It does make Edg seem unhinged, but I politely suggested to Richard that investigating 9/11 as a possible inside job was a patriotic thing to do, a necessary thing to do if we want to keep our democracy, rather than a conspiracy nut case thing to do, and he never responded. So maybe Edg's unhinged rudeness will get results? We'll see.
curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "If so, fuck you with a KKK flaming cross up your ass and out your mouth -- just to give you a taste of the hell you're surely destined to arrive at." This is uncool and unnecessary Edg. How can you seriously expect Richard to discuss this topic with this kind of attack? It makes you sound unhinged. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard, > > It seems you're being jingoistic. Extremely so. It is appalling and > disturbing. > > I'm going to rip you a new one, so grab your ass, and see you can > stand a look into the mirror. Of the 1000 people who read this, I'm > guessing 950+ will agree with this assessment of your immoral > presentation. > > For all your education on Eastern Wisdom, you're coming-off, below, as > someone who would be saying "my country right or wrong" and "if they > aren't white, kill 'em without regard." > > Yes? I have purposefully made the above statement way beyond what I > hope you actually are resonant with, but unless you BACKTRACK BIGTIME, > the above statement is rather a mild piece of scorn compared to what > one should have happen as a punishment for almost any act that would > emerge from the criminal mindset you're espousing. > > We invaded Iraq immorally, illegally, with brutal murderous intent and > with stealing oil as our true reason for doing so. > > I find you guilty of mindfully ignoring: > > 1. the suffering of tens of millions of people, > 2. the deaths of a million people, > 3. the deaths of 4,000 US service men and women, > 4. the ruination of our Bill of Rights, > 5. the utter disgrace of America in the eyes of the world, > 6. the possibility of WWIII, > 7. the defense of doing "first strike on Iran with nukes," and > 8. the private armies that have been formed by BigBiz > > And that's just for starters. > > BigMedia's brainwashed masses have been forced into a mindset where > "24" is considered entertainment, and "righteous inquisition" is a > concept that's touted as one's civil duty -- see a terrorist, > torture a terrorist. Only the warped personalities in the Roman > Coliseum as they slavered for martyr blood could approach the low > evilness of this conscious disregard for suffering in others. > > Richard, are you really this horrid? > > If so, you sully the group consciousness here with a black-hearted > intent to persuade us of your blood-thirsty imperialistic marauding > predatory immorality. > > If so, fuck you with a KKK flaming cross up your ass and out your > mouth -- just to give you a taste of the hell you're surely destined > to arrive at. > > Say it ain't so, Richard, and I'll apologize as creatively as I've > besmirched you above. > > Edg > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > Brian Horsfield wrote: > > > Richard, are you seriously supporting the McCain > > > doctrine for continued war? > > > > > So, we are agreed that the U.S. is in a war. Then, > > I'm thinking of voting for the candidate who can win > > the war, not lose it. Ron Paul has zero experience > > winning any wars and apparently has no plan of how > > to win this one. I want to vote for a winner, not a > > loser, don't you? McCain has the most experience in > > fighting wars and the most experience in the U.S. > > Congress. And McCain is electable - I think he could > > be a winner. > > > > Hillary Clinton may be an electable candidate and I > > could vote for her as well. She supports the war and > > wants to win it - she supports regime change and voted > > to authorize the President to use force against Saddam > > Hussain. Bill Clinton thought Iraq had something to > > do with the war - he bombed Iraq and destroyed a soap > > factory and killed a camel. > > > > > Every candidate "says" they will end the war - like > > > the Democrats said in 2006. > > > > > Maybe so, but I'm going to vote for the experienced > > warrior. If Duncan Hunter is nominated, I'd vote for > > him. He is a Vietnam Veteran - he knows what it takes > > to win a war. Hunter also has the best plan to make > > the U.S. safe with border security, an essential part > > of winning the war. > > > > > The civilian death toll is close to one million by > > > independant estimates using change in the death rates > > > since the US invaded. > > > > > According to what I've read, Saddam Hussien caused the > > death of over two million people. > > > > > And to a country that WAS NO THREAT to the US, and > > > had nothing to do with 9-11. > > > > > Maybe so, but most of your congressional leaders voted > > to oust Saddam by any means neccessary including force. > > It's too late to change course now and change your mind > > and try to retreat. Losing the war is not an option. > > The single most important issue is how to win the war > > and how to secure America's borders. > > > > "The Iraq war resolution passed the Senate with 77 votes > > in October 2002: > > > > WASHINGTON - In a major victory for the White House, the > > Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President > > Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up > > weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. > > resolutions." > > > > Full story: > > > > 'Senate approves Iraq war resolution' > > CNN, Inside Politics, Friday, October 11, 2002 > > http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
