Bend Over For George Bush

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:37:04 AM11/20/02
to
Oh wonderful...

Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!

Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
December 28th, the price of gas is expected to rise to $4, not a single
person has been prosecuted for the billions of dollars that were stolen
from Californians by the energy companies...and now your every move is
going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!

Welcome to the Fifth Reich! Heil Bush!

Bend over, folks, the nightmare has just begun.

With apologies to Robert Hunter: If Osama don't get you, then Bush &
Ashcroft and John Poindexter will!

Yow. I feel like I died and went to hell!

Joe

LISURFER1228

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:50:42 AM11/20/02
to
Well Said.
Once again.
I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the north east brake away
from these inbreed idiots and start our own country.
Is it too late?

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:52:54 AM11/20/02
to
Published on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 by the San Francisco
Chronicle

Axis of Oil and Iraq

by Maria Elena Martinez and Joshua Karliner


There are connections between Iraq and Enron that should not be
overlooked: The pounding of war drums drowns out the sound of
handcuffs as they lock around American business leaders' wrists. And
the heady rush of patriotism helps mask the hangover of a bubble
economy gone bust.

We're not saying that President Bush's call to attack Iraq is strictly
a sleight of hand to distract the American public from the domestic
problems plaguing his presidency. Many complex historical and
political layers have brought us to where we are today. But at a
minimum, the looming war with Iraq presents the opportunity for Bush
to duck the corporate scandals and reframe the national debate.

At today's political crossroads, we should be discussing key issues:
greater corporate accountability; how to build a more just global
economic order; and, for national security, how to kick the oil habit
while fostering environmentally sound renewable energy.

Instead, we seem to be at the edge of a downward spiral of war,
terrorism and the evisceration of our democratic rights. Why are we
taking such risks? One thing is patently obvious, a little
three-letter word: oil.

Invading Iraq and taking over its oil fields is the logical yet insane
extension of the Bush administration's foreign policy. For instance,
Bush's attempted unilateralism with regard to attacking Iraq (he has
only begrudgingly included the U.N. Security Council) is thoroughly
consistent with the unilateralism he exhibited when he pulled out of
the Kyoto treaty on global warming.

By bailing on Kyoto, Bush, at the behest of the oil industry, dropped
out of a treaty designed to save us from the mass destruction of
climate change by moving the world away from fossil fuels and toward
clean energy. And if he invades Iraq, Bush further entrenches the
deadly connection between U.S. interests and oil interests.

Sitting at the apex of world power, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
form an axis of oil with the industry. President Bush comes from a
family with long and deep connections to petroleum companies. Prior to
becoming vice president, Cheney headed Halliburton Co., which
describes itself as "one of the world's largest providers of products
and services to the petroleum and energy industries."

Time and again, be it in Alaska or Indonesia, Bush and Cheney have
demonstrated their proclivity to prioritize oil interests over human
rights and the environment. Indeed, Vice President Cheney's Energy
Task Force, after consulting with many CEOs in the energy industry,
defined national security as access to oil.

A U.S. victory in Iraq could, according to the Washington Post, "open
a bonanza for American oil companies long banished" from that country.
This would provide more direct U.S. access to the largest oil reserves
in the world next to Saudi Arabia's; that, in turn, could break the
back of OPEC, while providing a coveted prize for Bush and Cheney's
American and British oil company friends.

But such "success" in Iraq -- in addition to the huge toll in
immediate human casualties -- will also seriously undermine national
and global security.

One of the ways it will do so will be to lock the world further into
energy consumption patterns that broad scientific consensus has
determined will deepen global warming and all its impacts. These
include a rise in sea levels, which will displace hundreds of millions
of people; more extreme storms, droughts, famines and floods; and
spreading disease.

In essence, the Bush administration's definition of national security
serves U.S. corporate interests, allowing some to profit and others to
hide. But beyond this, it is not at all clear who else, if anyone,
might benefit.

The United States and the rest of the world would be much better off
if we cracked down on corporate criminals, while taking the billions
of dollars we're set to spend on war and investing them in kicking the
oil habit and transforming our energy systems into environmentally
sound alternatives.

Maria Elena Martinez is executive director of and Joshua Karliner is
senior adviser to CorpWatch, a San Francisco-based organization that
works on corporate accountability issues.

)2002 San Francisco Chronicle


John Bray

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 11:05:37 AM11/20/02
to

"LISURFER1228" wrote

Heeeey, I take offense to that. It's INBRED idiots!

JB


brew ziggins

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 11:17:01 AM11/20/02
to
John...@mindspring.com spake thusly:

>
"LISURFER1228" wrote
> Well Said.
> Once again.
> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the
> north east brake away from these inbreed idiots and
> start our own country. Is it too late?

And can the literate people in the northeast break away
from the illiterate people in the northeast and start our
own newsgroup?

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Bartlet.

l bruce higgins ithaca new york
lbh2 at cornell dot edu

Sarandipidy

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 11:59:59 AM11/20/02
to
>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>December 28th,

my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.

sara

the desert's quiet and cleveland's cold, and so the story ends we're told.
pancho needs your prayers, it's true, but save a few for lefty, too-- he only
did what he had to, and now he's growin old.

Mvp8779

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 12:36:04 PM11/20/02
to
>Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
>
>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>December 28th

isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
alive and plotting.


MVP

"I try to convey what you strive to condone"
-- quoted credited to "Mr. Trey Antipasta; whom you all love so
dearly"--as introduced by Les Claypool @ Bonnaroo

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 12:36:45 PM11/20/02
to
Sarandipidy <saran...@aol.compostpile> wrote:
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th,

> my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
> house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.

With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.

And to think...just 2+ short years ago, under Bill Clinton, the
unemployment rate was negligable, gas was hovering at about $1 a gallon,
the Dow Jones was near 11,000...

And it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
next stop is Baghdad and Afghanistan

Joe

Jim K

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 1:51:41 PM11/20/02
to
On 20 Nov 2002 17:36:04 GMT, mvp...@aol.com (Mvp8779) wrote:

>>Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
>>
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th
>
>isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
>many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
>a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
>have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
>alive and plotting.

Maybe he can help OJ find the real killer while he's at it.

Jim K

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 1:48:11 PM11/20/02
to
>I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is
>now going to have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and
>his mates who are clearly alive and plotting.

It's been 14 months so far, and Osama's capture is about as likely as
Jerry showing up at the NYE show.

But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
on the American public.

At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.

Joe

Frndthdevl

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 2:08:40 PM11/20/02
to
>From: Joe

>But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
>on the American public.
>
>At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.

If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well? Again, it is my opinion
that democraps should be held more resonsible. It is the republicraps nature to
be big brother, and cave to the pharmeceutical companies. but the demorats
rolled right on over, what ,9 NO votes. What is that all about? Oh, they would
rather be re-elected than vote their
conscience.

JC Martin

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 2:53:36 PM11/20/02
to
"Mvp8779" <mvp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021120123604...@mb-md.aol.com...

> >Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
> >
> >Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
> >December 28th
>
> isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially
paralyze
> many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this
slowped of
> a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into
the
> the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now
going to
> have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are
clearly
> alive and plotting.


The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.

He's buying time.

-JC

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 2:56:24 PM11/20/02
to
Frndthdevl <frndt...@aol.comdown> wrote:

> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?

Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
murder being immoral.

Y'know...you sound like a broken record. No matter what the subject, the
answer is to arm yourself. Maybe it's time for your LSD booster shot.

Joe


RkFast, the Flake slayer

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 3:53:00 PM11/20/02
to
Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends
goodbye as they plunge to their deaths from the top of the World Trade
Center.


How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
family from ever having to relive that horror.


Within reason, of course.

Mvp8779

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 4:22:04 PM11/20/02
to
<< The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.

He's buying time.
>>

there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact, if we
could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically harmless
(no cash=no threat)

cactusferret

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 4:37:55 PM11/20/02
to

Which is exactly why victims of crimes do not decide the sentences of the
criminals in our judicial system.
cf

Sarandipidy

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 5:00:33 PM11/20/02
to
>And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
>family from ever having to relive that horror.

since when is attacking civil rights automatically protection? who judges what
is "in reason"? them??? yeah, that's really smart.

since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off people.
NOT COOL.

JC Martin

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 5:09:17 PM11/20/02
to
"Mvp8779" <mvp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021120162204...@mb-mb.aol.com...

> << The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
> going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what
he
> has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
>
> He's buying time.
> >>
>
> there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
> skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact,
if we
> could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
> scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically
harmless
> (no cash=no threat)


I'm not arguing whether or not Sadam should be removed or whether he is
dangerous or not. Personally, I think he is dangerous...just not
necessarily a danger to us *now*. I was just pointing out that the Bush
administration has a lot to work with here in terms of milking the Sadam
issue as for whatever they need it for.

-JC


JYOB

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 5:42:18 PM11/20/02
to
>>And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
>>family from ever having to relive that horror.

Those who trade freedom for security get neither.

TOG

Nate C.

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 5:52:56 PM11/20/02
to

Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?


Darren E. Mason

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 5:52:38 PM11/20/02
to
"Sarandipidy" <saran...@aol.compostpile> wrote in message
news:20021120170033...@mb-fi.aol.com...

> since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off
people.
> NOT COOL.

How is it being "taken away"? My understanding is that the benefits are
running out according to either (a) the usual timetable of 26 weeks or (b)
the extended time table of 26 weeks + 13 weeks (via the Oct 2002 act of
congress for states hit by heavy unemployment (>30%) or by 9/11).

What is the substance of your complaint?

DM

Bongo Y. McCongo

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 6:42:05 PM11/20/02
to
> the price of gas is expected to rise to $4

I wonder what the price of gas would be if the following externalities
were included: the funding of terrorist organizations such as Al
Qaeda, the military garrisons and occasional military intervention
needed to keep said oil flowing, damage to the environment from oil
drilling and transport, and the damage to human health and to the
environment from exhaust pollution.

If all of these externalities were included up front at the pump I
would think that $4 per gallon would be a bargain. One might say a
rip off, even.

Ray

Joe

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 6:55:09 PM11/20/02
to
RkFast, the Flake slayer <rkf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> family from ever having to relive that horror.

But, but, but...with Osama bin Laden still still at large, how has your
government protected you exactly?

By killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan? By letting the
energy companies off the hook for their colusion, price-fixing and
conspiracy to rape the citizens of California? By refusing to extend
unemployment benefits?

How exactly has your government protected you?

Joe

Garry Bryan

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:08:31 PM11/20/02
to
RkFast, the Flake slayer <rkf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends


: Within reason, of course.

I think the conflict is "Just what is a reasonable reaction to the fact
some people may want to cuase us harm?" Taking away the things that make
the US the beacon of freedom may not be the best way, but if we change the
entire character of the nation maybe that will stop folks from hating us.

Garry

Garry Bryan

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:09:20 PM11/20/02
to
Nate C. <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
:> Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends

Well, if we don't have it then nobody can!!

Garry


JBgoode

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:33:06 PM11/20/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddbc...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...


> Sarandipidy <saran...@aol.compostpile> wrote:
> >>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits
on
> >>December 28th,
>
> > my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell
his
> > house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
>
> With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
> of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
> rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
> extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.

But the Dems are the majority in Congress...

JBgoode

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:36:17 PM11/20/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message

news:3ddbe...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...


> Frndthdevl <frndt...@aol.comdown> wrote:
>
> > If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
>
> Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
> pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
> something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
> murder being immoral.

I don't even own a gun, but I sure can picture myself killing another human
being. Sure, it's "not quite right," but if somebody's going to try to kill
me, I'd have no problem killing them.

Timothy Lynch

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:38:43 PM11/20/02
to
"JBgoode" <jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:

} But the Dems are the majority in Congress...

What year do you live in?

JBgoode

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:39:14 PM11/20/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'

"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4LRC9.49817$Ik.12...@typhoon.sonic.net...

Iraq is already setting themselves up to kick out the inspectors. Today, I
heard a radio report that Iraq has stated that they are fine with the
inspectors, unless the inspectors start "collecting intelligence." They can
say that any time they want.

Jon


JBgoode

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:41:21 PM11/20/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'

"Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...

Kinda like gun control, huh?


John Doherty

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 7:55:21 PM11/20/02
to

> --
> To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
> "Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...

> > Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?


In article <s_VC9.39645$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, JBgoode
<jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:

> Kinda like gun control, huh?
>

Actually, no, not at all. Gun Control is (at least in part) about
removing your "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction (uzi),
something Bush is keen to do to Saddam, if not the ones who really have
them, North Korea.

it is about restricting the right to bear arms to non-criminals and the
non-insane.

I feel a lot less free knowing any idiot can purschase a submachine
gun....


JD

Toad The Dead Vegan

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 8:33:27 PM11/20/02
to

You left out the additional, additional 13 weeks received by people in
certain states favored by Congress.

There are people who have been receiving unemployment benefits for an
entire year.

TDV

Vinlandr

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:19:35 PM11/20/02
to
Joe <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote:

> and now your every move is
> going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!

Don't bet on it. Bush doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights,
including the Second Amendment.

Vinlandr

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:20:48 PM11/20/02
to
lisurf...@aol.com (LISURFER1228) wrote:

> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...

You're as ignorant as most Republicans.

Both California Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, voted for the
Fatherland Security Bill.

Check the rest of the "yea" roster.

Vinlandr

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 10:23:04 PM11/20/02
to
mvp...@aol.com (Mvp8779) wrote:

> Only two more years with this slowped of a President...

Do you really believe there will be elections in 2004?

Kelly Humphries

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 11:11:07 PM11/20/02
to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:

> But the Dems are the majority in Congress...

From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php

House Membership
Party Divisions

223 Republicans
208 Democrats
1 Independent
3 Vacancies


Senate Membership
Party Divisions

49 Republicans
49 Democrats
2 Independent

Page last modified: November 19, 2002

Darren E. Mason

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 4:36:49 AM11/21/02
to

"Vinlandr" <vinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae6303f.02112...@posting.google.com...

> lisurf...@aol.com (LISURFER1228) wrote:
>
> > I blame the south and the bible belt for this...
>
> You're as ignorant as most Republicans.

....or that statement.

DM

.


Darren E. Mason

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 4:38:27 AM11/21/02
to
"Kelly Humphries" <kpi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021120...@grace.speakeasy.net...

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:
>
> > But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
>
> From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php
>

<membership snipped>

Most likely he meant the Senate which is in the hands of the Dems through
the end
of the lame duck session (due to Jeffords aligning with the Dems and Barkley
remaining
independent).

DM

Roger

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 7:40:08 AM11/21/02
to
rkf...@hotmail.com (RkFast, the Flake slayer) wrote
> And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> family from ever having to relive that horror.

Your government scares the hell out of me.

Roger

dndphishin

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:20:14 AM11/21/02
to

">
> My prediction is after Iraq, the next major military offensive is in
> South America. It will be in the name of freedom and democracy against
> leftists and terrorists. Only cynics like me will think it is about oil,
> other natural resources and mmmm... cheap labor.
>

I'm not so sure....I figure it goes like this:
Iraq
Iran
North Korea will be "on the table" for 2004 "elections" under the campaign
message "They Got Nukes, folks"! Nothing like fear to win an election.

I do see the South American issue in the more distant future - especially if
GWB wins in 2004. I figure that the North Korea "nucular" issue would serve
as a much better vehicle (from the Bush perspective) to scare the hell out
of people vs. South American drugs - but then again, who knows what deeds
GWB will accuse South America of after a future 9-11?


Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:23:55 AM11/21/02
to

This is what happened last time we went in, iraq said NO SPIES!!...We
said.."sure"....then we sent spies in, they caught us and kicked us out....WE
lied not saddam.....I cant wait till another country attacks us for
having....."weapons of mass destruction"....lol.....

Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:24:41 AM11/21/02
to
>Frndthdevl <frndt...@aol.comdown> wrote:
>
>> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
>
>Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
>pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
>something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
>murder being immoral.
>
>Y'know...you sound like a broken record. No matter what the subject, the
>answer is to arm yourself. Maybe it's time for your LSD booster shot.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pointing a gun at someone raping your daughter would be terrible....

Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:27:34 AM11/21/02
to
>about
>removing your "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction (uzi),

congratulations, youve been brainwashed....using the term "weapons of mass
destruction " proves it. This term was drummed up to illicit a certain emotinal
response from you. And it seems to have worked....I refuse to use the
term.....its sorta like..."assault rifle"....no such thing...

Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:28:10 AM11/21/02
to

I agree and this is why i own a gun for personal protection....

Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:30:19 AM11/21/02
to
>> the price of gas is expected to rise to $4

this is great actually. I would like to see it around 6 bucks a gallon.Maybe we
could then get some action on the solar tip......:)...I believe that one day
all cars and vehicles will run on solar power . All homes and buildings will
run on solar.....The sun runs our entire galaxy, i dont see why it couldnt
power a light bulb...

Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:31:13 AM11/21/02
to
>vp8...@aol.com (Mvp8779) wrote:
>
>> Only two more years with this slowped of a President...
>
>Do you really believe there will be elections in 2004?
>
>
>
>
>
>

get used to it, bush will be re elected in a landslide.....

JBgoode

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 10:11:45 AM11/21/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'

"Kelly Humphries" <kpi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021120...@grace.speakeasy.net...

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:
>
> > But the Dems are the majority in Congress...

I meant Senate.

JBgoode

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 10:13:59 AM11/21/02
to

--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'

"Timothy Lynch" <tly...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:arh9uj$1b3h$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...


> "JBgoode" <jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> } But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
>
> What year do you live in?

This year, and I meant the Senate.


kurt

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 10:46:24 AM11/21/02
to
saran...@aol.compostpile (Sarandipidy) wrote in message news:<20021120170033...@mb-fi.aol.com>...

> >And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> >family from ever having to relive that horror.
>
> since when is attacking civil rights automatically protection? who judges what
> is "in reason"? them??? yeah, that's really smart.
>
> since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off people.
> NOT COOL.
>

I know two people who were laid off. They haven't done *anything* to
find a new job. They are riding on unemployment. Once it's over, they
will look for a new job. It cuts both ways.

Kurt

JC Martin

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 2:01:53 PM11/21/02
to
"Jperdue4" <jper...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021121092355...@mb-ft.aol.com...


Brilliant!

-JC


JC Martin

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 2:03:10 PM11/21/02
to
"Jon" <jonv...@justice.com> wrote in message
news:3ddc07f4$0$1413$272e...@news.execpc.com...

> Mvp8779 <mvp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Only two more years with this slowped of
> > a President.....
>
> Are you sure you're not misunderestimating him? Billions of pork barrell
> and patronage are flowing to those who are "loyal."
>
> Besides saving the world with things like the department of homeland
> security will take forever to do, certainly more than two years. The
> same hue and cry will be going on in two years - make the world safe for
> freedom loving peoples...

>
> > I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
> > the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now
going to
> > have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are
clearly
> > alive and plotting.
>
> Don't forget that Saddam will be found in violation of the sanctions as
> soon as a WMD is found.
>
> One way or another, the US is going to take over Iraq, dole out the oil
> fields as "reparations" or some such and then lack the courage and will
> it would take to rule the region and try and set up some peaceful,
> semi-democratic government for the benefit of the inhabitants.
>
> If they have to, Mossad or the CIA will lob something into Israel.

The CIA? *LOL* Get real Jon.

-JC


TitanTim

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 2:45:04 PM11/21/02
to
rkf...@hotmail.com (RkFast, the Flake slayer) wrote in message news:<39b6b66c.02112...@posting.google.com>...

> Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends
> goodbye as they plunge to their deaths from the top of the World Trade
> Center.
>
>
> How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
> And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> family from ever having to relive that horror.
>
>
> Within reason, of course.

Slipper Slope, that "within reason" comment...

He who would give up his freedom for his safety deserves neither....

TitanTim

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 2:47:12 PM11/21/02
to
rdm...@yahoo.com (Roger) wrote in message news:<a1857124.02112...@posting.google.com>...

Any government scares the hell out of me...

Joe

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 2:56:37 PM11/21/02
to
Jperdue4 <jper...@aol.com> wrote:

> Pointing a gun at someone raping your daughter would be terrible....

Hey. Walking down the street, minding your own business, and getting
murdered by some bozo with a handgun would be terrible too.

The murder rate in America isn't merely terrible; it's an abomination with
11,000 innocent victims lying dead on the streets of America...every year,
year after year, decade after decade.

And, if you can't see that, something is very, very wrong...

To me, you pro-gun folks come off just like Beavis and Butt-head, with a
"heh, heh, guns are kewl."

Joe

Nate C.

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 3:27:29 PM11/21/02
to

> > > How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
> > > And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> > > family from ever having to relive that horror.
> > >
> > >
> > > Within reason, of course.
> >
> > Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
>
> Kinda like gun control, huh?


No. There are certain things that people are generally too stupid to be
allowed to have. Certain types of chemicals come to mind. Guns could
arguably go into this category as well.


Jperdue4

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 3:26:17 PM11/21/02
to
Did you know 43,200 folks die in cars each year?....14,900 die from
"FALLS"...lol...should we outlaw cars and stairs?..."Gunviolence" is higher in
those cities and states with strict gun control laws....this is true in every
case.....
http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/facts_you_can_use.htm#Firearms:

Firearm Use In Violent Crime: More significantly, despite the fact the number
of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase
from 1997 to 1998, the F.B.I. also reported:

Decrease in Firearm Murders: In 1997, of the 15,837 murders as to which the
type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I., 10,729 were committed with
firearms; in 1998, 14,088 murders in which the type of weapon used was known,
9,143 were committed with firearms.
Decrease in Rate of Firearm Murders: Thus, the rate of firearms used to commit
murders decreased from 67.8 percent (of murders in which the type of weapon
used was known to the F.B.I.) in 1997, to 64.9 percent in 1998.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (total numbers): Extrapolating these rates
to the total number of murders in 1998 (as opposed to just the murders in which
the type of weapon used was known), 10,977 of the total 16,914 murders
apparently involved the use of firearms, and 5,937 involved other types of
weapons.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (rate per 100,000): In 1998, there were 4.1
(per 100,000 population) murders involving the use of firearms, and 2.2 (per
100,000) murders involving weapons other than firearms.

[Note: it is instructive to compare the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. to
the total murder rates in those countries which have strict gun control; e.g.,
Japan, where the total murder rate of .6 per 100,000 is about one quarter of
the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. This proves that the absence of
firearms does not lead to lower murder rates. Click here to examine these
data.]

Knives--Increased Usage: By contrast, the FBI also reports that the percentage
of murders involving knives is on the rise. Knives were used in 13.3 percent of
the murders committed in the United States in 1998 as compared to 12.7 percent
of murders in 1994.
Decrease in Use of Firearms in Robberies: The rate of firearms used to commit
robberies decreased from 39.7 in 1997 to 38.2 in 1998.
Please click here to view the F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports.

Murder Rate and Firearms
As reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, according
to the F.B.I., the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to
19,645--from 1993 to 1996. There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.

The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per
100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)

Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994 by
as much as 2.5 million per year, while, as shown above, the murder rate
decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to
higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World
Report)

In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders,
but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S. Of these, 15,551, or
69 percent, involved the use of a firearm. The percentage of firearms-related
homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994. By 1998, the rate of firearms use
in murder was down to 64.9 (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident
Facts; F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports)

In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death.
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

>To me, you pro-gun folks come off just like Beavis and Butt-head, with a
>"heh, heh, guns are kewl."
>
>Joe

To me, you come off as one of those "SIEG HEIL!!" guys...heh heh heh...

RkFast, the Flake slayer

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 4:26:32 PM11/21/02
to
Monica Charen-
The War Over the War

It will be interesting to see how the debate over civil liberties and
the war on terror plays out now that the electorate has given
President Bush such a vote of confidence. Since Sept. 11, the left has
pitched fits about military commissions, alleged attorney-client
privilege infringements, telephone taps, surveillance of suspected
terrorists, fingerprinting and photographing of some foreign visitors,
and particularly round-ups of visa violators. Each of these measures
has been met with loud objections from liberals who are convinced that
the Bush administration is on the verge of creating a police state.

Others see the world differently. Instead of an out-of-control
government behemoth spying on you and me in complete disregard for
civil liberties, they see our domestic and foreign intelligence
services as defanged watchdogs, powerless to detect or stop terrorism
after decades of liberal "reforms."

No one, least of all a conservative concerned about government power,
should take civil liberties protection lightly. But the liberal
reforms of the past generation have gone way beyond protecting the
privacy rights of American citizens -- they've protected the ability
of international terrorists to function in this country virtually
unimpeded. Everyone now knows that FBI agent Colleen Rowley pleaded
with her superiors for permission to inspect the computer of Zacharias
Moussaoui, only to be told that she lacked "probable cause." If
investigators had searched that laptop, they would have found the name
and phone number of one the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 plot.

This bit of recent history is raised to imply that the FBI screwed up
in August 2001. Yet when the suggestion is made that perhaps the
"probable cause" standard be brought down a notch, say to "reasonable
suspicion," the civil-liberties types go ballistic. When the Justice
Department interviewed several thousand men from Arab nations, The New
York Times decried the "vast roundup" and the American Civil Liberties
Union shrilled that this "dragnet approach ... is likely to magnify
concerns of racial and ethnic profiling. In fact, as Professor Robert
Turner of the University of Virginia Law School relates, interviewees
were treated politely and asked, among other things, whether they had
encountered any acts of bigotry.

Before Sept. 11, and thanks to a process of emasculization stretching
back to the Church committee hearings of the 1970s, the FBI and CIA
were forbidden to share information. Even within the FBI, thanks to
"the wall" inaugurated under Attorney General Janet Reno, a
counter-terrorism agent examining a terror cell in Buffalo could not
walk down the hall and chat with a criminal investigator who was
looking into money laundering by the same people. The FBI was
forbidden to conduct general Internet searches, or to visit public
places open to all.

Seventy-five percent of the American people told the Gallup
organization that the Bush administration has not gone too far in
restricting civil liberties. Fifty percent thought they'd gone far
enough, but 25 thought they should have been tougher. Only 11 percent
thought the administration had gone too far.

What liberals are now urging is that suspected terrorists, here or
abroad, be accorded the full panoply of rights we give to ordinary
criminal defendants. But this judicializes war. President Bill Clinton
adhered to this model and accordingly turned down an opportunity to
capture bin Laden because he feared we might not have proper evidence
for a criminal indictment.

But the war powers of the presidency, long respected by the courts,
permit special action in the case of war. Even before Sept. 11, bin
Laden had declared war on the United States and was clearly ineligible
for a criminal trial. He was morally and legally an enemy combatant.
Similarly, though, President Bush has not taken any action since Sept.
11 that was not also approved overwhelmingly by the Congress.

But the key point is this: If we err on the side of civil liberties
instead of on the side of security, hundreds of thousands or millions
of Americans could die. If we err on the side of security, many people
will be inconvenienced and a few individuals may be wrongly imprisoned
for some time. In which direction would you lean?

Atl Bob

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 6:37:11 PM11/21/02
to
frndt...@aol.comdown (Frndthdevl) wrote in message news:<20021120140840...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
> >From: Joe
>
> >But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
> >on the American public.
> >
> >At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
>
> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well? Again, it is my opinion
> that democraps should be held more resonsible. It is the republicraps nature to
> be big brother, and cave to the pharmeceutical companies. but the demorats
> rolled right on over, what ,9 NO votes. What is that all about? Oh, they would
> rather be re-elected than vote their
> conscience.

I am trying to get away from the political stuff on RMGD since
there was just too much of it here recently (TOO shows have solved
some of that fortunately) but I must say I agree with you here. That
Nancy Pelosi woman is now the Minority Leader in the House. She was
one of the only ones who voted against authorizing the use of force in
Iraq without getting sufficient evidence (this was after she was
briefed by the Prez BTW) and now is backtracking saying she will
support it. WTF?? Have some backbone woman! I see Gore is speaking
up some but this "being nice" BS is for the birds. Last thing this
nation needs is a "GOP Lite". We need REAL opposition - one that will
keep these corporate criminals known as Republicans honest. This
bullshit of laying down and playing dead is just wrong.

The Dem Senator here in Georgia (Max Cleland) finally did vote
for Shrub's tax plan only after some of the ludicrous breaks for
billionaires were taken out. You figure the GOP would say "OK Max,
glad you finally saw it our way after some compromise" which is what
politics is all about. Instead they successfully painted this Vietnam
vet who lost his legs in the war and has a notable decent, moderate
voting record as an unpatriotic "liberal". The Dems need to realize
that there is no negotiating with these American Terrorists known as
the Republican Party. They are vicious and will cut you zero slack
even when you agree with them. It isnt about "conservative" vs.
"liberal".....its about getting Republicans in office no matter what
they have to say or do. Then they can let their corporate campaign
contributors pillage this nation along with its savings and
environment. They dont care about you. Its all about them and their
cronies.

The worse example of this is how the GOP will paint a Democrat
like Pelosi or Gore as "unAmerican" when they raise reasonable
concerns about our intervention around the world; but when the Cato
Institute (a noted "libertarian" think-tank) comes out with a white
paper on how our intervention in other nation's business does cause
international resentment that leads to terrorism, the GOP is mum.
Why? Because the Cato guys fall in line with other GOP interests like
putting Social Security $$$ into the stock market. They ONLY attack
the Dems and this is just proof that their only interest is the
destruction of ANY opposition so they can rape this nation. The Dems
better go on the offensive or their ass is history.

Atl Bob

JC Martin

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 7:47:25 PM11/21/02
to
"Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:arjf8e$hmd$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...


A hell of a lot of people are too stupid to be allowed freedom period, yet
we allow those freedoms because are forefathers have deemed it necessary for
our evolution as a nation. So I don't really get your point. Stupidity
shouldn't be a reason to take away a personal freedom.

-JC


JC Martin

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 7:50:19 PM11/21/02
to
"TitanTim" <amu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dda31359.02112...@posting.google.com...


Why fear? Don't be afraid now fer God's sake. This country has decades of
degradation to go through before we become totalitarian. :-)

-JC


Russ

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 9:39:18 PM11/21/02
to
They're not the majority, they're the plurality. And even that's only
because Jeffords saw what looked like a good opportunity by jumping
from the G.O.P. Well his little plan worked for about 18 months, and
he's likely doomed to obscurity from here on out. Jim Who? Jeffords
What? Vermont Which?

-R-

"JBgoode" <jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<EM6D9.39683$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>...

-mike-

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 12:15:08 AM11/22/02
to

My vote goes to ***Lightning***
ONE!!! lightning bolt has enough energy to power a small
city for a year. Someday there will be viable collection
devices and efficient batteries. Free Power for everybody,
world wide. Think the internet shook up society? You ain't
seen nothing yet.

Now, in my lifetime? I say 64% chance. My kids' lifetime?
90% chance.

-m-

Om Grown

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 10:38:33 PM11/21/02
to
Even better check this site out

http://www.bellwetherinteractive.com/mdi/index.html

First air powered vehicle. No gasoline, no batteries

Jwin

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 1:16:59 AM11/22/02
to
This is kind of depressing. I come here to share in the joy of the
Grateful Dead and there is all this angry politic nonsense. Lets go
back to the good old day of not caring.

-Jwin

Gggggggg Ggggggggg

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 6:26:18 AM11/22/02