 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / General / Sportbikes / March 2007Does the parade
of conservative hypocrits have no end? http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/gingrich-admits-affair-during-clinton/20 070308224409990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Some people never learn... > of conservative hypocrits have no end? > > http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/gingrich-admits-affair-during-clinton/20 070308224409990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001 > > Some people never learn... You missed the point. Clinton lied about having an affair to a federal judge. The argument was not if he had an affair or not, it was whether he lied about the affair or not. At least Newt admitted it. Either way, as far as I am concerned, all politicians are pond scum. Not one of them do what is best for the country, only what is best for their own pocketbook.  SignaturePoorUB '05 Ultra Classic '06 MAMBM >> Some people never learn... > > You missed the point. Clinton lied about having an affair to a federal > judge. The argument was not if he had an affair or not, it was whether he > lied about the affair or not. Libby just got convicted of the same thing. When Clinton does it, he gets bigger speaking fee's. I think there is a bias against Republicans related to the punishment for breaking the law. >> You missed the point. Clinton lied about having an affair to a federal >> judge. The argument was not if he had an affair or not, it was whether he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bigger speaking fee's. I think there is a bias against Republicans related > to the punishment for breaking the law. Or could it be that there is actually some justice being dispensed by the Federal Courts? After all, Clinton lied about having had a blow job, while Libby lied about having outed a CIA agent for revenge after her husband went public with some facts that Dick Cheney didn't care for. Let's see now: Blow job....outing CIA agent for political purposes....which one is the more serious offense? Think carefully... Yup. Looks like justice from here. (Besides which; we all know that Libby threw himself on his sword to protect his boss. Had he stood up in court and said "Here's what I did, and this is who told me to do it.", he'd have been given a walk right there on the spot. As it is, he personally chose to take the fall; and should he be sentenced to a stiff prison term I'll be amazed if Bush doesn't grant him as Presidential pardon as one of his last acts in office.) > As it is, he personally chose to take the fall; and should he be sentenced > to a stiff prison term I'll be amazed if Bush doesn't grant him as > Presidential pardon as one of his last acts in office.) Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from keyboards, pouring glue in the locks, etc etc. > Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated > in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from > keyboards, pouring glue in the locks, etc etc. How about just admitting that last-minute pardons for political bedfellows and other such dirty tricks have long been SOP for both political parties? They all do it on the same theory: it probably won't be noticed in the hoo-rah of changing administrations, and since they're leaving office anyway they know that they can't be held responsible by the voters. But while we're being fair, let's not try to equate outing a CIA operative with juvenile vandalism, okay? >> Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated >> in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But while we're being fair, let's not try to equate outing a CIA operative > with juvenile vandalism, okay? I'm more of a CIA "covert" operative than Valerie Plame ever was. SignatureHeaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ > >> Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated > >> in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm more of a CIA "covert" operative than Valerie Plame ever was. You are a bigger sh.t for brain right wing talking point parrot than TTT, but you ain't even close to playing on her ballfield: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 >>>> Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated >>>> in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 Try this one instead: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258624,00.html On Mar 15, 11:51 am, James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal....@mousepotato.com> wrote: > >>>> Better him than, say, every Dem campaign contributor which can be skated > >>>> in under the deadline as the staffers are removing the W keys from [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles. > Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles. So now you shoot the messenger when they deliver news you don't like? How very objective of you. > > Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles. > > So now you shoot the messenger when they deliver news you don't like? How > very objective of you. News? "The jury may or may not have been swayed by the nickname "Scooter"" "The Democrats view Mr. Libby's conviction on four of the five counts as proof that Vice President Cheney is, in fact, Hannibal Lecter" "Apparently, the best we could do back in early 2002 to investigate the possible sale of yellowcake uranium from Niger to Sadaam's Iraq regime was to send a former State Department administrative officer turned ambassador to poke around and talk with some folks" This is an objective report about a man who lied to a prosecutor investigating the outing of a CIA agent in a time of war? It's no wonder the Fox following imbeciles are no better informed than they are. Even simple Simon could see through this administration's cluster f.ck coverups. Faux News should be forced to put a label in the corner that declares for entertainment only. And even as entertainment they suck. > Faux News should be forced to put a label in the corner that declares > for entertainment only. And even as entertainment they suck. I, unlike you, don't watch it enough to even reference their screwups. What are YOU doing watching it so much? On topic question, why did you get the grey Duck instead of a nicer color? Your yellow one looked nice, their reds are always nice, the grey looked a bit dull. > > Faux News should be forced to put a label in the corner that declares > > for entertainment only. And even as entertainment they suck. > > I, unlike you, don't watch it enough to even reference their screwups. > > What are YOU doing watching it so much? One doesn't have to watch it but for about 3 minutes to get the full flavor for its War On the Uniformed and Credulous. Just read the "fair and balanced" "serious" "objective" quotes from that idiotic article James posted. > On topic question, why did you get the grey Duck instead of a nicer color? > Your yellow one looked nice, their reds are always nice, the grey looked a > bit dull. I was in a hurry. I'd have taken another yeller one, but they didn't have one and I was about to go on vacation. The other Duc was giving me the oil light finger, they said it was only a sensor, but I didn't want to take a chance out in BFE with it before riding it around town for awhile first. >> On topic question, why did you get the grey Duck instead of a nicer >> color? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > want to take a chance out in BFE with it before riding it around town > for awhile first. Got it. The yeller one was nice. The grey looks....regular. >>> Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles. >> So now you shoot the messenger when they deliver news you don't like? How [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Faux News should be forced to put a label in the corner that declares > for entertainment only. And even as entertainment they suck. Quote: You could be excused for being confused over what Plame’s role was at the Agency and what is meant by “her cover was blown.” There have been widely different reports in the media regarding her job description and the extent to which she was or wasn’t “under cover.” Reading through the various accounts, Plame is at turns described as an “operative” (Agency personnel in the operations directorate are “officers” by the way, not operatives, agents or spies) or an “NOC” (non-official cover officer, meaning working without any overt connections to the U.S. government), or a Jennifer Garner/Alias-like character or an analyst. A Vanity Fair article on Plame, which pretty much cemented the “my cover is blown” concern, gushed about her super-double secret extra-deep cover status. David Korn of The Nation seemed enamored of the acronym NOC when describing her position within the Agency. It was a coverpalooza… folks in the media trying to accurately depict her job within the Agency without really knowing cover details from Shinola. For those of you not read up on the use of "cover" in the world of intelligence, there are different types of cover… some requiring extensive preparation and backstopping (such as non-official cover)… and others which are official, such as working for other government organizations. By the way, no secrets were harmed or killed during the writing of this column. All this stuff relating to the use of cover has previously been disclosed by persons unable to keep their yaps shut. So I’m covering ground that’s already been plowed. I’m just putting it in layman’s terms. The simple truth is that, if you start your career under official cover, perhaps as an embassy officer working overseas, you will not then be moved into a non-official cover capacity. The whole point of non-official cover is to be distanced from/unconnected to the U.S. government. Officers do not bounce back and forth between the two worlds. I mention this in an effort to explain that Plame, who reportedly started in an official capacity with the U.S. government, and later was married to a relatively high profile U.S. official, would not be a logical choice for non-official cover or in fact any cover that would require significant resources to establish and maintain. Someone in this situation may from time to time use some basic “off the shelf” cover facility that would facilitate a particular overseas trip. You don’t expend time, energy and company resources on putting someone with obvious past and present ties to the U.S. government into a “deep” cover position. On Mar 16, 8:54 am, James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal....@mousepotato.com> wrote: > You could be excused for being confused over what Plame's role was at the Agency and what is meant > by "her cover was blown." VALERIE PLAME-WILSON'S OPENING STATEMENT (under oath) "I was covert when my identity was outed. Worked in counter- proliferation division of CIA where most agents were also covert. I was covert, the status of my position was classified, I was working on WMD issues in Iraq. I traveled overseas during the five years prior to my being outed at which time my cover was blown, network destroyed along with my career path." "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire > Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles As opposed to TPMCafe "Collaborative discussion of politics, culture and public life, from a politically left perspective." On Mar 15, 9:08 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > Faux News, the fair and balanced choice of imbeciles > > As opposed to TPMCafe "Collaborative discussion of politics, culture > and public life, from a politically left perspective." Which would be to discuss the subject instead of just concluding that it is too esoteric for us common folk and "we'd better leave the heavy lifting to intellectuals like George Bush and Jesus." > On Mar 15, 9:08 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it is too esoteric for us common folk and "we'd better leave the heavy > lifting to intellectuals like George Bush and Jesus." You are right, of course. Only progressive, thoughtful, inclusive liberals are capable of cultivating readers and thinkers who can collaboratively discuss the issues of the day and come up with well crafted policies and platforms that solve all of the world's problems and lift humanity onto a higher plane. On Mar 16, 8:46 am, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 9:08 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > crafted policies and platforms that solve all of the world's problems > and lift humanity onto a higher plane. I disagree. There are some freedom loving Libertarians who add productively to the American conversation as well. But hate filled, fear pimping, Bible thumping, discrimination loving Conservatives should find a nice rubber room to flop about in until an attendent can administer their Thorazine. > I disagree. There are some freedom loving Libertarians who add > productively to the American conversation as well. But hate filled, > fear pimping, Bible thumping, discrimination loving Conservatives > should find a nice rubber room to flop about in until an attendent can > administer their Thorazine. Don't forget about the American hating Democrats. - Kurt > > I disagree. There are some freedom loving Libertarians who add > > productively to the American conversation as well. But hate filled, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don't forget about the American hating Democrats. Which Democrats hate America and what specific behaviors of their's exhibit this to you? Do they hate America in general or just the Democratically controlled cities that you hate? > Which Democrats hate America and what specific behaviors of their's > exhibit this to you? Well, the ones that hate guns and want to eliminate them (most of them). The ones that want to level the playing field - make everything fair for everyone (that only results in everything being crappy for everyone). The ones who want you to rely on the gov for everything instead of doing it yourself. The ones who kiss up to unions. The ones who want to increase taxes to fun more social programs. All the crap I see in the democrat controlled places I have lived in the past. Here is how a democrat gets tough on crime: <http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1089746> > Do they hate America in general or just the Democratically controlled > cities that you hate? They are "progressive" by definition, meaning they want to keep changing it from what it is (and was) to something else. - Kurt > > Which Democrats hate America and what specific behaviors of their's > > exhibit this to you? > > Well, the ones that hate guns and want to eliminate them (most of them). 1. I'll note: no names or "SPECIFIC" plans, bills, laws etc. Just a general feeling paranoia. > The ones that want to level the playing field - make everything fair > for everyone (that only results in everything being crappy for everyone). 2. See 1. > The ones who want you to rely on the gov for everything instead of > doing it yourself. 3. See 1. > The ones who kiss up to unions. 4. Are you implying that the FREEDOM for workers to collectively bargain should abolished? > The ones who want to increase taxes to fun more social programs. 5. As opposed to borrowing money from the Chinese to fund the gov't? > All the crap I see in the democrat controlled places I have lived in > the past. 6. See 1. > Here is how a democrat gets tough on crime: > > <http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1089746> Ahh, you better re-examine who is scared of their own shadow and wants Jackbooted cops everywhere outlawing everything. Hint: It ain't the "progressives." > > Do they hate America in general or just the Democratically controlled > > cities that you hate? > > They are "progressive" by definition, meaning they want to keep > changing it from what it is (and was) to something else. Yeah, so let's go back to the days of Robberbarons, slavery, unlimited work hours, unlimited work age, and forgo worker safety laws. We'll scrap the highway system, space program, social security to save ~kurt a few bucks at the end of the year. Who needs satellites and old people anyway? Truth in advertising, we'll make it a thing of the past. Wanna sell poison to make a buck? Have at it, no need for silly lawyers getting their hands into everything. Yep ~kurt, you really got me there guy. >> Well, the ones that hate guns and want to eliminate them (most of them). > > 1. I'll note: no names or "SPECIFIC" plans, bills, laws etc. Just a > general feeling paranoia. I've previously supplied you with a list of anti-gun actions by the Democrats. I have even provided you with quotes of Democrats stating their plan is to chip away at gun rights until they no longer exist. Sorry I don't keep a notebook of these things around to pacify you whenever you ask for it. The threats subsided a great deal when Bush took office. Although, Bush and homeland security have not exactly been all that gun friendly. Still, better than what we faced under the Democrats. >> The ones that want to level the playing field - make everything fair >> for everyone (that only results in everything being crappy for everyone). > > 2. See 1. Like I explained to you before, the way we form opinions is by data mining. We don't keep track of specifics, and looking up bills passed by these people takes more work than I am willing to put forth for Usenet. You can see the end results of what parties like based on those areas controlled by them. > 4. Are you implying that the FREEDOM for workers to collectively > bargain should abolished? I'm implying companies should not be forced to hire union workers. I'm implying that workers should not be forced to join unions. And union people should not be allowed to keep workers and customers out of a building while they picket. I do understand that they are an unnecessary evil. But what large company can survive the demands of a Union? The retirement package alone will drive any company under over time. > 5. As opposed to borrowing money from the Chinese to fund the gov't? As opposed to accepting money from the Chinese to fund your campain? (The Chinese like to see Democrats win too). > Ahh, you better re-examine who is scared of their own shadow and wants > Jackbooted cops everywhere outlawing everything. Hint: It ain't the > "progressives." Traditionally, the Democrat way of fixing crime is to increase law enforcement - and of course not follow through with punishment. Our prior mayor of Baltimore (now Gov) is a good example. I hate the idea of homeland security, but much of the surveillance technology you see in place now occured during the Clinton administration. What republicans hate about the current administration is how much they are acting like Democrats. - Kurt > >> Well, the ones that hate guns and want to eliminate them (most of them). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have even provided you with quotes of Democrats stating their plan is to > chip away at gun rights until they no longer exist. I seem to remember something from ONE women responsible for a city demanding something be done. Hardly a major party platform. If you're going to be a one issue guy, the least you can do is KNOW the issue. > The threats subsided a great deal when Bush took office. Although, Bush > and homeland security have not exactly been all that gun friendly. Still, > better than what we faced under the Democrats. I didn't face sh.t. I had guns, knew plenty of people who had guns and knew no one or heard nothing about anyone (aside from Waco and Ruby Ridge) about anyone ever coming to take them away. And all those Federal cop agencies are your folks idea, not mine. > >> The ones that want to level the playing field - make everything fair > >> for everyone (that only results in everything being crappy for everyone). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Like I explained to you before, the way we form opinions is by data mining. > We don't keep track of specifics, Oh contrare', I point out specific details to you on a DAILY basis > and looking up bills passed by these people > takes more work than I am willing to put forth for Usenet. And it's particularly difficult when the only place they reside is in your imagination. > You can see > the end results of what parties like based on those areas controlled by them. Liberals have never controlled anything. If they had, drugs would be legal and our modern day bootlegging would be a thing of the past. Violent drug runners would have to find some other way of making money. Make prostitution legal and you take them outta that black market too. But then what WOULD we do with all those cops and prisons? > > 4. Are you implying that the FREEDOM for workers to collectively > > bargain should abolished? > > I'm implying companies should not be forced to hire union workers. Companies don't hire union workers. Companies hire employees who join unions. At my workplace, you can't even get into the union until you've completed a probationary period of months. Our company has also created a lot of salaried positions for top performing union employees. A lot of them still won't go, perferring that there years of work mean something in the event the company falls on hard times or they get sick or have some other problem. > I'm implying that workers should not be forced to join unions. I don't know that they are forced? Asking a low skilled guy to individually bargain for his services is kinda like throwing a sheep to the lions though. Not sure anyone given the choice would choose not to. > And union people should not be allowed to keep workers and customers out of a > building while they picket. > > I do understand that they are an unnecessary evil. But what large > company can survive the demands of a Union? A company that has a competent management capable of negotiating fairly with its workforce. > > 5. As opposed to borrowing money from the Chinese to fund the gov't? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Traditionally, the Democrat way of fixing crime is to increase law > enforcement - and of course not follow through with punishment. So you say, but can't provide an example. > Our prior > mayor of Baltimore (now Gov) is a good example. I hate the idea of homeland > security, but much of the surveillance technology you see in place now > occured during the Clinton administration. What republicans hate about > the current administration is how much they are acting like Democrats. You can't stop technology, but you can elect people who will uphold the Constitution with regard to its use. Clinton respected our Constitution, GWB and crew clearly do not. > I didn't face sh.t. I had guns, knew plenty of people who had guns > and knew no one or heard nothing about anyone (aside from Waco and > Ruby Ridge) about anyone ever coming to take them away. And all those > Federal cop agencies are your folks idea, not mine. The "assault" weapons ban. The followup to that was even more strict - even outlawing the shotgun Kerry got his photo ops with (luckily the followup didn't pass). The bill that made it so some misdemeanors take away your right to own a gun (instead of making the crime a felony). The lawsuits sponsored by the Clinton administration with the purpose of bankrupting the producers of firearms (or moving them out of the civilian market). Lots didn't make it through. Mandatory gun registration. Mandating that all guns be built with technology that would limit who could use the firearm. Mandating how people must secure their firearms in their own homes. Huge "sin" taxes on firearms and ammunition. Every time I would turn around there was a new threat from these people. It has been relatively quit the last 6 years - we even gained ground in a few areas. > Oh contrare', I point out specific details to you on a DAILY basis You point out something in the news as it happens. If I ask you to make a list of things from 5 years ago, you would have to put some effort into it. > Liberals have never controlled anything. If they had, drugs would be Luckily. But they are getting more control. The entire country is starting to be run by LA and NY. > legal and our modern day bootlegging would be a thing of the past. > Violent drug runners would have to find some other way of making Liberals might push for making drugs legal, but the Democrats, even as bleeding heart as they are, never will. > Companies don't hire union workers. Companies hire employees who join > unions. At my workplace, you can't even get into the union until I understand this - but there are many places where you don't work unless you join the union. > A company that has a competent management capable of negotiating > fairly with its workforce. Bullshit - as people live longer, and the retired population grows, you can not support them while they are not working. Especially given how early many of these union guys are able to retire. The only way the company can support such a system is if the company itself continues to grow. That might work for 30 or so years, but eventually things get as big as they can. It is just like having a socialist government. The only way to pay for it is if your working population continues to grow. >> Traditionally, the Democrat way of fixing crime is to increase law >> enforcement - and of course not follow through with punishment. > > So you say, but can't provide an example. Plenty of cops in MD. Not much done to criminals. There are plenty of them we could kill off too. > You can't stop technology, but you can elect people who will uphold > the Constitution with regard to its use. Clinton respected our > Constitution, GWB and crew clearly do not. He had no respect for the 2nd amendment. Wiretaps went up significantly under his command. He signed the '94 surveillance act thing. He abused his executive orders greatly (I'm talking about more than his last minute pardons). He forced many non-emergency policy issues through, bypassing the system. He and his wife were also trash - you still haven't read "Unlimited Access", have you? - Kurt > Bullshit - as people live longer, and the retired population grows, > you > can not support them while they are not working. Especially given how > early many of these union guys are able to retire. Contracts are negotiated. > > I didn't face sh.t. I had guns, knew plenty of people who had guns > > and knew no one or heard nothing about anyone (aside from Waco and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bankrupting the producers of firearms (or moving them out of the civilian > market). Now see, there you go making a legitimate point with the assault weapons ban only to follow it up by complete bulgardash about Clinton filing lawsuits. Surely you could take 10 seconds to Google this up or admit to yourself this was some NRA contrived nonsense. > Lots didn't make it through. Mandatory gun registration. Mandating that > all guns be built with technology that would limit who could use the > firearm. Mandating how people must secure their firearms in their own > homes. Huge "sin" taxes on firearms and ammunition. Every time I would > turn around there was a new threat from these people. It has been > relatively quit the last 6 years - we even gained ground in a few areas. Well that's great. Too bad it came at the cost of bankrupting the nation, annihilating the environment, pissing off the world, and getting a bunch of our soldiers killed. At least you pay less tax for your plinking ammo now. > > Oh contrare', I point out specific details to you on a DAILY basis > > You point out something in the news as it happens. If I ask you to make > a list of things from 5 years ago, you would have to put some effort into > it. Sure, but we are living in the here and now. And these conservative Jackasses are destroying our country in the here and now. Be mad at Clinton for lying about his sex life to Nazi interrogators and increasing ammo tax all you like, but be cognizant of the world around you today too. > > Liberals have never controlled anything. If they had, drugs would be > > Luckily. But they are getting more control. The entire country is > starting to be run by LA and NY. If it's run anything like those places, you'll be building a lot of prisons. Hope they don't have to increase the tax on your ammo to do it. > > legal and our modern day bootlegging would be a thing of the past. > > Violent drug runners would have to find some other way of making > > Liberals might push for making drugs legal, but the Democrats, even as > bleeding heart as they are, never will. Bleeding heart has nothing to do with it. They don't have the balls to stand up for freedom either. But they are a hell of a lot less Nazistic than conservatives. > > Companies don't hire union workers. Companies hire employees who join > > unions. At my workplace, you can't even get into the union until [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bullshit - as people live longer, and the retired population grows, you > can not support them while they are not working. Because the incompetent managements of the past gave away the farm during negotiations. You can't hardly just blame those managements. Gov't workers milk the taxpayers every bit as well. My father in law has been milking the State since he was 50 for 3/4 of his pre- retirement (with increases for inflation and bonuses for good years in the market (none lately)). My father milked Uncle Sam on the 20 year retirement thing too. Even Generous Motors never made any deals that sweet. > It is just like having a socialist government. > The only way to pay for it is if your working population continues to grow. Socialist or not, if there are more retired people than working people somethings gotta give. > >> Traditionally, the Democrat way of fixing crime is to increase law > >> enforcement - and of course not follow through with punishment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Plenty of cops in MD. Not much done to criminals. There are plenty of them > we could kill off too. Criminals might disagree: http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=117 "The report, Cutting Correctly in Maryland, highlights some of the factors that have tripled the state's prison population over the last two decades - from 7,731 in 1980 to 23,752 at the end of 2001. The report found that 24 percent of the inmates in Maryland's prisons are drug offenders and that nonviolent offenders are languishing behind bars as the number of prisoners paroled each year has fallen by 29 percent." > > You can't stop technology, but you can elect people who will uphold > > the Constitution with regard to its use. Clinton respected our > > Constitution, GWB and crew clearly do not. > > He had no respect for the 2nd amendment. Sure he did, you just had no militia. > Wiretaps went up significantly under his command. So long as there was judicial oversight that's OK by me. > He signed the '94 surveillance act thing. You mean the FISA act that basically gives the executive carte blanche over foreigners? The one GWB finds too be to restrictive? > He abused his executive orders greatly (I'm > talking about more than his last minute pardons). He forced many > non-emergency policy issues through, bypassing the system. Such as... > He and his wife were also trash - you still haven't read "Unlimited Access", > have you? After the fact, kiss and tell nonsense about how the staff threw pizza boxes around and Hillary hired a gay or two...pahleeze. They can throw pizzas at the f.cking paintings for all I care so long as they return our nation back to its former good standing. > Now see, there you go making a legitimate point with the assault > weapons ban only to follow it up by complete bulgardash about Clinton > filing lawsuits. Surely you could take 10 seconds to Google this up > or admit to yourself this was some NRA contrived nonsense. Clinton himself didn't file the lawsuits - it was lead by his administration. > Because the incompetent managements of the past gave away the farm > during negotiations. You can't hardly just blame those managements. And the unions demanded the farm be given away. > Gov't workers milk the taxpayers every bit as well. My father in law I call them the biggest union of all. Although, retirement isn't what it used to be for gov employees - it is almost like working for a company now days. >> He signed the '94 surveillance act thing. > > You mean the FISA act that basically gives the executive carte blanche > over foreigners? The one GWB finds too be to restrictive? No, this is the thing forcing companies to bend over backwards to make it easy for the FBI/gov to tap lines and whatnot - the name escapes me right now (and the date might be wrong). In short, it puts all the burden of enabling surveillance through communications on the businesses that supply the service. >> He abused his executive orders greatly (I'm >> talking about more than his last minute pardons). He forced many >> non-emergency policy issues through, bypassing the system. > > Such as... You can look it up yourself - should be an easy google. - Kurt > > Now see, there you go making a legitimate point with the assault > > weapons ban only to follow it up by complete bulgardash about Clinton > > filing lawsuits. Surely you could take 10 seconds to Google this up > > or admit to yourself this was some NRA contrived nonsense. > > Clinton himself didn't file the lawsuits - it was lead by his administration. Namely? > > Because the incompetent managements of the past gave away the farm > > during negotiations. You can't hardly just blame those managements. > > And the unions demanded the farm be given away. ~kurt, if I sell you my Yamaha for $20k and it's only worth $10k is it my fault for asking or your fault for agreeing to my terms? > > Gov't workers milk the taxpayers every bit as well. My father in law > > I call them the biggest union of all. Although, retirement isn't what > it used to be for gov employees - it is almost like working for a > company now days. > >> He abused his executive orders greatly (I'm > >> talking about more than his last minute pardons). He forced many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You can look it up yourself - should be an easy google. I read a lot of people hollaring about the abuses, but could not find a single specific thing they were whining about. Unlike conservative lackies, if he was abusing his powers of office I would be glad to hold him accountable for it. Hell I didn't even vote for him the second time due to the Lewinski BS. Not that I thought it was a big deal, but because I thought having him shamed would weaken the office. >> Clinton himself didn't file the lawsuits - it was lead by his administration. > > Namely? This is something the administration was proud of. I can't believe you don't remember this. I ain't gonna look it all up for you. - Kurt > Hell I didn't even vote for him the > second time due to the Lewinski BS. Not that I thought it was a big > deal, but because I thought having him shamed would weaken the office. Shamed? Bill Clinton doesn't know the meaning of the word. > Clinton respected our Constitution, As long as *he* got to decide what all of the words mean. On Mar 19, 2:29 pm, James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal....@mousepotato.com> wrote: > > Clinton respected our Constitution, > > As long as *he* got to decide what all of the words mean. Only *is*. And let's face it, that's a pretty tricky word. I mean if you had just balled your brains out last night and a G-man pulled you aside and shook you down demanding "Is you having sex?" Would you cop to the slop or say "no you silly jackbooted thug, I'm talking to you." > I do understand that they are an unnecessary evil. But what large > company can survive the demands of a Union? Ummm, Hilton Hotels? Every casino in Vegas and Jersey? Every police force and fire station in the U.S? Having a Union movement is an essential step in the prosperity of all nations. The airlines are busting out because they have to compete with dozens of money-losing National Flag operations. The car companies are busting out because they don't make stuff people want to buy. It's intellectually lazy to blame the unions for bad management, stupid governmental policy, or the death of corporations that have outlived their usefulness. The union movement could use reforms, god knows, but I use my union position and office to fight intimidation and harassment, and force overdue change. It hasn't been 100 years since pickets were shot for protesting things like 16-hour work days. We recently forced the re-hiring of a man who had been fired for not reporting to work while serving as a reservist in Iraq, something his boss was well aware of. Another was asked to sign a form waiving his overtime pay, he was working double shifts to cover for open jobs. While Home Depot gives millions to bosses that led the company into loss. Damn..... you got me going. Reassembler ILWU local#142 > hate filled, > fear pimping, Bible thumping, discrimination loving Conservatives exist only in your fevered imagination On Mar 16, 9:11 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > hate filled, http://www.ihateliberals.net/ > > fear pimping, Iraq War > Bible thumping, Terri Schiavo > discrimination loving Conservatives Give a gay a right and go directly on the Ihateliberals.net ten most wanted list. > exist only in your fevered imagination You apparently live on a different planet. I have no need to imagine the obvious. > On Mar 16, 9:11 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You apparently live on a different planet. I have no need to imagine > the obvious. You provide a most convincing demonstration of why usenet political discourse is impossible. Congratulations. On Mar 16, 10:49 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 9:11 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. Now run back to Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter for your daily dose of hate filled propaganda. > Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. Now you've gone too far Saddle. The FACT of Clintons impeachment sure isn't an enemy of conservatives, any more than George Sr's economic recovery empowering millions of Americans during the 90's was. There are many facts around, and just because you ignore ones you don't like makes you as silly as the cheerleaders for the other side. > > Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. > > Now you've gone too far Saddle. The FACT of Clintons impeachment sure isn't > an enemy of conservatives http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/ Only to a conservative could spending $80 million to catch a guy having sex make sense. >, any more than George Sr's economic recovery > empowering millions of Americans during the 90's was. You mean the one where you read his lips as he raised taxes? > There are many facts around Unfortunately, you've never been aquainted with any. >, and just because you ignore ones you don't like I agree Clinton got a bl.wj.b and lied about it. It's not that I don't like that fact, it's just that unlike a busybody conservatives, his sex life doesn't peg my guage of important world events. > makes you as silly as the cheerleaders for the other side. I'm not cheerleading FOR anyone. I'm simply pointing out standard conservative nonsense. Unlike conservatives, people with a brain can see many sides to any given topic. It's just that conservatives ALWAYS seem to pick the dumbest possible one. >> > Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Only to a conservative could spending $80 million to catch a guy > having sex make sense. He wasn't impeached for having sex. What, you don't pay attention to your own propaganda now? >>, any more than George Sr's economic recovery >> empowering millions of Americans during the 90's was. > > You mean the one where you read his lips as he raised taxes? No, the one where we were recession free for a major chunk of the 90's....let me guess, you don't like that FACT either? >> makes you as silly as the cheerleaders for the other side. > > I'm not cheerleading FOR anyone. I'm simply pointing out standard > conservative nonsense. When you confuse FACTS with "standard conservative nonsense" then of COURSE you are cheerleading, just against FACTS. I don't mind because I know the difference, but you might confuse some low minded liberals if you keep it up. > > > Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > see many sides to any given topic. It's just that conservatives > ALWAYS seem to pick the dumbest possible one. Both thinking conservatives AND thinking liberals (or progressives) eschew such polarizing, one-sided claims. They stifle expression, and they weary folks who might otherwise be inclined to engage in a constructive conversation. The fact of the matter, Saddle, is that you're not interested in an exchange of views, and you're certainly not interested in finding a common middle ground. All the more reason to stick to motorcycles. As much of a blowhard that Troy is, and as much of an idiot as I can be, even WE have been able to find tenuous middle ground in discussing the automobile industry. Though we'll never agree, I think we both understand the other's position, and - speaking only for myself now - I've come to appreciate some of Troy's points that I wouldn't have if we'd never been able to drop the bluster and extremism and actually THINK about what we're writing. "Unlike liberals, people with a brain..." doesn't serve as a good opener for a debate. It's funny. I went to dinner with an old, dear friend last night, and we had a wonderful discussion for almost two hours. We talked about our kids, our wives, our work, motorcycling, control-line airplane stunt competition flying, and everything was great. I had to cut it short, however, when the talk turned to politics. My friend is convinced that people who don't share his politial views are idiots, morons, and he has no time or patience for them, and isn't interested in their motives, their background, their point of view, or their arguments. They're idiots, to him, and not worth considering. They're people to be dismissed. I can't stand that attitude, even though he and I are almost perfectly attuned in terms of our positions on the ISSUES of the day. I just told him I was tired, we weren't going to cover any new ground, and I wanted to get home before the damn snow got any deeper. And that was that. A shame, really, when people simply close ther minds and turn off the ideas of others. Regardless of what side of the political spectrum they inhabit. On Mar 17, 10:31 am, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > > > Because facts are the enemy of conservatives. > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > convinced that people who don't share his politial views are idiots, > morons, and he has no time or patience for them, Unlike your friend, I don't simply call them names. I point out specific reasons why conservatives appear to lack any semblance of common sense. You seem like a pretty level headed guy which makes me curious as to why you would carry their torch even if they started up a new round of witch trials. Nothing these guys do seems to bother you people, frankly I just find it amazing. Everyone crows about how the jury let OJ get away with murder, but if that had been a Bush cabinet member and the jury had been comprised of Fox Noise watchers, that staffer would have been playing a round of golf with OJ 10 minutes after the jury had convened. > The fact of the matter, Saddle, is that you're not interested in an > exchange of views, and you're certainly not interested in finding a > common middle ground. You are just getting around to noticing?! > As much of a blowhard that Troy is, and as much of an idiot as I can > be, even WE have been able to find tenuous middle ground in discussing > the automobile industry. Yes...you gave up and agreed that I was right. Now THAT is a good middle ground. > Though we'll never agree, I think we both > understand the other's position, and - speaking only for myself now - > I've come to appreciate some of Troy's points that I wouldn't have if > we'd never been able to drop the bluster and extremism and actually > THINK about what we're writing. Saddle isn't good at the thinking part, he'd rather arm wave bunches. > A shame, really, when people simply close ther minds and turn off the > ideas of others. Regardless of what side of the political spectrum > they inhabit. Yeah but turning off their minds is a liberal specialty. My favorite? When the tree huggers realized that CO2 was contributing to global warming and their godfather of tree huggery came out publicly and said we need to start building nukes NOW...and lots of them. Oh my did they disavow his butt faster than saddle can pretend conservatives are somehow at fault for Clinton lying under oath. > > The fact of the matter, Saddle, is that you're not interested in an > > exchange of views, and you're certainly not interested in finding a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > global warming and their godfather of tree huggery came out publicly and > said we need to start building nukes NOW...and lots of them. I'm all for building nukes...just as long as they are across the street from YOUR house. > Oh my did they > disavow his butt faster than saddle can pretend conservatives are somehow at > fault for Clinton lying under oath. Fiscally conservative Republicans (gag) go on an $80 million taxpayer spending spree attempting to unearth ANY possible wrongdoing from a standup Commander in Chief. Since he had the public integrity of George Washington, the best they could do was find a couple a fluzies he'd balled and force him to speak publically about it. f.ck them and any other dip sh.t that thinks what an American does in the bedroom is any of the gubaments Goddamn buisness. Buncha f.cking Nazi bastards. > Fiscally conservative Republicans (gag) go on an $80 million taxpayer > spending spree attempting to unearth ANY possible wrongdoing from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any other dip sh.t that thinks what an American does in the bedroom is > any of the gubaments Goddamn buisness. Buncha f.cking Nazi bastards Whether a public servant lies under oath or not is germane to whether or not he has the "publice integrity of George Washington." You obviously believe differently. That makes you a f.cking communist bastard, by your own reasoning. On Mar 17, 1:58 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > Fiscally conservative Republicans (gag) go on an $80 million taxpayer > > spending spree attempting to unearth ANY possible wrongdoing from a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > obviously believe differently. That makes you a f.cking communist > bastard, by your own reasoning. No Timsy, let me simplify the concept for you. Public business is public business. His personal life is not public business. Got it? This has nothing to do with personal property rights or a government run economy (i.e. Communism). It does have a lot to do with gov't paid smear merchants (i.e. Nazis)who have no interest in the efficient governing of our country, but only desire to besmirch anyone who stands in the way of their greedy personal endeavors. > No Timsy, let me simplify the concept for you. Public business is > public business. His personal life is not public business. Got it? Well, a simple fact of life is this. If you are a public servant, or work for the gov in any way, then your personal life is the gov's business. You go into that work knowing this full well. That being said, I agree - it was a waste. The reason they were so intent on pursuing this is because he was so slippery, and they finally had him nailed on a bald faced lie. I agree though - I would have let it go. It does point out what a piece of trash he was though. - Kurt > > No Timsy, let me simplify the concept for you. Public business is > > public business. His personal life is not public business. Got it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Kurt Just as Hillary's "investments" illustrate what a hypocritical whore she is. > Just as Hillary's "investments" illustrate what a hypocritical whore > she is. If you really want to be sick, read "Unlimited Access" by by Gary Aldrich. Aldrich was one of the FBI agents asigned to do the background investigations on those appointed by Bill and Hillary. Most of them were so unclearable that the administration went to great lengths to hinder the investigations, and let these people roam the White House. The circus they had going was amazing. My dad was still a Special Agent for the Dept of State while they were in office, and heard sh.t very similar to what you see of their character in the book from the SS. He had more personal experience with the Carter admin though - they were garbage too. Just low class trash. Hillary has one hell of a temper on her - one of them screamers. - Kurt On Mar 17, 8:07 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > > No Timsy, let me simplify the concept for you. Public business is > > > public business. His personal life is not public business. Got it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Just as Hillary's "investments" illustrate what a hypocritical whore > she is. Investing now qualifies one as a hypocrit and a whore? Wow, Timsy apparently I miss judged you, you my friend are out deep in space. > On Mar 17, 1:58 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > No Timsy, let me simplify the concept for you. Public business is > public business. His personal life is not public business. Got it? Having held a security clearance my entire adult life, I beg to differ. It's not surprising that you haven't a clue, though. > This has nothing to do with personal property rights or a government > run economy (i.e. Communism). It does have a lot to do with gov't > paid smear merchants (i.e. Nazis)who have no interest in the efficient > governing of our country, but only desire to besmirch anyone who > stands in the way of their greedy personal endeavors. The fact that the elected chief executive of the country violates both the most private of contracts as well as his oath of office is of interest to the voters, whether you choose to believe it or not. On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > > Whether a public servant lies under oath or not is germane to whether > > > or not he has the "publice integrity of George Washington." You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Having held a security clearance my entire adult life, I beg to > differ. It's not surprising that you haven't a clue, though. You choose to sell out your privacy for meal ticket (speaking of whoring). He was elected. In any event, if you choose to knock boots with some hottie after hours, you may have to report it to your keepers, but it still would not be made public. > > This has nothing to do with personal property rights or a government > > run economy (i.e. Communism). It does have a lot to do with gov't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the most private of contracts as well as his oath of office is of > interest to the voters, whether you choose to believe it or not. If he violated his oath of office I'd be upset. The sex ground rules he and is wife keep are non of my f.cking business. I'm interested in learning more about how he violated his oath of office. > On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You choose to sell out your privacy for meal ticket (speaking of > whoring). You stupid little f.cking cheapshot bastard. On Mar 18, 4:48 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You stupid little f.cking cheapshot bastard. I see, it's OK when you do it to Hillary (without any cause), but get all pissy when you reap what you sew. >> My favorite? When the tree huggers realized that CO2 was contributing to >> global warming and their godfather of tree huggery came out publicly and >> said we need to start building nukes NOW...and lots of them. > > I'm all for building nukes...just as long as they are across the > street from YOUR house. You might not be enthused about the idea, or anyone else, but I guarentee that when push comes to shove, Americans would rather have nukes in their backyard than rolling blackouts, and thats without even getting started on CO2 emissions. > >> My favorite? When the tree huggers realized that CO2 was contributing to > >> global warming and their godfather of tree huggery came out publicly and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > backyard than rolling blackouts, and thats without even getting started on > CO2 emissions. I have a number of nuclear power plants in my back yard, and I have absolutely no objection to more being added. Only an idiot would. After all, they're cleaner, more efficient, safer, and cheaper than any other type of mass electrical generation.... unless you happen to have an untamed, raging, major river in your backyard. Of course, we all know WHO, for the past 35 years, has been opposing the producation of energy generating capacity that would free us from dependence on imported oil. It's not conservatives, and it's not "big business," and it's not Republicans. Hell, even the idiotic FRENCH understand this one. >> > I'm all for building nukes...just as long as they are across the >> > street from YOUR house. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have a number of nuclear power plants in my back yard, and I have > absolutely no objection to more being added. Only an idiot would. Saddle appears to know only those kind of people. Having lived in Ohio, I can understand his limited life experience with rather narrow minded Americans. But Saddle is worse than even the AVERAGE Ohioian. > After all, they're cleaner, more efficient, safer, and cheaper than > any other type of mass electrical generation.... unless you happen to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the producation of energy generating capacity that would free us from > dependence on imported oil. I would say tree-huggers...and then I would wonder how tree-huggers vote...and then I would realize what idiot President kicked off the natural gas bubble of the 80's by being energy-incompetent..and I would then KNOW! > It's not conservatives, and it's not "big business," and it's not > Republicans. > > Hell, even the idiotic FRENCH understand this one. Yup...Americans are pathetic in this arena... On Mar 17, 8:11 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > >> My favorite? When the tree huggers realized that CO2 was contributing to > > >> global warming and their godfather of tree huggery came out publicly and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > any other type of mass electrical generation.... unless you happen to > have an untamed, raging, major river in your backyard. And where do you house your spent radioactive material? > Of course, we all know WHO, for the past 35 years, has been opposing > the producation of energy generating capacity that would free us from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hell, even the idiotic FRENCH understand this one. They have the Alps and glowing bikers. >> I have a number of nuclear power plants in my back yard, and I have >> absolutely no objection to more being added. Only an idiot would. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And where do you house your spent radioactive material? Yucca mountain for starters..of course. >> And where do you house your spent radioactive material? > > Yucca mountain for starters..of course. I volunteered CO some time back. Not like you guys have anything out east. - Kurt > On Mar 16, 9:11 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor...@erols.com> wrote: > > > > hate filled, > > http://www.ihateliberals.net/ Does anyone here hate Bush? ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Chait in _The New Republic_: "I hate President George W. Bush." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161052198.716267.39170%40i3g2000cwc.google groups.com DNC's Dean: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161138356.554236.23700%40i42g2000cwa.googl egroups.com > > > fear pimping, > > Iraq War Clinton lies about Iraq http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134078990.348534.274260%40f14g2000c wb.googlegroups.com > > Bible thumping, > > Terri Schiavo Democrat Senator Tom Harkin supported efforts to stop the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Has Harkin ever engaged in "Bible thumping" as far as you know? > > discrimination loving Conservatives > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You apparently live on a different planet. I have no need to imagine > the obvious. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cw b.googlegroups.com not-PVS http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000c wb.googlegroups.com 2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_ by Mark Fuhrman http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Witness-Untold-Story-Schiavos/dp/0060853379/ref=sr_ 1_4/002-5875444-0041604? 2006 _Fighting for Dear Life: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo and What It Means for All of Us_ by David C. Gibbs and Bob DeMoss http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Dear-Life-Untold-Schiavo/dp/076420243X/ref=sr_1_1 /002-5875444-0041604? 2005 _Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman_ by Diana Lynne http://www.amazon.com/Terris-Story-Court-Ordered-Death-American/dp/1581824882/re f=pd_sim_b_2/002-5875444-0041604? was the killing of Dylan Walborn via starvation moral? immoral? http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166540626.099512.85610%4080g2000cwy .googlegroups.com Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000c wz.googlegroups.com Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en& Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net On the Origin of Life http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net On Mar 18, 8:05 am, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote: > Does anyone here hate Bush? "http://groups.google.com/groups? selm=1161052198.716267.39170%40i3g200... Mormon's hate Bush? > DNC's Dean: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161138356.554236.23700%40i42g20... I hate most of the things they stand for, but I have too much fun "poking at them with a stick" (to quote Jamin) to actually hate them. You gotta admit Howard's a little more outspoken than the typical Democrat. But anyway, good comeback. I see you're going to be a much more fun sparing partner than the "Bush can be excused for everything because Clinton sucked" crowd. > > > > fear pimping, > > > Iraq War > > Clinton lies about Iraqhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134078990.348534.274260%... Given the cherry picked info Bu$h chose to share with minority Democrats, I can see how she might have come to this conclusion. Though to be honest, there was enough of unclassified information around to know the administration was full of sh.t going into this thing. She is a political animal and surely didn't want to be seen on the wrong side of what appeared to everyone to be an easy kill of wounded prey. I'll give you that. > > > Bible thumping, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Terri Schindler Schiavo. > Has Harkin ever engaged in "Bible thumping" as far as you know? That's the thing about Democrats, they are free to make their own decisions on an issue by issue basis. This is in contrast to the mindless, lockstep, obediance of conservatives. > 2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_ The only untold story is that her brain was soup and the conservative Federal gubament decided they were better equipped to make a family decision than the family having to deal with it. Tell me all about your Reganistic commitment to small gov't there dfo. On Mar 18, 9:26 am, "Saddlebag" <saddle...@aol.com> wrote in Re: Does the parade: > On Mar 18, 8:05 am, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mormon's hate Bush? Perhaps some Mormons hate Bush. > > DNC's Dean: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161138356.554236.23700%40i42g20... > > I hate most of the things they stand for, but I have too much fun > "poking at them with a stick" (to quote Jamin) to actually hate them. Regarding America, do you have much fun poking at her with a stick? //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// slapping America around http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161304790.293089.211670%40i42g2000cwa.goog legroups.com > You gotta admit Howard's a little more outspoken than the typical > Democrat. Did you support the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo? /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Dean: I supported killing Terri Schindler Schiavo http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161266154.756327.101690%40h48g2000cwc.goog legroups.com > But anyway, good comeback. I see you're going to be a much > more fun sparing partner than the "Bush can be excused for everything [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the wrong side of what appeared to everyone to be an easy kill of > wounded prey. I'll give you that. 10 October 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. [Clinton]"he [Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists" Do you think there were any terrorist training camps in Iraq on the eve of the launching of Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom? ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// LA Times on Saddam & the Palestinian Liberation Front training camp near Baghdad http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1162127038.762793.234460%40m7g2000cwm.googl egroups.com Ansar al-Islam al Qaeda terrorist camp in Iraq http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1162305480.291245.227040%40e64g2000cwd.goog legroups.com > > > > Bible thumping, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > decisions on an issue by issue basis. This is in contrast to the > mindless, lockstep, obediance of conservatives. "Obedience" to who? Bush? Bush picked the weak intellect Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, and prominent conservatives (the only exception I'm aware of: Hugh Hewitt) as well as rank-and-file conservatives loudly protested, resulting in withdrawal of the nomination. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// letter to Karl Rove re: Miers http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1130169124.150711.196040%40g47g2000cwa.goog legroups.com > > 2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_ > > The only untold story is that her brain was soup and the conservative > Federal gubament decided they were better equipped to make a family > decision than the family having to deal with it. Tell me all about > your Reganistic commitment to small gov't there dfo. "her brain was soup" Reference? not-PVS http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000c wb.googlegroups.com "the family having to deal with it" Suppose two members of a family wish to kill another member of the family. Do you think the government should step in to protect the life of the family member facing being killed? "Tell me all about your Reganistic commitment to small gov't" Do you think American government should work to protect from would-be murderers the lives of the not-deserving-death members of the U.S. population? > Did you support the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo? What are you blabbering about? It was her husbands decision as to whether or not she wanted to be kept alive by machines, certainly not something you, me, George, Congress or any particular brand of religious zealotry has any right to comment on or interfere with at all. > > Did you support the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo? > > What are you blabbering about? It was her husbands decision as to whether or > not she wanted to be kept alive by machines, certainly not something you, > me, George, Congress or any particular brand of religious zealotry has any > right to comment on or interfere with at all. By God, TTT just had his first cogent thought. I say we celebrate. I'm going for a Dos Equis now. >> > Did you support the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By God, TTT just had his first cogent thought. I say we celebrate. > I'm going for a Dos Equis now. Got a picture of your Duck which you replaced the last Duck with? Different color than grey? > >> > Did you support the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Got a picture of your Duck which you replaced the last Duck with? Different > color than grey? The yellow one with you sitting on it? >> Got a picture of your Duck which you replaced the last |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message