What is Bush's favorite movie?
Alien Antichrist
Apocalypse Now
David V.
> What is Bush's favorite movie?
>
> Apocalypse Now
Much too deep for that fool. "Bedtime For Bonzo" is more his
speed.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
Raptor514
"Alien Antichrist" <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3oqdnWFu7so...@comcast.com...
> What is Bush's favorite movie?
>
> Apocalypse Now
>
I would guess 'Left Behind' since he is doing everything possible to make it
happen for real.
Raptor514
>
Claytonman...Claytonman....Does What Ever A Beer Can
>
> Apocalypse Now
Ernest Launches A Pre-Emptive War Against WMD Based On Lies
Pious Paul
>
> Apocalypse Now
>
>
Armageddon?
Pious
towelie
Dumb and Dumber?
--
If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward. - Jay-Z
aa #2133
ap #19
Earle Jones
"Alien Antichrist" <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is Bush's favorite movie?
>
> Apocalypse Now
*
After Nov. 2: "Home Alone".
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Bownse
"Rock and Roll High School"
--
Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
John P.
> Dumb and Dumber?
I thought that was the November election ticket.
Phÿltêr
31A601.094...@netnews.comcast.net:
> In article <3oqdnWFu7so...@comcast.com>,
> "Alien Antichrist" <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What is Bush's favorite movie?
>>
>> Apocalypse Now
>
> *
> After Nov. 2: "Home Alone".
>
> earle
> *
>
Tease...
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
Charles Soto
Cheney's an asshole, but not actually that dumb...
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")
Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:
https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096
Starwolf
news:ccbTc.144636$eM2.138411@attbi_s51...
> "towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Dumb and Dumber?
>
> I thought that was the November election ticket.
Easy there. Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate, and saying that
about him and his running mate will hurt their feelings.
John P.
>>> Dumb and Dumber?
>> I thought that was the November election ticket.
> Cheney's an asshole, but not actually that dumb...
I was thinking more along the lines of Bush and Kerry. No matter which way
you vote, you lose... it's just a matter of which one is worse. In some
countries, "None of the above" is a choice. If "None of the above" wins,
there has to be another election and none of the candidates from the first
election can run.
Fred Stone
Where? I've half-jokingly proposed the NOTA voting option for years...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
towelie
That's Dumb and Dumbya.
towelie
"Who's gonna be president, Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber?" - Ani DiFranco,
"Fuel"
John P.
> Where? I've half-jokingly proposed the NOTA voting option for years...
In Poland and many of the old Iron Curtain countries, they didn't have NOTA
as one of the choices, but you could line out any or all candidates (the
latter being effectively the same as NOTA). In an attempt to be more
specific beyond that, I did a Google search on "Elections +"None of the
above""... and came up with a ton of hits, but I didn't quickly see anything
that named countries where this is a current option.
I was surprised that there seems to be quite a number of groups trying to
get NOTA an option in the U.S.
CM
Pinocchio, with Cheney pulling the strings, the Blue Fairy is
constitutionally banned, and Pinoccio Bush thinks his nose is a dick.
CM
Yang, AthD (h.c)
The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -935 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
GlennGlenn
> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
Cheney.
Next!
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 -- dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com
"You can make an easy kind of link that, if you have a protest group protesting
a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism,
you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest
against that is a terrorist act. I've heard terrorism described as anything
that is violent or has an economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off
and killing people." --Mike van Winkle, a spokesperson for the California
Anti-Terrorism Information Center, another spinoff of the Homeland Security
Department
Fred Stone
news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>
>> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>
> ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
> dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
> Cheney.
>
Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
Fred Stone
news:411ec5...@xtrsqtbxstqd.com:
> Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Fred Stone
> in <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>:
>
>> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>>
>> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >
>> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
>> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
>> > Cheney.
>> >
>>
>> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>
> So it's all right to rip Kerry's remarks out of context,
> but not Junior's?
>
So you admit that you took Bush's remark out of context?
Fred Stone
Oh nuts, not *you* but GlennGlenn.
The Scarlet Pumpernickel
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:16:21 -0400, "Alien Antichrist"
> <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >What is Bush's favorite movie?
> >
> >Apocalypse Now
>
>
> The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
>
>
Obviously, THE STEPFORD WIVES
GlennGlenn
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>
> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
> >
> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
> >
> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
> > Cheney.
> >
>
> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
Pastor Njygaard
wrote:
Yeah. And some places, you actually have more than two candidates. We
call it voting for the party, not the person.
...
Fred Stone
news:150820040114459009%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>>
>> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >
>> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
>> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
>> > Cheney.
>> >
>>
>> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>
> Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
>
And here I thought you held yourselves to a higher standard.
Bill Negraeff
The Bush/Cheney regime has mastered the art of being truthful but
misleading to the point that any opponent who holds themselves to a
"higher standard" is doomed to be misrepresented and misinterpreted by
Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS.
The right knows it as well as, or better than, anyone else.
Some time earlier this year, Kerry made a comment that was picked up
by a mike that he didn't realize was live. The comment made reference
to an unnamed group as being dishonest, crooked, corrupt or something
like that. No person or party was named.
The Republicans and the right in general, however, immediately
responded with demands for retraction or apology.
If Bill O'Reilly was sitting in a crowded room and someone came in and
shouted, "Hey, Asshole!" would O'Reilly look up and say "Yeah, what?"
If someone yelled "Hey, stupid!", I am sure Bush would respond.
GlennGlenn
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> news:150820040114459009%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >
> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> >> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
> >> >
> >> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
> >> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
> >> > Cheney.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
> >
> > Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
> >
>
> And here I thought you held yourselves to a higher standard.
Which "yourselves" are you talking about? Sounds like someone is
trying to turn an individual into a group, Mr. Pot.
The fact is, both Kerry and Bush mentioned the need to be sensitive
when dealing with terrorism. Bush even used the word "humble." Cheney
derided *only* Kerry, as have other Kerry-bashers. It's pretty simple,
really.
John P.
than start another political thread, I figured I'd just mention it here.
In the Sunday Chicago Tribune today (8/15/04), there was an article about
Fahrenheit 9/11 being shown (or not, or shown but censored) in Muslim
countries. One guy had an interesting reaction. I don't have the paper in
front of me, but I'll paraphrase his comment. He said that while the movie
generally made the U.S. look bad, he thought he would like to live in a
place where anyone could make negative comments about their government
without fear of being imprisoned or killed.
I thought it was an interesting observation, and one which we (in the U.S.)
might not take time to notice or appreciate.
Fred Stone
news:aeaa03fc.04081...@posting.google.com:
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns954655402...@207.69.154.201>...
>> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> news:150820040114459009%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
>> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> >> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >> >
>> >> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive
>> >> > in dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the
>> >> > dismay of Cheney.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>> >
>> > Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
>> >
>>
>> And here I thought you held yourselves to a higher standard.
>
> The Bush/Cheney regime has mastered the art of being truthful but
> misleading to the point that any opponent who holds themselves to a
> "higher standard" is doomed to be misrepresented and misinterpreted by
> Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS.
>
Uhh, which propaganda machine have *you* been listening to that lumps
Fox in with the lefty media CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS?
> The right knows it as well as, or better than, anyone else.
>
> Some time earlier this year, Kerry made a comment that was picked up
> by a mike that he didn't realize was live. The comment made reference
> to an unnamed group as being dishonest, crooked, corrupt or something
> like that. No person or party was named.
>
Oh, what a stupid excuse.
> The Republicans and the right in general, however, immediately
> responded with demands for retraction or apology.
>
> If Bill O'Reilly was sitting in a crowded room and someone came in and
> shouted, "Hey, Asshole!" would O'Reilly look up and say "Yeah, what?"
>
> If someone yelled "Hey, stupid!", I am sure Bush would respond.
>
--
Fred Stone
news:150820041210179192%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> In article <Xns954655402...@207.69.154.201>, Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> news:150820040114459009%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
>> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> >> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >> >
>> >> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive
>> >> > in dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the
>> >> > dismay of Cheney.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>> >
>> > Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
>> >
>>
>> And here I thought you held yourselves to a higher standard.
>
> Which "yourselves" are you talking about? Sounds like someone is
> trying to turn an individual into a group, Mr. Pot.
>
I mean whatever group that includes *you* yourself.
> The fact is, both Kerry and Bush mentioned the need to be sensitive
> when dealing with terrorism. Bush even used the word "humble." Cheney
> derided *only* Kerry, as have other Kerry-bashers. It's pretty
> simple, really.
>
I want to see the complete citation for both Kerry and Bush quotes.
Full, complete sentences *and* the questions they were answering, thank
you.
GlennGlenn
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> Uhh, which propaganda machine have *you* been listening to that lumps
> Fox in with the lefty media CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS?
They are *all*, to some degree, propaganda machines in service of their
corporate masters. It's silly to assume that Fox is in any way less of
one than the rest. None of them felt the need to be anything other
than echo chambers for the administration before the war.
stoney
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:16:21 -0400, "Alien Antichrist"
> <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What is Bush's favorite movie?
>>
>>Apocalypse Now
>
>
> The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
The Passion....it's got all that 'way cool' torture stuff.
stoney
> In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>>
>> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >
>> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
>> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
>> > Cheney.
>> >
>>
>> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>
> Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
Because they're Repugnicans and, therefore, spechul......
GlennGlenn
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> news:150820041210179192%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>
> > In article <Xns954655402...@207.69.154.201>, Fred Stone
> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >
> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> >> news:150820040114459009%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
> >> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive
> >> >> > in dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the
> >> >> > dismay of Cheney.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
> >> >
> >> > Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
> >> >
> >>
> >> And here I thought you held yourselves to a higher standard.
> >
> > Which "yourselves" are you talking about? Sounds like someone is
> > trying to turn an individual into a group, Mr. Pot.
> >
>
> I mean whatever group that includes *you* yourself.
You mean citizens of the United States? Human beings who reside on
Earth? Carbon-based life forms?
> > The fact is, both Kerry and Bush mentioned the need to be sensitive
> > when dealing with terrorism. Bush even used the word "humble." Cheney
> > derided *only* Kerry, as have other Kerry-bashers. It's pretty
> > simple, really.
> >
>
> I want to see the complete citation for both Kerry and Bush quotes.
> Full, complete sentences *and* the questions they were answering, thank
> you.
A quick Google of "Bush" "Kerry" and "sensitive" reveals that there are
many articles that mention the fact that both pols used the word
"sensitive." Kerry's use was more general than Bush's, to be sure. He
said that he'd fight a more sensitive war on terror than Bush has; Bush
said that we need to be more sensitive (paraphrasing here) when
balancing individual rights and gathering intelligence. Both are
referring to the notion of fighting terrorism.
Actually, I agree with both of them. Sensitivity is key in a "war on
terrorism" (a term I hate, as terrorism is a tactic, not a human
enemy). Sensitivity means hearing what people are saying. It means
the ability to distinguish friend from foe, such that one can get help
from the former in vanquishing the latter. It means not being so
blinded by an overriding war agenda that one cannot even foresee the
most likely consequences. It means knowing when, as even Bush said,
individual rights are being stretched to the breaking point.
I'm not sure *what* Cheney believes.
Fred Stone
news:150820041455222516%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
If you like. You don't hold yourself to a higher standard than Dick
Cheney's observable behavior? I ask merely for information.
>> > The fact is, both Kerry and Bush mentioned the need to be sensitive
>> > when dealing with terrorism. Bush even used the word "humble."
>> > Cheney derided *only* Kerry, as have other Kerry-bashers. It's
>> > pretty simple, really.
>> >
>>
>> I want to see the complete citation for both Kerry and Bush quotes.
>> Full, complete sentences *and* the questions they were answering,
>> thank you.
>
> A quick Google of "Bush" "Kerry" and "sensitive" reveals that there
> are many articles that mention the fact that both pols used the word
> "sensitive." Kerry's use was more general than Bush's, to be sure.
> He said that he'd fight a more sensitive war on terror than Bush has;
> Bush said that we need to be more sensitive (paraphrasing here) when
> balancing individual rights and gathering intelligence. Both are
> referring to the notion of fighting terrorism.
>
Thank you. That makes it a little clearer, anyway.
> Actually, I agree with both of them. Sensitivity is key in a "war on
> terrorism" (a term I hate, as terrorism is a tactic, not a human
> enemy). Sensitivity means hearing what people are saying. It means
> the ability to distinguish friend from foe, such that one can get help
> from the former in vanquishing the latter. It means not being so
> blinded by an overriding war agenda that one cannot even foresee the
> most likely consequences. It means knowing when, as even Bush said,
> individual rights are being stretched to the breaking point.
>
Interesting that for all the talk about Bush's speech patterns, he
articulates his positions much more clearly than Kerry does his.
> I'm not sure *what* Cheney believes.
>
I'm sure he's just being partisan. There seems to be a lot of that going
around. ;-)
Jack
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10hvm5b...@corp.supernews.com...
Better than a Dumbacrap.
Earle Jones
> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>
> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
> >
> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
> >
> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive in
> > dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the dismay of
> > Cheney.
> >
>
> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
*
Bush speaks in sound-bites that someone sticks in front of him.
There is no context.
earle
*
"Dry drunk" is a slang term used to describe the recovering
alcoholic who is no longer drinking, but whose thinking is clouded.
Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober; such an
individual tends to go to extremes.
It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored
President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were
the terms -- "crusade", "infinite justice" -- that were later
withdrawn. Next came "evildoers," "axis of evil," "regime change" --
terms that have almost become cliches. Something about the polarized
thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the
recovering alcoholics and addicts I had treated."
Dr. Katherine van Wormer, Professor, University of Northern Iowa
She is co-author of "Addiction Treatment:
A Strength's Perspective" (Wadsworth 2003).
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Yang, AthD (h.c)
Dumb and Dumberer
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -937 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Oci-One Kanubi
> "Charles Soto" <cs...@austin.meepmeep.com> wrote in a message
>
> >>> Dumb and Dumber?
>
> >> I thought that was the November election ticket.
>
> > Cheney's an asshole, but not actually that dumb...
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of Bush and Kerry. No matter which way
> you vote, you lose... it's just a matter of which one is worse.
Good point. The inarticulate draft-dodging coke-sniffing alcoholic
who failed in every business he attempted, was governor of the state
which sits at or near the bottom of every social scale, who justified
America's first war of aggression by lying to the public, whose every
domestic policy is aimed at raping our resources and enriching his
cronies at the expense of the middle- and lower-income citizens, who
has made insignificant progress against al Qaida because he has
diverted all our resources to his personal vendetta in Irag...
...or the other guy?
That's a tough one, eh? Which is worse: the incumbent who has already
demonstrated himself to be unpatriotic, immoral, and incompetent...
...or the other guy?
Which is the worse way we can lose, by re-electing the man who is
dragging my country's proud name in the dirt, who is shaming us all,
who is trying to re-establish the kind of elitist Tory society the
Founders revolted against when they established a liberal democracy in
1776...
...or by electing the other guy?
Tough question.
-Richard, with Spirit
--
======================================================================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Bikes, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
======================================================================
John P.
> ...or the other guy?
> That's a tough one, eh? Which is worse:
The devil you know, or the devil you don't know?
Tough choice.
Take the good that Bush has done along with the bad, or take a chance on
Kerry, who may be all bad and 10 times worse?
Dunno... my crystal ball is at the shop. Since democrats seem to be more
historically consistant at running us into the crapper, I think I'll stick
with Bush.
Earle Jones
"John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
*
The choice for me is very easy. I don't know very much about Kerry,
but I know a helluva lot about Bush.
On the first day of his presidency, he signed a presidential order
that turned off any US funds for 'family planning' information for
any country in the world.
This was clearly a payoff to the religious right -- denying family
planning information to thousands of clinics around the world and
relegating thousands of new and unwanted children to poverty and
sickness.
This, to me was infinitely more immoral than any act that Bill
Clinton did in eight years of the presidency. Semen stains on a
dress do not affect the welfare of the world.
The most recent immoral act was to disallow any further stem-cell
research funds based on new stem-cells lines. Today's newspaper
tells us that research scientists in the US are very unhappy with
this. They know that just about every other country will move ahead
quickly in this area -- the most promising new area of scientific
research in the past decade. The UK initially went along with the
US policy, but have now backed out and will be launching new
stem-cell research. (Korean scientists have already cloned embryos
for stem-cells successfully -- the first in the world to do so.)
The unilateral invasion of Iraq was the first time that our country
has ever invaded another sovereign country without cause. And the
excuse: A personal vendetta against Sadaam Hussein. "He tried to
kill my Dad", Bush said.
About a thousand American GIs are dead and the country is in a
financial hole that will take years to climb out of.
But I don't know very much about Kerry. I do believe that he is not
a 'dry-drunk' following twenty years of alcoholism. I have no
reason to believe that he was on drugs. He did not dodge the draft
in Viet Nam.
Bush is now pushing an extensive campaign to smear Kerry's record.
Even John McCain is telling the Republicans to get off his back.
Kerry served in Viet Nam and McCain knows intimately what that means.
I consider Bush a disaster. A cowboy hip-shooting dyslexic
dry-drunk being controlled by a combination of oil politics and
right-wing religious nuts.
Vote for Kerry.
earle
*
Eris
wrote:
>"Charles Soto" <cs...@austin.meepmeep.com> wrote in a message
>
>>>> Dumb and Dumber?
>
>>> I thought that was the November election ticket.
>
>> Cheney's an asshole, but not actually that dumb...
>
>I was thinking more along the lines of Bush and Kerry. No matter which way
>you vote, you lose... it's just a matter of which one is worse. In some
>countries, "None of the above" is a choice. If "None of the above" wins,
>there has to be another election and none of the candidates from the first
>election can run.
>
I would really like to write in McCain.
Hank
> In the Sunday Chicago Tribune today (8/15/04), there was an article about
> Fahrenheit 9/11 being shown (or not, or shown but censored) in Muslim
> countries. One guy had an interesting reaction. I don't have the paper in
> front of me, but I'll paraphrase his comment. He said that while the movie
> generally made the U.S. look bad, he thought he would like to live in a
> place where anyone could make negative comments about their government
> without fear of being imprisoned or killed.
You have Liberals to thank for that. If the bu$h regime has it's way,
people who speak out against their lies, crimes, tax payer theft,
mass murder, death, destruction, and terrorism would be detained
without charges or representation.
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so
are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to
harm our country and our people, and neither do we,"
- George W. (shit for brains) Bush, 8-6-04
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/AmendCom.htm
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/
Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.
Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.
Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.
Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.
George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.
George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist
"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw
Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
"Personally, I don't think all the Iraqis on earth are
worth even a single American life." - A usenet rabid
right wing extremist terrorist.
Tim Morrow
>
> "John P." wrote:
>
> > In the Sunday Chicago Tribune today (8/15/04), there was an article about
> > Fahrenheit 9/11 being shown (or not, or shown but censored) in Muslim
> > countries. One guy had an interesting reaction. I don't have the paper in
> > front of me, but I'll paraphrase his comment. He said that while the movie
> > generally made the U.S. look bad, he thought he would like to live in a
> > place where anyone could make negative comments about their government
> > without fear of being imprisoned or killed.
>
> You have Liberals to thank for that. If the bu$h regime has it's way,
> people who speak out against their lies, crimes, tax payer theft,
> mass murder, death, destruction, and terrorism would be detained
> without charges or representation.
Hey, but you gotta admit: At least they won't be ABORTED!!!!!!
Michelle Malkin
"John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:BdbUc.326236$XM6.189904@attbi_s53...
> "Oci-One Kanubi" <rho...@earthlink.net> wrote in a message
>
> > ...or the other guy?
> > That's a tough one, eh? Which is worse:
>
> The devil you know, or the devil you don't know?
>
> Tough choice.
>
> Take the good that Bush has done along with the bad, or take a chance on
> Kerry, who may be all bad and 10 times worse?
Bush hasn't done any good. He's just about ruined the
US, torn the Constitution to pieces, started turning our
democratic republic into a theocracy, made enemies of
our allies, vastly increased the cost of medicine and
medical care, is responsible for the deaths of thousands
of people from the US and other countries in Iraq, has
gutted our education system, has attacked the environment,
refuses to accept that global warming is a fact, has
underfunded or blocked medical and other scientific
research, has eaten away at hard gained women's rights,
has pissed on the First Ammedment and the Arts, has
consistently lied about just about everything from his
reasons for invading Iraq to the number of people out of
work and outsourced American jobs overseas. And, now
the Republicans are talking about getting rid of the income
tax and replacing it with a vastly increased sales tax which
will land mostly on the middle class. Of course, Bush
isn't mentioning this now, but if he wins the election
(and I more than shudder at the thought), it will turn up
on his agenda before the first year is out.
I'm voting for Kerry. There is no choice.
>
> Dunno... my crystal ball is at the shop. Since democrats seem to be more
> historically consistant at running us into the crapper, I think I'll stick
> with Bush.
Who has consistently run things into the crapper... Smart move.
John P.
> On the first day of his presidency, he signed a presidential order
> that turned off any US funds for 'family planning' information for
> any country in the world.
> The unilateral invasion of Iraq was the first time that our country
> has ever invaded another sovereign country without cause. And the
> excuse: A personal vendetta against Sadaam Hussein. "He tried to
> kill my Dad", Bush said.
These two really sum up the democrats position; You are responsible for
taking care of the entire world, but, if someone is murdering his people
(and their children), don't you dare go in their and take him out. Don't you
dare try to help those people. Those weren't the people we wanted you to
help. Military action is never helpful. Except WWI and WWII, those were OK.
... But never any other time. Besides Kerry is a WAR HERO! He even protested
against the war in Vietnam! ... because war is wrong, unless you're a war
hero. It's OK to take part in war time "atrocities", as long as you protest
the war when you come back!
... and I'm a little tired of being concerned with feeding all the children
in the world. They have parents. They should do like I do - Work, Feed my
family, Don't look for handouts.
As a vet and a parent, you couldn't *pay* me to vote for Kerry.
John P.
> You have Liberals to thank for that. If the bu$h regime has it's way,
> people who speak out against their lies, crimes, tax payer theft,
> mass murder, death, destruction, and terrorism would be detained
> without charges or representation.
Which is why you're writing this from your prison cell (and you're in the
cell next to Michael Moore), right?
Robert Bolton
"Eris" <vith...@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6ph2i0p811mdf54gj...@4ax.com...
I'd like to write in Hank, but the only poles taken so far show Joe would beat
him.
Robert
Bownse
I like the new proposed to withdraw all deployed troupes world wide.
Let's see how all these bitching and whining countries like the fact
that we aren't there any more contributing to their economy and security.
--
Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
Fred Stone
66.75.162.201:
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in news:earle.jones-
> 0CCFE2.163...@netnews.comcast.net:
>
>
>> tells us that research scientists in the US are very unhappy with
>> this. They know that just about every other country will move ahead
>> quickly in this area --
>
>
> So what's their problem? That the research will continue without them
> and they won't be getting government grants to line their pockets?
>
> Tough shit.
>
Not even that. They just have to get their grants from non-government
corporate sources. The very idea that they need industry to fund their
research is anathema.
John P.
>> As a vet and a parent, you couldn't *pay* me to vote for Kerry.
> You might enjoy this:
> http://www.conservativebookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6527
Yes. I've heard of that book and have been reading or hearing the different
sides on this in various media sources. It appears there is strong support
on both sides of the issue. That makes it difficult to discern exactly where
the truth lies. I suspect that the truth about his military career is buried
amidst all the hot air being blown about. I think it's obvious that his
purple heart medals were stretching things a bit. My military experience
tells me that you are more likely to be awarded medals when you are doing
something the military knows you dislike (such as being in an undesirable
location). In real life, most of them are meaningless in terms of judging
performance.
I think Kerry played the wrong card when he started to boast about his
military record. I'd have had more respect for him if he had supported his
own decision to protest the war upon his return. As it is, he comes of as
100% phony, becoming whatever everyone around him is in order to appear to
fit in. When he was in 'Nam, he was a war hero. When he came back and
everyone was protesting, he turned his back on his fellow vets and became a
protester.
At the very least, he comes off as very weak willed. The President, whether
he is right or wrong, needs to come across as a man of conviction willing to
follow through on his decisions. People can find whatever fault they want
with Bush, but, in the eyes of the world, he at least comes off as one who
will do what he says he is going to do. Kerry's record is that he is always
willing to support both sides and never take a stand either way. He voted
for the invasion of Iraq, then voted against funding it. Leaders of other
countries or terrorists would walk all over a guy like that.
Just addressing the issue of our troops in Iraq, my fear is that, if Kerry
is elected, our troops will be all but abandoned there. The death toll for
Americans will rise due to lack of support. Whether it was right or wrong
for us to be there in the first place, the truth now is that we *are* there,
so we must deal with it appropriately and with the proper level of support.
If I was still in the military, the last thing I'd want is a change of
command while I was in a hostile location... especially if I felt the new
commander lacked a spine.
John P.
> I like the new proposed to withdraw all deployed troupes world wide.
> Let's see how all these bitching and whining countries like the fact
> that we aren't there any more contributing to their economy and security.
Yup. Since we're damned if we do or damned if we don't, why spend the money
& lives?
Just tell everyone else to pack sand and take care of their own problems,
focus our efforts on issues right here at home.
Oci-One Kanubi
John P., this is a totally fallacious argument. Intellectually
dishonest. Protecting Sadam's people from Sadam was NEVER a reason
for the war. Bush and the NeoCons did NOT go to war to protect those
people. Their protection (except for the tens of thousands who have
died or been maimed in the war, of course) may have been a salutory
side benefit, but it was not a reason we went and it is scurrilous for
you to adduce it as a justification, after the fact.
If "going in and taking him out" is valid American foreign policy,
then we should have been doing it to a good number of other countries
(including a number of regimes which we have actually installed and/or
protected), but we have not. It would actually be a noble foreign
policy, unlike the hypocrasy of this war, which was justified by lies.
But that is not our policy, and for you to adduce it as a
justification for the war is just plain dishonest.
But even if that HAD been a reason for the war (and assuming that we
spread it around so that victims of other cruel dictatorships could
also be freed) how is going to war to help decrease misery in the
world better than spending some of yer money, through taxes, to help
decrease misery in the world? How can you imagine that the
cost/benefit of a billions-dollar war can be greater than that of pure
contribution of medicines and foodstuffs? And what kind of Christian
"compassionate conservatism" rejects the concept of feeding starving
children around the world (actually, they DON'T all have parents, of
course, but even where they do, in many cases the parents are lucky to
scratch out a $1,000 annual income)?
It's not actually clear to me that Kerry's position is that war, all
war, is wrong. All that is clear to me is that Kerry's posotion is
that (a) the Viet Nam war, as it was waged (or not properly waged),
was wrong, and that (b) the invasion of Iraq was wrong. That is not
the same as saying that all war is wrong, or that there are not good
reasons to go to war. It is not at all clear that Kerry is saying
that "[m]ilitary action is never helpful."
Jeez, John P, you are an example of why I will not retain my
Republican affiliation when I register to vote in my new home state,
but will register as an Independant. Republicans have gotten just
plain fucking mean and nasty in the 30 years since I registered.[1]
[1] Well, OK, probably not you personally. Yer probabaly a nice guy.
But the Republican positions which you are thoughtlessly echoing have,
over the last 30 years, become positively unChristian, and no amount
of pious platitudes from the President can hide the fact that he is
fronting for wealthy interests that have no moral scruples about
driving us all into poverty.
Oci-One Kanubi
Oci-One Kanubi
Oci-One Kanubi
John P.
> John P., this is a totally fallacious argument. Intellectually
> dishonest.
You couldn't be more wrong. Had we not invaded Iraq, the libs would now be
plastering pictures of Sadam's victims all over the media and crying that
Bush was doing nothing about it.
> Protecting Sadam's people from Sadam was NEVER a reason for the war.
> Bush and the NeoCons did NOT go to war to protect those people.
Correct, but it was a nice consequence anyway, don't you think?
> Their protection (except for the tens of thousands who have
> died or been maimed in the war, of course) may have been a salutory
> side benefit, but it was not a reason we went and it is scurrilous for
> you to adduce it as a justification, after the fact.
I missed the part where I claimed it as a justification. In the paragraph
you quoted, I was discussing the lib tendency to claim that whatever we are
doing, it's wrong. If you go to war, you're wrong. If you don't go to war,
you're wrong. If you stay where you are for 7 minutes while the U.S. is
being attacked, you stayed too long. If you go to Florida two days after a
hurricane, you went too soon.
> But even if that HAD been a reason for the war (and assuming that we
> spread it around so that victims of other cruel dictatorships could
> also be freed) how is going to war to help decrease misery in the
> world better than spending some of yer money, through taxes, to help
> decrease misery in the world?
I can't answer that. I don't support either idea.
Given the option, I would not have chosen to go into Iraq. My support for
that war now is based on the reality that the decision was made and our
troops are there.
> How can you imagine that the cost/benefit of a billions-dollar war can be
> greater than that of pure contribution of medicines and foodstuffs?
I can't. That wasn't a claim that I made. My opinion is that we should do
neither, since we are viewed as evil and wrong in either case. I'd willingly
lay my life on the line, individually or as part of a larger organization,
to help someone that was willing to participate in that help and who
appreciated whatever I had to contribute to their efforts. Conversely, for
someone who does nothing for themselves, demands my assistance, then berates
me for whatever I do along those lines, I could walk away and leave them to
die without shedding a single tear.
> And what kind of Christian "compassionate conservatism" rejects the
concept
> of feeding starving children around the world...
Don't know. I'm not into mythology. Christianity is just another political
structure that benefits the leaders at the expense of the masses.
> (actually, they DON'T all have parents, of course,....
How did we create children without parents?
> ...but even where they do, in many cases the parents are lucky to scratch
out
> a $1,000 annual income)?
How does this concern me? If I had a $1,000 annual income and was having
trouble feeding myself, I wouldn't have kids. That just seems like it should
be common sense.
> It's not actually clear to me that Kerry's position is that war, all
> war, is wrong. All that is clear to me is that Kerry's posotion is
> that (a) the Viet Nam war, as it was waged (or not properly waged),
> was wrong,...
But he loves to point out that he was a war hero in that war and proudly
displays the three purple heart medals (which were passed out like M&M's) to
prove his devoted participation.
> and that (b) the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
But he voted *for* us to invade Iraq and has said that, knowing what he
knows now, he would *still* vote for us to invade Iraq. If he believes it is
wrong, why would he do that?
> Jeez, John P, you are an example of why I will not retain my
> Republican affiliation when I register to vote in my new home state,
> but will register as an Independant. Republicans have gotten just
> plain fucking mean and nasty in the 30 years since I registered.[1]
I don't know about Repulicans in general, but, yes, my take on life and
reality comes across as rather cold, mean and/or nasty. I've grown rather
cynical in my old age. ... but then, that's just because we live in such a
fucked up world. Yes, in general, I am considered to be a nice guy, but,
also, brutally honest.
Earle Jones
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote:
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in news:earle.jones-
> 0CCFE2.163...@netnews.comcast.net:
>
>
> > tells us that research scientists in the US are very unhappy with
> > this. They know that just about every other country will move ahead
> > quickly in this area --
>
>
> So what's their problem? That the research will continue without them
> and they won't be getting government grants to line their pockets?
>
> Tough shit.
*
Countries like England, Germany, France, Japan and recently Korea,
are moving ahead full speed in research and development based on
stem-cell procedures that they believe will lead to new therapies.
Those that do the research get the patents.
Those that get the patents sell the products.
You will still be able to buy drugs developed in these countries,
that is, if your president allows such drugs to be imported here.
You will, of course, pay more.
Tough shit.
Earle Jones
rho...@earthlink.net (Oci-One Kanubi) wrote:
*
Well said, Richard. I was a registered Republican for many years
myself. But I have already registered Democrat and made a
contribution to the Democratic Party. I even made a contribution to
John McCain back when he was running in the Republican primary
against Bush.
BTW, your computer is hiccuping -- I received four copies of your
posting.
Thanks,
Earle Jones
"John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
*
Right! Like stem-cell research, hand-gun murders, the environment,
and these totally unconstitutional handouts to churches -- Uhh -- I
mean faith-based organizations.
Charles Soto
I would vote for Hank. But I'd buy Joe a beer :)
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")
Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:
https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096
Earle Jones
"John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in a message
>
> >> As a vet and a parent, you couldn't *pay* me to vote for Kerry.
>
> > You might enjoy this:
> > http://www.conservativebookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6527
>
> Yes. I've heard of that book and have been reading or hearing the different
> sides on this in various media sources. It appears there is strong support
> on both sides of the issue. That makes it difficult to discern exactly where
> the truth lies. I suspect that the truth about his military career is buried
> amidst all the hot air being blown about.
*
That is probably true.
Kerry volunteered to be there -- whatever the hell he did when he
was there -- HE WAS THERE.
Let's focus for a minute on Bush's military record. His family
pulled strings to get him ahead of the line of people who did not
want to go to Viet Nam and opted for the National Guard instead.
And then, when reassigned to a base in Alabama, he didn't bother to
show up. They could not find a single soul who remembered serving
with him there.
And now we learn: Oh, sorry, the records have been lost.
Bush is a hip-shooting cowboy dry-drunk religious nut that deserves
to be kicked out of office -- the sooner the better.
Hypatia Kosh
> > That's a tough one, eh? Which is worse:
>
> The devil you know, or the devil you don't know?
>
> Tough choice.
>
> Take the good that Bush has done along with the bad, or take a chance on
> Kerry, who may be all bad and 10 times worse?
You're forgetting that Kerry has a record of many years in the US
Senate. While leaning toward the liberal side in his political
philosophy and voting record, as an incumbent senator of
long-standing, he's what you'd term a moderate--a supporter of the
status quo.
Bush also had a record before he was elected. As governor, he
ridiculed a prisoner's plea for clemency on national television. Says
a lot about his character.
Bush's record as president is that he's a radical. To say there is no
difference between these two candidates is an abject lie.
Hypatia Kosh
> "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in a message
>
> > On the first day of his presidency, he signed a presidential order
> > that turned off any US funds for 'family planning' information for
> > any country in the world.
>
> > The unilateral invasion of Iraq was the first time that our country
> > has ever invaded another sovereign country without cause. And the
> > excuse: A personal vendetta against Sadaam Hussein. "He tried to
> > kill my Dad", Bush said.
>
> These two really sum up the democrats position; You are responsible for
> taking care of the entire world, but, if someone is murdering his people
> (and their children), don't you dare go in their and take him out. Don't you
> dare try to help those people. Those weren't the people we wanted you to
> help. Military action is never helpful. Except WWI and WWII, those were OK.
> ... But never any other time. Besides Kerry is a WAR HERO! He even protested
> against the war in Vietnam! ... because war is wrong, unless you're a war
> hero. It's OK to take part in war time "atrocities", as long as you protest
> the war when you come back!
Utterly incoherent. Four years ago, Bush Jr. claimed that he WOULDN'T
go into other countries for peace-keeping missions and heavily
criticized Clinton's interventions in Serbia and Somalia (both areas
that were already at war, and both situations in which the US had UN
approval--in fact, US was late to respond to NATO pleas to intervene
in the former Yugoslavia).
So ... intervene in an ethnic cleansing war which is destabilizing OUR
ALLIES and it's BAD BAD BAD, but invade and cause lawlessness in a
previously militarily neutralized country and it's RAH RAH USA?!
BTW, SERBIA IS NOW A DEMOCRACY.
Iraq?
> ... and I'm a little tired of being concerned with feeding all the children
> in the world. They have parents. They should do like I do - Work, Feed my
> family, Don't look for handouts.
Hahahahahhahahaha...
Oh, you're serious.
Well, hate to break it to you, but North Korea HAS THE BOMB. This is
how they extort food aid out of us. If you've got any suggestions,
let's hear 'em.
Hypatia Kosh
Conservaties need to put their money where their mouth is. How many
GOP-voting grannies bought drugs in Mexico last year?
Hypatia Kosh
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 00:18:25 GMT, "John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Charles Soto" <cs...@austin.meepmeep.com> wrote in a message
> >
> >>>> Dumb and Dumber?
>
> >>> I thought that was the November election ticket.
>
> >> Cheney's an asshole, but not actually that dumb...
> >
> >I was thinking more along the lines of Bush and Kerry. No matter which way
> >you vote, you lose... it's just a matter of which one is worse. In some
> >countries, "None of the above" is a choice. If "None of the above" wins,
> >there has to be another election and none of the candidates from the first
> >election can run.
> >
> I would really like to write in McCain.
Me too. I think McCain would have won a solid majority if he had been
the Republican nominee in the last election cycle.
Trouble was, he wasn't in anyone's pocket. Kenny Boy & Co. made sure
he went down.
-Hy
Hypatia Kosh
> Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:16:21 -0400, "Alien Antichrist"
> > <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>What is Bush's favorite movie?
> >>
> >>Apocalypse Now
> >
> >
> > The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
>
> The Passion....it's got all that 'way cool' torture stuff.
Leap of Faith
Alan Moore
<piou...@unclewebster.com> wrote:
>
>"Alien Antichrist" <AlienSPAMSCRE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3oqdnWFu7so...@comcast.com...
>> What is Bush's favorite movie?
>>
>> Apocalypse Now
>>
>>
>
>Armageddon?
Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Al Moore
DoD 734
Hank
You have great difficulty understanding what you read,
don't you Johnny P brain? See where I wrote, "You have
Liberals to thank for that."?
That means bu$h isn't getting his way (locking up people
who speak out against his lies and crimes), because Liberals
are protecting our Freedoms. That means I can still speak my
mind without being detained in spite of bu$h's best efforts
to revoke them. Get it? Yet?? <chuckle>
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so
are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to
harm our country and our people, and neither do we,"
- George W. (shit for brains) Bush, 8-6-04
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/AmendCom.htm
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/
Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.
Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.
Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.
Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.
George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.
George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist
"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw
Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
"Personally, I don't think all the Iraqis on earth are
worth even a single American life." - A usenet rabid
right wing extremist terrorist.
Hank
> These two really sum up the democrats position; You are responsible for
> taking care of the entire world, but, if someone is murdering his people
> (and their children), don't you dare go in their and take him out. Don't you
> dare try to help those people.
I agree that bu$h's mass murder and terrorism are illegal,
immoral, and reprehensible, but how are you suggesting we
"take him out", Johnny P brain? Are you threatening the
president?
That's how terrorists like bu$h achieve regime change, but
you should try to do better. Join us Patriots and vote the
lying, thieving, mass murdering, treasonous, terrorist, and
simple minded moron out of office in November.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704A.shtml
Hank
> I like the new proposed to withdraw all deployed troupes world wide.
"Proposal", and "troops". But there is no such
proposal, anyway. Typical bu$h worshipper idiocy....
John P.
> Well said, Richard. I was a registered Republican for many years
> myself. But I have already registered Democrat and made a
> contribution to the Democratic Party. I even made a contribution to
> John McCain back when he was running in the Republican primary
> against Bush.
I vote for the candidate I like, regardless of party affiliation. It just
happens to work out that most often, the candidate that best supports my
interests (or at least claims to) is a Republican. That probably goes back
to my Navy days, since Repubs tend to support the military better. (and I
was in during the Reagan era when he spent tons of money on the military)
John P.
> Right! Like stem-cell research, hand-gun murders, the environment,
> and these totally unconstitutional handouts to churches -- Uhh -- I
> mean faith-based organizations.
Are you OK with murder as long as a hand gun isn't used? :-)
JK, sort of. I really wish people would focus on the *murderers*, since they
are the problem.
John P.
> I would vote for Hank. But I'd buy Joe a beer :)
I'd buy Hank a whole bunch of beer. He's probably really funny when he's
drunk.
"Thoshe Bu$h terrorishsts are reshponshibal for <burp> all thosh #$%@^
weedsh in my lawn!"
John P.
> Kerry volunteered to be there -- whatever the hell he did when he
> was there -- HE WAS THERE.
Which may have counted for something had he not opted to stab his vet
buddies in the back when he returned. (and wasn't he there for a total of 4
months?)
> Let's focus for a minute on Bush's military record. His family
> pulled strings to get him ahead of the line of people who did not
> want to go to Viet Nam and opted for the National Guard instead.
And why not? How many people dodged the draft in one way or another back
then?
Had "the revolution" ever managed to take place back then, perhaps we
wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Face it, there are *no* politicians
in D.C. that are worth a grain of salt.
John P.
> You're forgetting that Kerry has a record of many years in the US
> Senate. While leaning toward the liberal side in his political
> philosophy and voting record, as an incumbent senator of
> long-standing, he's what you'd term a moderate--a supporter of the
> status quo.
Yup. He makes an attempt to vote both sides of the issue whenever possible.
That's not moderate, that's spineless. I'd rather work under a leader who
was wrong with conviction than a spineless wimp who accomplished nothing
while trying to please everyone at once.
> Bush's record as president is that he's a radical. To say there is no
> difference between these two candidates is an abject lie.
They are 100% the same in this manner - they both are unfit to lead a once
great nation. Unfortunately, we live in the time of professional politicians
where the only goal is to get reelected. Damn right or wrong. Forget good or
bad. All that matters is to keep the dollars rolling in and stay in office.
We don't have the option of electing a true leader.
John P.
> Utterly incoherent.
Then I'll make it simple for you.
Whenever possible, Kerry claims to support all sides of any given issue.
How could you trust someone like that?
John P.
> You have great difficulty understanding what you read,
> don't you Johnny P brain? See where I wrote, "You have
> Liberals to thank for that."?... Get it? Yet?? <chuckle>
You have been clear as a bell to me since day one.
Try this:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
John P.
> I agree...
Check out this new Kerry web site!
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Pastor Njygaard
wrote:
>"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in a message
>
>> Kerry volunteered to be there -- whatever the hell he did when he
>> was there -- HE WAS THERE.
>
>Which may have counted for something had he not opted to stab his vet
>buddies in the back when he returned. (and wasn't he there for a total of 4
>months?)
He did the moral thing then. A citizen in a democracy has a duty to
voice his opinion. That applies wether he is conservative, communist,
liberal, radical, nazi or just plain stupid. If people doesn't do so,
democracy fails.
>> Let's focus for a minute on Bush's military record. His family
>> pulled strings to get him ahead of the line of people who did not
>> want to go to Viet Nam and opted for the National Guard instead.
>
>And why not? How many people dodged the draft in one way or another back then?
How many people shoot other people in the testicles every month, on a
world basis? Why don't you go out and shoot someone's balls off and
see if he thinks it's okay?
>Had "the revolution" ever managed to take place back then, perhaps we
>wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Face it, there are *no* politicians
>in D.C. that are worth a grain of salt.
That's not reason to vote for them. Just encourages them.
Face it: If you can't find a party to represent your opinions, you're
not living in a democracy.
...
Pastor Njygaard
>Bownse wrote:
>
>> I like the new proposed to withdraw all deployed troupes world wide.
>
> "Proposal", and "troops". But there is no such
>proposal, anyway. Typical bu$h worshipper idiocy....
What makes 'Merkins so convinced they're indispensable? Resource-wise
you're a black hole sucking up a much larger share than you need, and
exporting nothing which can't be supplied from elsewhere. That
includes your cultural and scientific exports. Economy-wise, you're
one titanic mutant leech stuck to the ass of the world.
If the US of A went N.Korea-style isolate tomorrow, sure, it would
turn the world economy upside down - until we found a new market for
endless heaps of useless plastic geegaws and tankers full of lard :)
As for the military side of things, your garrisons makes little
difference one way or another - except to preserve US interests.
Withdraw them, and US interests are no longer served. And that's about
it. No one howls and weeps and pulls their heair and says "oh, what
have we donne, der nice americanos are insulted and will not let us
lick der assholes no more!"
...
Pastor Njygaard
wrote:
>"Hypatia Kosh" <be...@lycos.com> wrote in a message
And Bush is *better*?
Your democracy is in a nose dive, boyo. It may function on local and
state level, but on the federal level, all you've got is a "pick your
favourite lovable dictator" contest. You need more than two choices to
make a democratic election. You need more than two parties, and you
need parties with actual differences, not only in their policies but
in their ideologies. You need an open and honest public debate, not
shit-smearing ads in the national media. You need a public memory
which lasts more than five minutes. You need actual politicians - that
means people who know what the fuck they're warbling about, and know
how to express it clearly and unambiguously without speech writers, a
pack of advisors and little men with electric sticks prodding them.
You need direct election, not a final decision two stages removed and
a panel of geriatric law clerks to tell you if you've made the right
choice. Your political debates, seen from the outside, looks like
they're conducted by parkinson patients in the terminal stage. You
need actual free speech, not FBI agents visiting opposition leaders
with "warnings" and media owned by both candidate's bathouse buddies.
...
Pastor Njygaard
wrote:
>"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in news:Xns9547E583015D4smvsmv@
>66.75.162.201:
>
>> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in news:earle.jones-
>> 0CCFE2.163...@netnews.comcast.net:
>>
>>
>>> tells us that research scientists in the US are very unhappy with
>>> this. They know that just about every other country will move ahead
>>> quickly in this area --
>>
>>
>> So what's their problem? That the research will continue without them
>> and they won't be getting government grants to line their pockets?
>>
>> Tough shit.
>>
>
>Not even that. They just have to get their grants from non-government
>corporate sources. The very idea that they need industry to fund their
>research is anathema.
Interesting difference. If the US doesn't like something, it cuts
funding. Here in Europe, we make it illegal...
...
Pastor Njygaard
wrote:
>"Hypatia Kosh" <be...@lycos.com> wrote in a message
>
>> You're forgetting that Kerry has a record of many years in the US
>> Senate. While leaning toward the liberal side in his political
>> philosophy and voting record, as an incumbent senator of
>> long-standing, he's what you'd term a moderate--a supporter of the
>> status quo.
>
>Yup. He makes an attempt to vote both sides of the issue whenever possible.
>That's not moderate, that's spineless. I'd rather work under a leader who
>was wrong with conviction than a spineless wimp who accomplished nothing
>while trying to please everyone at once.
Well, why didn't you say so at once! There are plenty of choices. Of
course Saddam is out at the moment, but there's still that faceless
drone who's in charge in China, or the all-american fave, Castro. I'm
pretty sure Korea doesn't want you (too paranoid), but Iran's
Ayatholla Khamenei should fit your criteria quite snugly.
>> Bush's record as president is that he's a radical. To say there is no
>> difference between these two candidates is an abject lie.
>
>They are 100% the same in this manner - they both are unfit to lead a once
>great nation. Unfortunately, we live in the time of professional politicians
>where the only goal is to get reelected. Damn right or wrong. Forget good or
>bad. All that matters is to keep the dollars rolling in and stay in office.
>We don't have the option of electing a true leader.
Then why do you accept this? Why aren't you marching like the students
at Tianmen Square? Are you afraid they'll laminate you to the pavement
with a tank like the Cinese did in 1989? If you call for ethics,
morals and the recognition of right and wrong, you'd better take the
consequences. To vote in a democratic election is your right. If they
try to take that option away from you, it is your duty to do something
about it. Wasn't that what your little revolution back in the 18th
century was all about?
Millions of people, US citizens, Europeans, Asians, Africans, Arabs -
name any continent you like - have lived and died for the dream
started in America. How did we get here, where you, an American
citizen, say that you don't have an option?
How the hell can *you*, the american people of all people betray that
great heritage so thoroughly and barely notice it, pissing on the
grave not only of your forefathers, but that of every human being who
ever sacrificed something for the dream of freedom, equality and
brotherhood?
...
Fred Stone
> In article <22pUc.174350$eM2.2481@attbi_s51>,
> "John P." <Pri...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> >> As a vet and a parent, you couldn't *pay* me to vote for Kerry.
>>
>> > You might enjoy this:
>> > http://www.conservativebookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6527
>>
>> Yes. I've heard of that book and have been reading or hearing the
>> different sides on this in various media sources. It appears there is
>> strong support on both sides of the issue. That makes it difficult to
>> discern exactly where the truth lies. I suspect that the truth about
>> his military career is buried amidst all the hot air being blown
>> about.
>
> *
> That is probably true.
>
> Kerry volunteered to be there -- whatever the hell he did when he
> was there -- HE WAS THERE.
>
> Let's focus for a minute on Bush's military record.
Let's stick to the subject of Kerry's record.
Kerry *lied* about what he did there.
He ran from a comrade under fire.
He shot a kid in the back.
He claimed medals for self-inflicted wounds.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
Fred Stone
news:s3v5i0p97jc4cctdc...@4ax.com:
If we made it illegal some liberal judge would make up a "right" to do
it in the Constitution.
Tim Morrow
> What makes 'Merkins so convinced they're indispensable? Resource-wise
> you're a black hole sucking up a much larger share than you need, and
> exporting nothing which can't be supplied from elsewhere. That
> includes your cultural and scientific exports. Economy-wise, you're
> one titanic mutant leech stuck to the ass of the world.
And we, of course, like it that way. You, otoh, come across as decidedly
jealous. Why don't you try sneaking in from Mexico? It's worked for so many
others....
stoney
Responses
1) That leaves Shrub out.
2) He'd miss.
stoney
>
> "stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
> news:10hvm5b...@corp.supernews.com...
>> GlennGlenn wrote:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9545DF6C2...@207.69.154.204>, Fred Stone
>> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> GlennGlenn <dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in
>> >> news:140820041713519437%dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <4LKdnSDCKMj...@comcast.com>, Starwolf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Kerry is the sensitive and nuanced candidate,
>> >> >
>> >> > ...except that Bush *himself* said that we need to be sensitive
>> >> > in dealing with terrorism as well, much, I imagine, to the
>> >> > dismay of Cheney.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Heaven forbid we should consider the context.
>> >
>> > Cheney didn't. Why should anyone else?
>>
>> Because they're Repugnicans and, therefore, spechul......
>
> Better than a Dumbacrap.
Yes, you are an idiot, I agree. (Pats the moron on the head with a clue
x 32) Now get back to felching the Shrub oh binary 'thinker' in a
nonbinary world.
stoney
> "Jack" <Ja...@Earthlink.com> wrote in news:-KKdnaSUxo6yZoLcRVn-
> r...@comcast.com:
>
>>>
>>> Because they're Repugnicans and, therefore, spechul......
>>
>> Better than a Dumbacrap.
>>
>
>
> Or a Lieberal...
Which is what the Repugnicans are. Using the Constitution for shit
paper is a liberal act.
Earle Jones
Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
*
I'm sure you have good documented evidence for these cowardly
accusations, right?
That shit-rag that your Republican put out (Swift Team) doesn't
count as evidence, by the way.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
John P.
> Well, why didn't you say so at once! There are plenty of choices. Of
> course Saddam is out at the moment, but there's still that faceless
> drone who's in charge in China, or the all-american fave, Castro. I'm
> pretty sure Korea doesn't want you (too paranoid), but Iran's
> Ayatholla Khamenei should fit your criteria quite snugly.
Bush is fine.
> Then why do you accept this? Why aren't you marching like the students
> at Tianmen Square? Are you afraid they'll laminate you to the pavement
> with a tank like the Cinese did in 1989? If you call for ethics,
> morals and the recognition of right and wrong, you'd better take the
> consequences. To vote in a democratic election is your right. If they
> try to take that option away from you, it is your duty to do something
> about it. Wasn't that what your little revolution back in the 18th
> century was all about?
Yes it was. ... and if I thought I could get together a group of people who
were ready to do what's necessary to instill change, I'd be there.
Unfortunately, Americans are very lazy when it comes to change. They will
put up with a *lot* of crap as long as they don't feel the impact in their
own life too much. As long as today is pretty much the same as yesterday,
they're fine with that.