and you denounce them.
I only mentioned the fact that they couldn't possibly find WMD hidden in
the sand if they were hidden carefully. I suppose I should have said
bury instead of hide. I bet you think those guys were free to go
anywhere they wanted in Iraq in 2003. You're gullible enough to believe
they scoured the whole country.
>> What a fucking idiotic and puerile misconstruction.
>
> You need to get out more.
<snicker> You need to tell me how you were "able" to arrive at the idea
that I said Bush has found Hussein's WMD stuff.
Frank White
<snip>
>One need only to look at Gulf War 1, when the Iraqis flew their
>aircraft to Iranian airports in order to protect them. Iran was their
>#1 enemy up to that point, and had been engaged in a multi year war
>that killed literally millions.
>
>Btw..your constant jabber about "neocons" is getting to be a bit
>overused, and quite frankly..you use it incorrectly, making you look a
>bit of an idiot. Shrug. Might want to review what exactly is a
>neocon..and use it accordingly.
Insert from Jeff McCann's post:
"Google sez "Gunner" has used "liberal" about 1,530 times in Misc.
Survivalism.
Google sez "Frank White" has used "NeoCon" 6 times in Misc. Survivalism."
What he said. ^_^
(shrug) What do you want me to call them? 'Goddammed stupidass
Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitcz-Bremer-morons who've gotten
us into a completely unnecessary and ineptly prosecuted war and
occupation and will probably wind up being responsible for the
deaths of more Americans than all those killed on 9/11'?
I mean, truth in advertising and all, that's KIND of unwieldy...
(The only good thing about this is that Powell's true colors
as a follower, not a leader, of men are now clear to everyone
and there's no more talk of "Powell for President" bumper
stickers.)
Tell you what. You stop saying 'liberal', I'll stop saying
'neocon', and we'll see who blows up from the stress first.
>>More probably those trucks contained the families and wealth of
>>Saddam and his merry men, and/or records they didn't want the
>>Coaltion getting but didn't want destroyed, either. If they
>>had contained WMD the Syrians would have treated them like the
>>incredibly hot potato they were and either denied them entrance
>>(having them on Syrian soil with a MASSIVE US invasion force
>>right next door would have been like waving a T-bone steak at
>>a starving Doberman), or quietly turned them over to the U.S.
>>in exchange for more cordial relations. In fact I wouldn't be
>>suprised if, assuming those trucks stopped in Syria instead of
>>heading for the nearest port and setting sail on the first ship
>>available, U.S. operatives aren't looking them over even now
>>while they Syrians are carefully looking the other way...
>>
>>FW
>
>Its indeed possible. And monkeys could fly out your ass.
I'd pay to see that! ^_^
>Syria, is
>another hotbed of corruption and graft. One wonders exactly how much
>of Saddams money it would take to get himself some nice private
>storage areas that the central government doesnt know about?
The current ruler of Syria, What'shisname, may be as big a thug
and as brutal a dictator as his father (what IS this bit with
dynastic succession in Middle Eastern nations?), but he's also
smarter. He knows that he'll never beat Israel militarily or
economically, which leaves just dipolomacy; and if he doesn't want
Syria becoming a fourth rate power lower on the scale of nations
than most African states, he's got to develop. The only place
he can get the money to do so is Uncle Sugar. So he wants to
suck up to the West, just like Libya and Commie China did, to
get on the financial gravey train. If he had anything of
Saddam's, he'd hand it over for the Brownie points.
And the Syrian secret police make Saddam's look like creampuffs...
>As a side note..there were two ships that left Iraq immediately prior
>to the war, that were tracked meandering all over the various oceans
>for a few months, not stopping at any port of call. By your
>inference, they were carrying the families and wealth of Saddam and
>his Merry men. One wonders what happened to them?
Yes. And why the U.S. government, which had no trouble illegally
stopping and boarding a North Korean ship they said had weapons
bound for Iraq - only to find out no, whoops, those scuds are
Yemen bound, our error - didn't stop THEM.
Or if they did and just aren't saying...
FW
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
>news:0rq7g0tgidn0th6h2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:21:59 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>> <H6RMc.13816$f4.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> >news:6fg7g09n89jmsdv0q...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:24:08 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> >Lotta fascist right-wing religious weirdo nutters out there, eh?
>>
>> Well, as long as you aren't labeling anyone...
>
>Me? Never!
>
>But if it walks like a duck... and talks like a duck... I just gotta ask
>it...
>
>... are you a duck?
Ducks? You could't have picked a better example, actually.
There are puddle ducks, and sea ducks, and diving ducks, and mallards.
There's wood ducks, not to be confused with tree ducks, which aren't
ducks at all, but geese. In Madagascar, there are "mountain
chickens", which aren't chickens at all, but teal.
But as long as it walks and talks like a duck...
William
Me and Murphy had quite a time.
> >"Sure, we'll be able to march in, the people will shower us with
> >flowers for getting rid of Saddam, we'll set up a permanent democracy
> >in no time, and be out before the election! No DOUBT about it!"
> >
> >Where the hell did that come from? Who were you quoting?
>
> What, you weren't here when the Neocons were making all
> their promises about how this wouldn't be another Viet Nam?
No, but I'll have to agree with them. Vietnam is another place. It's
wet there and they're big on rice.
> Or were you too busy goosestepping in joy at the prosepct of
> the U.S. beating up a third world country and making you feel
> like a man that you weren't listening?
Joy with Murphy Brown.
> >I'll admit that they're pushing the schedule on the handover in Iraq,
>
> They're panicking like mice when the lights suddenly go on in the
> kitchen.
Naw. The insurgent terrorist's are panicking. The new leader of Iraq
is likely to be as brutal as the old leader.
> >but it's the liberal press continually asking for closure, not the
> >American People.
>
> Ah. I didn't know you were God and could speak for the American
> people.
Now we have someone who thinks that God speaks for the American
people.
> (Latest poll results show a majority of Americans think the war
> was a mistake. BTW.)
So by extension, we need to turn it over as faster than what is
humanly possible?
> (Being God, you of course knew that.)
Not a single personal aquaintence of mine has ever suggested that we
leave Iraq. I only hear that on the nightly news. What am I supposed
to think?
> > For my money, I like that Iraq is the magnet for
> >terrorist insurgents, and that America can fight them there rather
> >than here.
>
> 900+ American service men and women killed since Dubya stood there
> in his flight suit with gold wings on his name tag and said "Mission
> accomplished".
How many cops have been killed in the USA since he declared "Mission
Accomplished?"
How many highway deaths?
How many medical malpractice deaths?
> It's Christmas in the desert for al Qaeda. We have not only
> come out from behind our Siegfied Wall where they can shoot
> the hell out of us as they desire, but our actions have so
> inflamed anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world and
> beyond that folks are flocking to their banner.
Exactly. Those are the ones that I want dead.
> I fear WE are the ones who have awaken a sleeping dragon by
> invading Iraq. And it's not going back to sleep anytime soon...
Hopefully you'll be drafted to contribute.
> > Wouldn't mind at all if we took a couple more years over
> >there mopping up the bad guys. Unless you'd like them flooding into
> >America, which appears to be the next step.
>
> "We"? We who? I didn't know you were over in Iraq/Afganistan,
> as several of MY family and friends are, in harm's way. Well,
> if you're in uniform and where the bullets are flying, that's
> different.
I've been in the barrel.
> Because if you were posting about sticking it out for several
> years over there, taking casualties, while you WEREN'T at
> risk but rather had your fat yellow butt in a comfortable chair
> here in the States, safe and secure, then I'd say you were one
> of the filthiest and most disgusting pieces of shit I've
> ever encountered - and I've encountered some REAL scum - and
> that I had more respect for al Qaeda than you because they're
> are least willing to bleed and die for what they believe, while
> you are happy to send decent Americans to die for your pleasure.
I'm subject to call-up. Are you?
> And that taking you to a battlefield, showing you the silent
> dead and screaming wounded - and then shooting you in the gut
> with a hollowpoint bullet
No hollowpoints. FMJ. Geneva and all that.
and leaving you to die in prolonged
> mortal agony, giving you a taste of reality - would be the
> best thing that could be done with you.
>
> But of course, since you're active military, that's not the case,
> is it?
>
> Where are you posted?
>
> FW
Frank Burns, where are you stationed?
Frank White
>
>In article <7mi7g05u0tpqfiq6b...@4ax.com>, gun...@lightspeed.net says...
>>
>>On 25 Jul 2004 14:30:51 GMT, fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White)
>>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>One need only to look at Gulf War 1, when the Iraqis flew their
>>aircraft to Iranian airports in order to protect them. Iran was their
>>#1 enemy up to that point, and had been engaged in a multi year war
>>that killed literally millions.
Whoops, meant to comment on that part and just forgot.
Although it's widely reported in the West that Saddam ordered his
planes to fly to Iran for their own safety, I've heard a
different version. Namely that the pilots were between a rock
and a hard place in that if they refused to take off when
Saddam ordered them up to fight American forces, they'd be fed to
the wood chipper, an inch at a time. If they DID take off, U.S.
aircraft would detect them in minutes, lock on, and shoot them down.
It was a choice between deaths... so they went for a third option
and streaked towards Iranian airspace, quick like bunnies. If they
made it in, and the U.S. jets didn't follow or blast them long
range, they could land in Iran and claim sanctuary as followers of
the Prophet who'd been forced to fight by Saddam, the Almost
Great Satan.
It wasn't giving away their air force; it was wholesale
desertion and defection.
FW
Mark
> >> >
> >> >Lotta fascist right-wing religious weirdo nutters out there, eh?
> >>
> >> Well, as long as you aren't labeling anyone...
> >
> >Me? Never!
> >
> >But if it walks like a duck... and talks like a duck... I just gotta ask
> >it...
> >
> >... are you a duck?
>
> Ducks? You could't have picked a better example, actually.
>
> There are puddle ducks, and sea ducks, and diving ducks, and mallards.
> There's wood ducks, not to be confused with tree ducks, which aren't
> ducks at all, but geese. In Madagascar, there are "mountain
> chickens", which aren't chickens at all, but teal.
Hmmm... so not counting the Teal, or the Geese, or the other ducks that are
just birds...
How many flavours, Vanilla, of fascist right-wing religious weirdo nutters
are there?
> But as long as it walks and talks like a duck...
Yes... exactly!
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
Fuck if I know. You're the 'expert'.
AuntieLib
> >Dept. of Education != NEA.
> >
> Indeed they do equate.
NEA is the acronym for the National Endowment for the Arts. It has
nothing to do with the Department of Education. (Unless you consider
it "educating" the public to explain why Jackson Pollock's paintings
must be good for them.)
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Never anonymous Bud
>Gunner wrote:
>> >Dept. of Education != NEA.
>> >
>> Indeed they do equate.
>
>NEA is the acronym for the National Endowment for the Arts. It has
>nothing to do with the Department of Education. (Unless you consider
>it "educating" the public to explain why Jackson Pollock's paintings
>must be good for them.)
--
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
Never anonymous Bud
>> >Dept. of Education != NEA.
>> >
>> Indeed they do equate.
>
>NEA is the acronym for the National Endowment for the Arts. It has
>nothing to do with the Department of Education. (Unless you consider
>it "educating" the public to explain why Jackson Pollock's paintings
>must be good for them.)
NEA also happens to be the acronym for the National Education Association,
the teachers union, that opposes ALL changes to education, especially
qualification tests for teachers.
Gunner
>Gunner wrote:
>> >Dept. of Education != NEA.
>> >
>> Indeed they do equate.
>
>NEA is the acronym for the National Endowment for the Arts. It has
>nothing to do with the Department of Education. (Unless you consider
>it "educating" the public to explain why Jackson Pollock's paintings
>must be good for them.)
>
>elizabeth
>aa#2098
The National Education Association..the teachers union is the #1
guiding force behind the American education system.
Next to the Trial Lawyers, they are the second biggest contributor to
leftwing politicians and their members are the rank and file and the
administrators of the so called education system.
One should note that as the Lefties piss and moan about the sorry
state of education in the US during this election year, its simply
echoing the comments of the Right for the past 20.
One should also note that EVERY school board and school district in
every troubled school system in the US is controlled by Liberals.
Everyone.
So the same people who have demanded every increasing amounts of money
to provide a quality education, who are staunchly against dividing
their fiefdom with vouchers, and and are now complaining about how
poor those schools systems are..are exactly those same people who have
been administering those systems.
This is not only hypocracy..but intentional divisiveness and a further
attempt to attempt to baffle and bedazzel the public about their
failures at providing an education to our children.
For this they should be killed and their bodies burned,
Gunner
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
William Vojak
news:kdkjg01vfarn6900s...@4ax.com:
> The National Education Association..the teachers union is the #1
> guiding force behind the American education system.
Ann Coulter reported that a majority of the delegates to
the Democrat's convention were teachers (or other academia
types like professors). No wonder that polls have also shown
that 90+% of these delegates also oppose the war in Iraq.
These people are educating our kids, but lack the basic
understanding that Iraq is better off now than it was under
Saddam; That if Bush lied, so also did Clinton, Putin,
Blair, the UN (who past resolutions based on Saddam posessing
WMD), and most of the other leader in Europe.
Bill Vojak
Frank White
>
>On 29 Jul 2004 10:46:17 -0700, walle...@msn.com (AuntieLib) wrote:
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>> >Dept. of Education != NEA.
>>> >
>>> Indeed they do equate.
>>
>>NEA is the acronym for the National Endowment for the Arts. It has
>>nothing to do with the Department of Education. (Unless you consider
>>it "educating" the public to explain why Jackson Pollock's paintings
>>must be good for them.)
>>
>>elizabeth
>>aa#2098
>
>The National Education Association..the teachers union is the #1
>guiding force behind the American education system.
>
>Next to the Trial Lawyers, they are the second biggest contributor to
>leftwing politicians and their members are the rank and file and the
>administrators of the so called education system.
The Wall Street Journal had an article on the NEA yesterday I
think it was. Many teachers are leaving it, disgusted by its
obsession with politics and lack of any relevance to their
day to day efforts to teach kids...
>One should note that as the Lefties piss and moan about the sorry
>state of education in the US during this election year, its simply
>echoing the comments of the Right for the past 20.
>
>One should also note that EVERY school board and school district in
>every troubled school system in the US is controlled by Liberals.
>Everyone.
HAW! I *knew* you couldn't restrain yourself, you'd say 'liberal'
LONG before I'd feel the ABSOLUTE and UNSTOPPABLE urge to say
'Neocon'!
I win!
Yay.
>So the same people who have demanded every increasing amounts of money
>to provide a quality education, who are staunchly against dividing
>their fiefdom with vouchers, and and are now complaining about how
>poor those schools systems are..are exactly those same people who have
>been administering those systems.
>
>This is not only hypocracy..but intentional divisiveness and a further
>attempt to attempt to baffle and bedazzel the public about their
>failures at providing an education to our children.
>
>For this they should be killed and their bodies burned,
Don't mince words, what's your REAL opinion? ^_^
>Gunner
FW
JTEM
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> By the way, you or I could hide a truckload of chemical
> weapons somewhere in the 100,000 square miles of sand
> in Iraq
If 1,000 Americans died in Iraq because of what you or I
could do, Bush needs to be indicted.
Gunner
wrote:
>>
>>One should also note that EVERY school board and school district in
>>every troubled school system in the US is controlled by Liberals.
>>Everyone.
>
>HAW! I *knew* you couldn't restrain yourself, you'd say 'liberal'
>LONG before I'd feel the ABSOLUTE and UNSTOPPABLE urge to say
>'Neocon'!
>
>I win!
>
>Yay.
Huh? The NEA is a Liberal organization. Was National Socialists not
Nazis?
This was not some attempt at demonization, but one of accurate
statement.
Give me your take on this...
http://www.educationpolicy.org/EPIseries/disassociation-bklt.htm
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
John Griffin
Such a vapid remark would be funny as hell, but it's just too sad to
know that you actually think it makes sense and that it follows from
the foregoing conversation (or from anything).
Of course, "Bush needs to be indicted" is just part of the cant you've
been trained to try to propagate, so it's not quite as pathetic as it
would be if you were under your own control. Blind hatred and burning
resentment over the failure of that Gore guy's attempt to overturn the
2000 election makes you a willing drone. It's not your fault. It's
just a fairly common weakness and consequent susceptibility to being
manipulated.
Although you don't show any signs of significance, I'm still glad to
see that you didn't try to contrive some goofy attempt to challenge
what I said. That shows that, contrary to all other indications, you
understood it.
Still, "Bush needs to be indicted because there could be WMDs buried
in the sand" is dumb as hell. It's also kinda weird that you aren't
worried about the intelligence agencies' astounding lack of
competence. Maybe you think they lied because they wanted a war to
watch and evaluate. Peace must be boring as hell when you're in the
international conflict industry.
Personally, I don't trust Bush. I believe there's a small chance that
they have in fact found WMDs (in the sand but not deep enough, maybe)
and he's going to show them to the world and U.S. voters early in
November. If that happens, you'll feel pretty silly about having
trusted him to let us know when they were found.
JTEM
"John Griffin" <theonetru...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Such a vapid remark would be [---rant deleted---]
I'm really not interested in your fantasies, nor your well
developed sense of intellectual superiority.
I can sum up the death Bush has ensured America, the death
you fully support with your rantings in 12 words:
"Nigerian yellow cake? Iran? Yeah, like we haven't heard
that one before!"
Bush has poisoned the world, even the American people,
against the real threat. Americans will pay dearly for what
the Republicans have done. It will happen. Because of
Bush, all we can do now is sit back and wait for it, sit back
and hope it's not us but a neighboring city.
When it happens, you and your kind will blame everyone
but yourselves, everyone but those directly responsible.
John Griffin
>
> "John Griffin" <theonetru...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Such a vapid remark would be [---rant deleted---]
This is fuckin' hilarious.
> I'm really not interested in your fantasies,
So, you snip whatever I said and "answer" your own fantasies about it in
this petulant little snit.
>nor your well
> developed sense of intellectual superiority.
I reckon you got that from your own sense of my superiority, seeing that
you felt compelled to snip whatever I wrote and to post this series of
puerile remarks, and seeing that you're the first to mention any such
thing.
Actually, what you're seeing is your own inferiority. You're just afraid
to face it. That's why it was good that you snipped your amazingly
stupid remark about "Bush should be indicted," truly one of the lamest
things I've seen this week.
> I can sum up the death Bush has ensured America, the death
> you fully support with your rantings in 12 words:
>
> "Nigerian yellow cake? Iran? Yeah, like we haven't heard
> that one before!"
What a fucking idiot. It takes some serious stupidity to come to "...the
death you fully support..." from anything I've said. Good grief, man,
you're an actual walkin' talkin' imbecile!
Dumb as that idiotic "conclusion" was, your idea that that silliness
"summed up" anything was even dumber.
> Bush has poisoned the world, even the American people,
> against the real threat. Americans will pay dearly for what
> the Republicans have done. It will happen. Because of
> Bush, all we can do now is sit back and wait for it, sit back
> and hope it's not us but a neighboring city.
Well, of course you're stupid enough to hope mohammed's zombies hit a
neighboring city. I, on the other hand, hope the mindfucked slaves of
that anachronistic cult have a misfire and blow up their own fucking
city.
Incidentally, you're actually getting more idiotic and more ignorant as
you go along here. Nothing Bush did or could do could increase the
100.000% chance that islamic drones are going to perpetrate more attacks
on modern humans. It has been that way for decades. It was that way
before liar/rapist/influence-peddler Bill Clinton bombed their aspirin
factory, and it was that way afterward.
> When it happens, you and your kind will blame everyone
> but yourselves, everyone but those directly responsible.
Don't pretend to know who's responsible. You've shown that you don't
read well, can't think clearly and don't intend to try. Plug you in, and
the party songs come out, that's all. The problems of this century
between Islam and modern man were made inevitable when Islam froze
itself in the 10th century and the mainstream didn't stop to wait for it
to catch up. Now they have big problems, like their kids wanting to
listen to music, and their women wanting to do shit like go outdoors
without permission, because they see that sort of thing happening in
free societies all around them. Instead of deciding to catch up, they
want to drag us down with them.
By the way, for your next piffle, know that I didn't vote for Bush, and
that I was not in favor of the Iraq clusterfuck.
You're a moderately amusing fellow, so I hope to see you snip all this
and branch off in yet another direction in a sorry pretense of replying.
JTEM
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> So, you [...]
Gosh that was interesting.
> > I can sum up the death Bush has ensured America, the death
> > you fully support with your rantings in 12 words:
> >
> > "Nigerian yellow cake? Iran? Yeah, like we haven't heard
> > that one before!"
> What a fucking idiot.
Bush certainly is, and you are too.
Spend a few minutes on google checking it out yourself. Search for
"Iran" and "nuclear" or "Iran" and "terrorism" or "Iran and "chemical
weapons."
Everything Bush said of Iraq was true for Iran, but a total lie for Iraq.
Why do you think Bush is protecting a terrorist-supporting state with
piles of chemical weapons and an active nuclear program?
Thelasian
Actually, its not true about Iran either. There is yet no evidence of
a nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran, as the IAEA itself admits. Iran
does indeed have a nuclear program, but this is permitted under
Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which says its IRan's
INALIENABLE RIGHT to possess nuclear technology.)
Thus far, the Bush administration has put out a lot of innuendo about
Iran, but there's no evidence of any weapons programs.
On the other hand, considering how the US goes around ignoring
international law and its own NPT obligations, why should the IRanians
NOT build a nuclear deterrent?
JTEM
"Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Actually, its not true about Iran either.
Not only is it true about Iran, but the Bush campaign...errr...
"administration" slapped sanctions on two Chinese firms
for supplying Iran with technology to produce WMDs.
When did this happen? Early in 2002.
> There is yet no evidence of a nuclear WEAPONS program
> in Iran, as the IAEA itself admits.
What they say is that Iran is not cooperating with them, and
is even lying. There is compelling evidence for something
more than a simple nuclear power program, and certainly
undeniable proof that Iran is not being honest about their
intentions:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
> Thus far, the Bush administration has put out a lot of innuendo
> about Iran, but there's no evidence of any weapons programs.
There's plenty of evidence, no "proof."
Funny though, not only are you down-playing the nuclear weapons
threat from Iran, you completely ignored the chemical weapons
threat. Neither of us have brought up the fact of their biological
weapons program.
Well, before now...
Thelasian
> "Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Actually, its not true about Iran either.
>
> Not only is it true about Iran, but the Bush campaign...errr...
> "administration" slapped sanctions on two Chinese firms
> for supplying Iran with technology to produce WMDs.
> When did this happen? Early in 2002.
>
> > There is yet no evidence of a nuclear WEAPONS program
> > in Iran, as the IAEA itself admits.
>
> What they say is that Iran is not cooperating with them, and
> is even lying. There is compelling evidence for something
> more than a simple nuclear power program, and certainly
> undeniable proof that Iran is not being honest about their
> intentions:
And what, you're a mind reader who can judge intentions now?
> http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
Yes I see it - where does it say that Iran is building nukes?
> > Thus far, the Bush administration has put out a lot of innuendo
> > about Iran, but there's no evidence of any weapons programs.
>
> There's plenty of evidence, no "proof."
Hmmmm...sounds familiar...
> Funny though, not only are you down-playing the nuclear weapons
> threat from Iran, you completely ignored the chemical weapons
> threat. Neither of us have brought up the fact of their biological
> weapons program.
>
> Well, before now...
Well in fact Iran has signed the Chemical weapons convention, being
the only country in recent history who has been the VICTIM of chemical
weapons attacks(by Iraq) sponsorored and supported by the US and UK.
Again, lots of rumor and innuendo, no evidence to support any of it.
However, what's NOT being mentioned is the chem-bio weapons programs
of the US and Israel...until now.
JTEM
"Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > What they say is that Iran is not cooperating with them, and
> > is even lying. There is compelling evidence for something
> > more than a simple nuclear power program, and certainly
> > undeniable proof that Iran is not being honest about their
> > intentions:
> And what, you're a mind reader who can judge intentions now?
I can read a report:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
> Yes I see it - where does it say that Iran is building nukes?
Are you just making this up as you go along? Where are you
pretending that I said the U.N. made any direct claims? The U.N.
is definitely reporting Iran's total lack of cooperation & dishonesty.
However, the U.N. itself draws no conclusions from these facts.
> > > Thus far, the Bush administration has put out a lot of innuendo
> > > about Iran, but there's no evidence of any weapons programs.
> >
> > There's plenty of evidence, no "proof."
> Hmmmm...sounds familiar...
No it doesn't. Would you care to explain?
> Well in fact Iran has signed the Chemical weapons convention,
> being the only country in recent history who has been the VICTIM
> of chemical weapons attacks(by Iraq) sponsorored and supported
> by the US and UK. Again, lots of rumor and innuendo, no
> evidence to support any of it.
Meanwhile, Iran has been buying up all the exact same "dual use"
technology you fault us for selling to Iraq. I agree that it was bad
for Iraq to get that technology, where I disagree with you is your
fantasy that there's no issue in the case of Iran.
Here. This names a number of specific companies that were selling
such "dual use" technology to Iran:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/wmdjune02.asp
> However, what's NOT being mentioned is the chem-bio weapons
> programs of the US and Israel...until now.
Israel is going to attack Iran? Is that the claim? Iran doesn't have
terrorist links?
What? Be specific.
Thelasian
> "Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > What they say is that Iran is not cooperating with them, and
> > > is even lying. There is compelling evidence for something
> > > more than a simple nuclear power program, and certainly
> > > undeniable proof that Iran is not being honest about their
> > > intentions:
>
> > And what, you're a mind reader who can judge intentions now?
>
> I can read a report:
>
> http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
>
> > Yes I see it - where does it say that Iran is building nukes?
>
> Are you just making this up as you go along? Where are you
> pretending that I said the U.N. made any direct claims? The U.N.
> is definitely reporting Iran's total lack of cooperation & dishonesty.
> However, the U.N. itself draws no conclusions from these facts.
Ah, see how you fall for the guilt-by-innuendo again by reading facts
into reports that arent there? You can play with words and talk about
"direct claims" vs. "indirect claims" all you want but the facts is
that the IAEA has stated that there's no evidence of a nuclear weapons
program in Iran.
"Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A. director, has repeatedly stated that
his agency has not "seen concrete proof of a military program, so it's
premature to make a judgment on that." David Albright, a former U.N.
weapons inspector who is an expert on nuclear proliferation,
buttressed the I.A.E.A. claim. "The United States has no concrete
evidence of a nuclear-weapons program," Albright told me. "It's just
an inference. There's no smoking gun." "
SOURCE New Yorker article by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2004-06-28
> > > > Thus far, the Bush administration has put out a lot of innuendo
> > > > about Iran, but there's no evidence of any weapons programs.
> > >
> > > There's plenty of evidence, no "proof."
>
> > Hmmmm...sounds familiar...
>
> No it doesn't. Would you care to explain?
Sure, remember the "mobile biological labs" in Iraq? The same
speculation and innuendo were fed to sheep like you, who ate it up.
> > Well in fact Iran has signed the Chemical weapons convention,
> > being the only country in recent history who has been the VICTIM
> > of chemical weapons attacks(by Iraq) sponsorored and supported
> > by the US and UK. Again, lots of rumor and innuendo, no
> > evidence to support any of it.
>
> Meanwhile, Iran has been buying up all the exact same "dual use"
> technology you fault us for selling to Iraq.
I am not sure what dual use equipment you're talking about. The dual
use equipment that Iraq obtained from the US was for chemical weapons
and Iran has not made any such deals with the USA. But if you're
talking about nuclear "dual use" stuff, note that Iran has signed and
abides by the Additional Protocol and Iraq did not, and furthermore
IRaq invaded Iran and not vice versa.
I agree that it was bad
> for Iraq to get that technology, where I disagree with you is your
> fantasy that there's no issue in the case of Iran.
There's an 'issue' whenever you decide to make it into an issue. The
bottom line is this:
Iran is ENTITLED to have nuclear technology under Art 4 of the
non-proliferation Treaty.
This technology, which is used for civilian purposes, COULD ONE DAY
POSSIBLY be used to make bombs - as can my pocket calculator.
But having the technology is not proof of an intent to make bombs.
On the other hand, if IRan did decide to build bombs, IT WOULD MAKE
PERFECT SENSE for Iran. After all, they're surrounded by nuclear
weapons states.
> Here. This names a number of specific companies that were selling
> such "dual use" technology to Iran:
>
> http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/wmdjune02.asp
Had it ever occurred to you that ANY technology "could be" used to
make WMD??? Has it occurred to you that the same US government LIED
about Iraq???
> > However, what's NOT being mentioned is the chem-bio weapons
> > programs of the US and Israel...until now.
>
> Israel is going to attack Iran? Is that the claim? Iran doesn't have
> terrorist links?
>
> What? Be specific.
ISrael is going to attack Iran? I don't know since they haven't told
me. If they do, so what? Iran will rightfully use to the opportunity
to withdraw from the NPT and build nuclear weapons for self-defense in
EARNEST with the full support and backing of its people.
Terrorist links? As if Israel doesn't have terrorist links or the USA
doesn't have terrorist links? Who do you think trained the Guatemalan
hit squads who rape nuns as a hobby? You really need to read a book or
two and stop watching Fox News.
JTEM
"Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Are you just making this up as you go along? Where are
> > you pretending that I said the U.N. made any direct
> > claims? The U.N. is definitely reporting Iran's total lack
> > of cooperation & dishonesty. However, the U.N. itself
> > draws no conclusions from these facts.
> Ah, see how you fall for the guilt-by-innuendo again by reading
> facts into reports that arent there?
Cut to the chase: Are you admitting that you were wrong, or do
you always have difficulty following conversations?
Now read the report. Skip to section B, page 5, if you're only
interested in the naughty bits:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
Thelasian
Read it. Sorry, no mention of a nuclear weapons program.
JTEM
"Thelasian" <thel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > Are you just making this up as you go along? Where are
> > > > you pretending that I said the U.N. made any direct
> > > > claims? The U.N. is definitely reporting Iran's total lack
> > > > of cooperation & dishonesty. However, the U.N. itself
> > > > draws no conclusions from these facts.
Later:
> Read it. Sorry, no mention of a nuclear weapons program.
Sorry, idiot, but you're making this up as you go along. I never
claimed that the U.N. offered conclusions on a wepaons
program.
What I did state is the fact that *Everything* Bush said of Iraq
is true for Iran. Everything.
As for what the U.N. is saying, start at section B, page 5:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-34.pdf
Jean Guernon
Thelasian a écrit:
No of courrrrse, they keep building centrigufes and other activities
which they don't declare until they get busted, just for kids
merrygorounds, of courrrrrrrrse.
LOL
J.
insurgent0001
JTEM
"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
> By what right could we force Iran to give up it's WMD
> programs?
What's not >clicking< here is that Iran is a rogue nation.
It's been a supporter of international terrorism for
decades, has already bankrolled the deaths of more U.S.
service personal than was lost in the first Gulf war, and
has no intentions of ever playing nice.
All the arguments Bush used against Iraq -- every single
one of them -- honestly applies to Iran.
I'm not saying that Iran doesn't have a "Right" to any kind
of weapons it wants. What I'm saying is that the U.S.
government has an obligation to protect the American
people.
insurgent0001
> "insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
>
> > By what right could we force Iran to give up it's WMD
> > programs?
>
> All the arguments Bush used against Iraq -- every single
> one of them -- honestly applies to Iran.
4 arguements for war against Iraq that don't apply to Iran:
1) Iraq signed a peace treaty in which the USA agreed to allow Saddam
stay in power if he agreed to give up WMD and allow inspectors to verify
it (which he broke). There's no such treaty with Iran.
2) Iraq used WMD against his own people and against Iranians in his
invasion of Iran.
3) Iraq was agressive towards its neighbors including full scale
invasions. Iran hasn't invaded anybody, but is exporting fighting
against US troops and terrorism in Iraq, but is not yet to the level
that demands large scale retailation.
4) Saddam was murdering thousands of his own people.
JTEM
"insurgent0001" <YahooGroup@anti_kerry.join-us> wrote
> 4 arguements for war against Iraq that don't apply to Iran:
This will be amusing...
> 1) Iraq signed a peace treaty in which the USA agreed to
> allow Saddam stay in power
The U.N. It wasn't the U.S., it was the U.N.
> if he agreed to give up WMD and allow inspectors to verify
> it (which he broke).
The inspectors left voluntarily.
> 2) Iraq used WMD against his own people and against
> Iranians in his invasion of Iran.
The Republicans were supporting him while he was doing
it. The sold him chemical (and even biological) agents to
help him launch these attacks.
> 3) Iraq was agressive towards its neighbors including
> full scale invasions.
The Republicans fully endorsed & supported one of those
invasions, and gave the green light to the other in advance.
> Iran hasn't invaded anybody,
Irrelevant.
> but is exporting fighting against US troops and terrorism
> in Iraq, but is not yet to the level that demands large scale
> retailation.
So it's best if we wait until they have a stockpile of nuclear
weapons?
> 4) Saddam was murdering thousands of his own people.
The Republicans supported him. In fact, after the 1991 Gulf
war, they modified the terms of the no-fly zones so he could
fly his attack helicopters against his own people.
Remember what you said here, when the mushroom cloud
appears.
gruhn
> weapons?
So it's best if they wait until we have a stockpile of nuclear weapons?
> The Republicans supported him. In fact, after the 1991 Gulf
You lose big points for thinking it's all about private influence clubs.
JTEM
"gruhn" <gr...@deletehwb.com> wrote
> > So it's best if we wait until they have a stockpile of nuclear
> > weapons?
> So it's best if they wait until we have a stockpile of nuclear
> weapons?
We've had them, baby, and you can be a dear and point out the
last time we used them on Iran.
What, you're blowing smoke?
> > The Republicans supported him. In fact, after the 1991 Gulf
> You lose big points for thinking it's all about private influence
> clubs.
Oh, baby, maybe you can see your way into translating this into
English?
Thanks bunches.
>
John Griffin
> Thanks bunches. <flounce>
Your popinjay act is just precious. (I added the flounce for you, to make
the quote completely accurate.)
It's not real surprising that you aren't bright enough to understand what
he said, but you shouldn't make an issue of your illiteracy like that. It
was perfectly clear, even though it had a couple of errors (you have no big
points to lose, and of course the "influence club" you so laughably try to
blame for everything isn't private). Seriously, a normal person would have
to try really hard to fail to understand what he said. It looks like you're
a very well practiced failure.
JTEM
The Independent of Clackamas County
endorsed John Kerry for President????
The Independent
JTEM
"The Independent of Clackamas County" <jam...@web-ster.com> wrote
> I wonder if you realize that Rupert Murdock (owner of Fox)
> has endorsed John Kerry for President????
No I haven't. And I'm not about to, considering that his papers
and "news" network couldn't be more slanted in favor of Bush
if they asked the RNC to write all their stories.
John Griffin
Strider
Cites?
Examples?
Are you refering to the editorials or the reporting?
Do you know the difference?
It's easy to make such dipshit claims when you don't back them up.
Strider
JTEM
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote
> > No I haven't. And I'm not about to, considering that his papers
> > and "news" network couldn't be more slanted in favor of Bush
> > if they asked the RNC to write all their stories.
> Cites?
> Examples?
Besides the numerous books, there's now even a movie dealing
with the subject of Fox "news" and their partisan GOP slant.
> Are you refering to the editorials or the reporting?
Reporting? From people who went to court to protect their "right"
to lie on the air?
> Do you know the difference?
*Duh*!
> It's easy to make such dipshit claims when you don't back
> them up.
Did you only recently fall off a turnip truck, or are you really
this uninformed? Seriously. You'd have to be retarded...
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote
>
>> > No I haven't. And I'm not about to, considering that his papers
>> > and "news" network couldn't be more slanted in favor of Bush
>> > if they asked the RNC to write all their stories.
>
>> Cites?
>> Examples?
>
>Besides the numerous books, there's now even a movie dealing
>with the subject of Fox "news" and their partisan GOP slant.
Farenheit 9-11?
Snicker
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"
JTEM
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> Dissimulation
Yeah, I'll be sure to think about considering reading
it later. Thanks anyway.
The Independent of Clackamas County
Gunner wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:04:07 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>No I haven't. And I'm not about to, considering that his papers
>>>>and "news" network couldn't be more slanted in favor of Bush
>>>>if they asked the RNC to write all their stories.
>>
>>>Cites?
>>>Examples?
>>
>>Besides the numerous books, there's now even a movie dealing
>>with the subject of Fox "news" and their partisan GOP slant.
>
>
> Farenheit 9-11?
>
> Snicker
>
For someone living in total darkness even a single candle is a bright
light?????
The Independent
Jeff McCann
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:4v19h05u1jcvm8156...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:04:07 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote
> >
> >> > No I haven't. And I'm not about to, considering that his papers
> >> > and "news" network couldn't be more slanted in favor of Bush
> >> > if they asked the RNC to write all their stories.
> >
> >> Cites?
> >> Examples?
> >
> >Besides the numerous books, there's now even a movie dealing
> >with the subject of Fox "news" and their partisan GOP slant.
>
> Farenheit 9-11?
I think he was referring to "Outfoxed"
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Jeff
John Griffin
Hi, infantile little nonentity. Be sure to snip this.
JTEM
John Griffin
JTEM
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> You
I suppose I could be less interested. I don't know how,
but I must entertain it as a possibility...
John Griffin
>
> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>
>> You
>
> I suppose I could be less interested.
"Interested," my ass. You misspelled "whipped," fool.
> I don't know how,
"How"?! You misspelled "anything"...but you didn't need to mention your
colossal degree of ignorance. It was obvious from your first pathetic
bleat.
> but I must entertain it as a possibility...
Uhoh...now you're deluding yourself that you're able to evaluate
information. You have proven beyond even imaginary doubt that you're way
too fucking thick to do anything like that.
Snivel some more. Your efforts are pitiful, but they're sorta funny.
JTEM
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> "Interested,"
Some people don't know that they're dead.
John Baker
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953FA88B8B659th...@130.133.1.4...
Will you guys just fucking knock it off? Neither of you is a genius in my
book.
.
John Griffin
> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> You
>> >
>> > I suppose I could be less interested.
>>
>>
>> "Interested," my ass. You misspelled "whipped," fool.
>>
>> > I don't know how,
>>
>> "How"?! You misspelled "anything"...but you didn't need to mention
>> your colossal degree of ignorance. It was obvious from your first
>> pathetic bleat.
>>
>> > but I must entertain it as a possibility...
>>
>> Uhoh...now you're deluding yourself that you're able to evaluate
>> information. You have proven beyond even imaginary doubt that you're
>> way too fucking thick to do anything like that.
>>
>> Snivel some more. Your efforts are pitiful, but they're sorta funny.
>
> Will you guys just fucking knock it off?
He did. Now he's pouting. Now that you mention it, he's pouting so hard
that I believe it will be self-sustaining, so I'll leave him to it.
>Neither of you is a genius in my
> book.
That's cool. You're not a big-tittied babe in my book. What's our point
here with this off-the-wall stuff? Did he say he's a genius?