date:20090511

Disturbing the PeaceOn the inalienable right to "excessively noisy sex"

Brendan O'Neill  | May 11, 2009

"Unlike Winston, [Julia] had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual
puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its
own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be
destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation
induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into
war-fever and leader-worship."

So wrote George Orwell in *1984*,
his dystopian vision of a future world where mankind's every thought,
desire, and bodily tingle would be policed by the powers-that-be. Orwell
imagined a Junior Anti-Sex League that spied on kissing and cavorting
adults, and a ruling Party that sought to squash the "sex impulse." The
heroes of his nightmarish tale—Winston and Julia—had to sneak off to a wood
in order to explore each other bodies in a bit of peace and quiet.

It turns out that Orwell was suffering from premature speculation. It was
not in 1984 that a major Western government made the "sex impulse"—the
grunting, groaning sex instinct—into a police matter; it was in 2009. Here
in the U.K., to add to our already-existing panoply of Orwellian measures—5
million CCTV cameras  that watch
our every move; "speaking
cameras"that warn us
to pick up litter or stop loitering; the government's attempt
to recruit child
spiesto
re-educate anti-social adults—we now have the bizarre and terrifying
situation where a woman has been arrested for having sex too loudly.

Yes, in modern-day Britain even the decibels of our sexual moaning can
become the subject of a police investigation.

At the end of April, Caroline
Cartwright,
a 48-year-old housewife from Wearside in the north east of England, was
remanded in custody for having "excessively noisy sex." The cops took her in
after neighbors complained of hearing her "shouting and groaning" and her
"bed banging against the wall of her home." Cartwright has, quite
reasonably, defended her inalienable right to be a howler: "I can't stop
making noise during sex. It's unnatural to not make any noises and I don't
think that I am particularly loud."

Pleasurable groaning and bed-banging are common noises in crowded towns and
cities across the civilized world. Most of us deal with them by sticking a
CD in the stereo. Those who complain are normally told to stop being prudish
or to have a discreet chat with the creators of the offending sex sounds. So
how did Cartwright's expressions of noisy joy become a police case, which
later this month will be ruled on at Newcastle Crown Court, one of the
biggest courts in the north of England?

Because, unbelievably, Cartwright had previously been served with an
Anti-Social
Behaviour Order  (ASBO)—a civil
order that is used to control the minutiae of British people's
behaviour—that forbade her from making "excessive noise during sex" anywhere
in England.

That's right, going even further than Orwell's imagined authoritarian
hellhole, where at least there was a wood or two where people could indulge
their sexual impulses, the local authorities in Wearside made all of England
a no-go zone for Cartwright's noisy shenanigans. If she wanted to howl with
abandon, she would have to nip over the border to Scotland or maybe catch a
ferry to France. It was because she breached the conditions of her
Anti-Social Behaviour Order, the civil ruling about how much noise she can
make while making love in England, that Cartwright was arrested.

This case sheds harsh light not only on the Victorian-style petty
prudishness of our rulers, who seriously believe they can make sexually
expressive women timid again by dragging them to court, but on the tyranny
of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders themselves. Introduced by our authoritarian
Labour government in 1998, anyone can apply for an ASBO to stop anyone else
from doing something that they find irritating, "alarming," or
"threatening."

Local magistrates' courts issue the orders, sometimes on the basis of
hearsay evidence (which is permissible in "ASBO cases"). In short, the
applicant for an ASBO does not have to go through the normal rigors of the
criminal justice system in order to get a civil ruling preventing someone he
doesn't like from doing something that he finds "alarming" or "dangerous."
Once you have been branded with an ASBO, if you break its conditions—by
having noisy sex in your own home, for example—you are potentially guilty of
a crime and can be imprisoned.

The ASBO system has turned much of Britain into a curtain-twitching,
neighbor-watching, noise-policing gang of spies. The rela

Re: [Air_America_Radio] Early Govt.Aid going to well off Not the Needy MSNBC --------------->>

*The Welfare State We're In*

*BOOK FORUM
Monday, May 18, 2009
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)*

Featuring the author, *James Bartholomew*, columnist for the *Daily
Telegraph* and the *Daily Mail*; with comments by *Dr. Wendell Primus*,
Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Moderated by *Michael Tanner*, Senior Fellow, Health and Welfare Studies,
Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Come back to this page to watch the event live.
[image: The Welfare State We're In]
Purchase at Amazon

"A splendid book. A devastating critique of the welfare state. A
page-turner, yet also extensively sourced. I congratulate Mr. Bartholomew."
– Milton Friedman

In this controversial book, James Bartholomew argues that the welfare state
in Britain has resulted in a generation of badly educated and dependent
citizens, leading to lives of deprivation for thousands and undermining the
original intent behind its creation in the 1940s. Has the welfare state
really led to more harm than good? What does this imply for the
ever-expanding welfare state in the United States?
Cato events, unless otherwise noted, are free of charge. To register for
this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email
eve...@cato.org <%65%76%65%6e%74...@%63%61%74%6f.%6f%72%67>, fax (202)
371-0841,

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:20 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> Early Govt.Aid going to well off Not the Needy MSNBC --->>
>
> (Almost like it is still being done by the Republicans ??)
>
> Early road aid leaves out neediest, study finds - MSNBC Articles
> Address:http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=30681842
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Messages in this topic
> (
> 1)  Reply (via web post)
> |
>  Start
> a new topic
> 
>  
> Messages|
> Files|
> Photos|
> Links|
> Database|
> Polls|
> Members|
> Calendar
>  Keep Listening to Air America
>  MARKETPLACE
>  I Got Fired But now make $350/day 
> online!.
>  --
> I'm happy I lost my Job. Now I make $12,000/mo online! See how I do it:
> WealthResource.org.
>  --
> Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families,
>

Loved this one


http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Daily/Issue_of_the_Day%3A_How_PJTV_Could_Have_Saved_Taxpayers_%24357%2C000_in_the_White_House|AF-1_Kerfuffle/1844/
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Good for the Army team - interesting that they used Linux rather than M$ or Sun Microsystems


++
| NSA Wages Cyberwar Against US Armed Forces Teams   |
|   from the next-time-take-the-gloves-off dept. |
|   posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday May 11, @17:18 (Security)  |
|   http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/11/1951204   |
++

[0]Hugh Pickens writes "A team of Army cadets spent four days at West
Point last week struggling around the clock to keep a computer network
operating while [1]hackers from the National Security Agency tried to
infiltrate it with methods that an enemy might use. The NSA made the
cadets' task more difficult by planting viruses on some of the equipment,
just as real-world hackers have done on millions of computers around the
world. The competition was a final exam for computer science and
information technology majors, who competed against teams from the Navy,
Air Force, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine as well as the Naval
Postgraduate Academy and the Air Force Institute of Technology. Ideally,
the teams would be allowed to attack other schools' networks while also
defending their own but only the NSA, with its [2]arsenal of waivers,
loopholes, special authorizations is allowed to take down a US network.
NSA tailored its attacks to be just 'a little too hard for the strongest
undergraduate team to deal with, so that we could distinguish the
strongest teams from the weaker ones.' The winning West Point team used
Linux, instead of relying on proprietary products from big-name companies
like Microsoft or Sun Microsystems."

Discuss this story at:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/05/11/1951204

Links:
0. http://hughpickens.com/
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/technology/11cybergames.html
2. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/05/nsa_cyberwargames


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Interesting - this CCTV camera bit is in Britain but who says it won't happen in the US with our current admin


++
| The Road to Big Brother|
|   from the read-all-about-it dept. |
|   posted by samzenpus on Monday May 11, @15:11 (Privacy)   |
|   http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/11/1348221|
++

[0]brothke writes "In The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against
the Surveillance Society, Ross Clark journals his struggles to avoid the
myriad CCTV cameras in his native England. That's difficult given the
millions of cameras in public locations there. Before going forward, the
use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book
is erroneous. Big Brother has its roots in George Orwell's novel 1984 and
refers to an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure representing the
oppressive control over individual lives exerted by an authoritarian
government. The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from
legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail
and network usage monitoring. Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in
public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way
indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother. Should we
be concerned that such a scenario play itself out in Ross Clark's UK or
in the US? Likely no, as US government agencies are widely decentralized
and isolated. Just getting the networks within a single federal agency
unified is a daunting task; getting all of the agencies to have a single
unified data sharing mechanism is a pipe-dream. Look at it this way: the
US Department of Defense has more networks than some countries have
computers." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.

This story continues at:
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/11/1348221

Discuss this story at:
http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/05/11/1348221

Links:
0. mailto:b...@rothke.com


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

What did they expect


I see that the EU is trying to get Cuba to straighten out its human 
rights errors.  Did you read that in any US newspaper?  And yet we are 
supposed to make nice to these people who are blaming us for our so 
called human rights errors and say nothing about theirs.  That about right?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8045058.stm

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Fwd: Gurkha II, and our top General in Afghanistan will be replaced]

I will be interested to see how this plays out in the press.  It seems 
Michael Yon is saying that our troops cannot depend on the press to 
support them in any way, shape or form.  That does not speak well of the 
press IMNSHO.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

--- Begin Message ---
(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is located at 
the end of this message.)
__ 

  Greetings,
 
 Please see Gurkha II.
 
 Also, General McKiernan is to be replaced in Afghanistan. Lieutenant 
General Stanley McChyrstal will take the top spot. McChrystal has a great 
repuation for the fight, but he comes from a special operations background. Our 
special operations forces are incredible fighters, but they can be counted on 
to lose even the easiest of press battles. This war is largely being fought in 
the press. I would tend to expect the Taliban bodycount to increase, but also 
that we will not be able to find the light switch to the press. The special 
operations world basically "owned" the Afghan war for years. Everybody seemed 
to have gotten what they wanted; a war without media scrutiny. Our special 
operators won many battles. But look at Afghanistan today.
 
 Michael
 Michael Yon
 P.O. Box 5553
 Winter Haven, Fl 33880


-- 
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription: 

You are subscribed to the following list:
  
Michael Yon Online Magazine

using the following email:
 
rhomp2...@earthlink.net

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by 
visiting the following URL:
 


If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the 
entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break
this automatic unsubscribe mechanism. 

You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen: 
 


If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at: 
 


The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 
 
PO Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880--- End Message ---

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


KIT,

Can't read your mind. Your post was addressed to me, so I replyed.
I saw no such implication on the author's part.
In the early 80's we saw a wealthy, agressive Muslim fundamentalist
that was willing to fight invaders (Russian). We help to fund him and
trained him because it served our agenda at that moment. We called him
a "freedom fighter" because it served our agenda.
Now he's once again fighting people he views as invaders. they happen
to be us. So now he's a "vicious, murdering Muslim terrorist". He was
always a Muslim extremist, always willing to use killing and murder to
advance his agenda.

Sadaam Huessain was ALWAYS a murderous despot. He was when we
supported him in his war against Iran, and he was when he invaded
Kuwait, and he was when we invaded Iraq.

Like my dear old daddy always told me, "when you lie down with dogs
sooner or later you'll wake up with fleas.

On May 11, 10:10 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Hey Holly,
>
> I might have not framed my message clear of succintly.  I was not really
> referencing your comments as much as I was addressing the writer of the
> article.  (There was also a jab thrown in there at my most esteemed, logical
> and thoughtful co-moderator too!!)  But the point being, is that the author
> of the article in my opinion was trying to infer that our foreign policy was
> specifically designed to be contradictory to our national interests. I don't
> believe this to be the case.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Hollywood 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > Where did I say it was misguided? All I said was that i thought this
> > was all common knowledge.
> > I mean, if a murdering, Muslim extremist fanatic justhappens to be
> > killingfolks we don't like at the moment I'm fine with it.i didn't
> > mean that. He was a "noble, brave, deeply religious freedom fighter"
> > way back then. i think those were the words used to describe osama Bin
> > Laden back about 1982.
>
> > On May 11, 8:45 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
> > > have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion,
> > those
> > > that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was
> > somehow
> > > misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
> > > Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
> > > opinion is literally "revisionist history".
>
> > > First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
> > > Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
> > > tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known
> > examples,
> > > and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding
> > of
> > > the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The
> > Mujahideen
> > > were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman
> > Doctrine,
> > > and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.
>
> > > To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
> > > fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would
> > be
> > > similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany
> > in
> > > 1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a
> > number
> > > of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.
>
> > > It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.
> >  We
> > > surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
> > > anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
> > > Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has
> > attempted
> > > to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama
> > bin
> > > Laden's own family has disowned him!!
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE  > >wrote:
>
> > > > Was and is.
>
> > > > On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
>
> > > > > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > > > > opinions?
>
> > > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > > From: Sardar 
>
> > > > > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the
> > CIA.
> > > > And
> > > > > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when
> > all
> > > > other
>
> > > > > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family
> > are
> > > > good
> > > > > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time
> > the
> > > > > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > > > > Sardar
>
> > > > > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > > > > a.. Text size
> > > > > > b..
> > > > > > c..
>
> > > > > > Infowars
> > > > > > May 10, 2009
> > > > > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores
> >

I am glad to see an article mention how the govt plans to get the bucks for the budget


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_BUDGET?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


Problem being there is no "specific" long term policy there fore it
could notbe designed to be contradictory. It does not exist.

On May 11, 9:10 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Hey Holly,
>
> I might have not framed my message clear of succintly.  I was not really
> referencing your comments as much as I was addressing the writer of the
> article.  (There was also a jab thrown in there at my most esteemed, logical
> and thoughtful co-moderator too!!)  But the point being, is that the author
> of the article in my opinion was trying to infer that our foreign policy was
> specifically designed to be contradictory to our national interests. I don't
> believe this to be the case.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Hollywood 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > Where did I say it was misguided? All I said was that i thought this
> > was all common knowledge.
> > I mean, if a murdering, Muslim extremist fanatic justhappens to be
> > killingfolks we don't like at the moment I'm fine with it.i didn't
> > mean that. He was a "noble, brave, deeply religious freedom fighter"
> > way back then. i think those were the words used to describe osama Bin
> > Laden back about 1982.
>
> > On May 11, 8:45 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
> > > have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion,
> > those
> > > that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was
> > somehow
> > > misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
> > > Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
> > > opinion is literally "revisionist history".
>
> > > First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
> > > Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
> > > tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known
> > examples,
> > > and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding
> > of
> > > the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The
> > Mujahideen
> > > were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman
> > Doctrine,
> > > and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.
>
> > > To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
> > > fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would
> > be
> > > similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany
> > in
> > > 1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a
> > number
> > > of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.
>
> > > It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.
> >  We
> > > surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
> > > anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
> > > Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has
> > attempted
> > > to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama
> > bin
> > > Laden's own family has disowned him!!
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE  > >wrote:
>
> > > > Was and is.
>
> > > > On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
>
> > > > > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > > > > opinions?
>
> > > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > > From: Sardar 
>
> > > > > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the
> > CIA.
> > > > And
> > > > > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when
> > all
> > > > other
>
> > > > > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family
> > are
> > > > good
> > > > > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time
> > the
> > > > > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > > > > Sardar
>
> > > > > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > > > > a.. Text size
> > > > > > b..
> > > > > > c..
>
> > > > > > Infowars
> > > > > > May 10, 2009
> > > > > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores
> > Pakistan
> > > > > > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was
> > an
> > > > > > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari
> > > > believes
> > > > > > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after
> > Bin
> > > > Laden.
>
> > > > > > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate
> > media
> > > > > > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his
> > relationship
> > > > with
> > > > > > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left
> > > > Saudi
> > > > > > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's
> > invasion
> > > > in
> > > > > > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > > > > > al-

A farmer in my old home town area is trying wind power -


http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/05/11/wind-power-being-generated-in-county
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


Kieth,

There-in lies the crux of US policy failure. To quote you

"It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the
time."

To sum it up..., Short-sightedness,

The US over the last 50 years has never really considered the long
term effects of its actions and the wind blows differently with every
election as to just what is or is not the "important" issue, and just
who is the biggest threat.

There is a complete lack of cohesivness. The problem is most people
(Gringos) do not care until it is too late and the self made shit has
hit the fan. There is no present enemy of the US that was not trained,
financed and originally armed or severely pissed off by your own
government.

On May 11, 7:45 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
> have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion, those
> that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was somehow
> misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
> Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
> opinion is literally "revisionist history".
>
> First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
> Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
> tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known examples,
> and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding of
> the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The Mujahideen
> were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman Doctrine,
> and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.
>
> To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
> fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would be
> similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany in
> 1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a number
> of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.
>
> It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.  We
> surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
> anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
> Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has attempted
> to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama bin
> Laden's own family has disowned him!!
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Was and is.
>
> > On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > > bruce,
>
> > > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
>
> > > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > > opinions?
>
> > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > From: Sardar 
>
> > > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA.
> > And
> > > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all
> > other
>
> > > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are
> > good
> > > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
> > > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > > Sardar
>
> > > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > > a.. Text size
> > > > b..
> > > > c..
>
> > > > Infowars
> > > > May 10, 2009
> > > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
> > > > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
> > > > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari
> > believes
> > > > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin
> > Laden.
>
> > > > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
> > > > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship
> > with
> > > > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left
> > Saudi
> > > > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion
> > in
> > > > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > > > al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from
> > the
> > > > outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on
> > August
> > > > 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> > > > unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
> > > > state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or
> > ISI, the
>
> > > > CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
> > > > occupation."
>
> > > > a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
> > > > b..
> > > > The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light
> > during a
> > > > the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
> > for
> > > > the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden
> > wrote
> >

Isn't it a shame that the Brits can write the truth about this admin but our own MSM won't


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/10/not_funny_barack_obama_laughs_at_wanda_sykes_joke_about_wanting_rush_limbaugh_dead
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States

Hey Holly,

I might have not framed my message clear of succintly.  I was not really
referencing your comments as much as I was addressing the writer of the
article.  (There was also a jab thrown in there at my most esteemed, logical
and thoughtful co-moderator too!!)  But the point being, is that the author
of the article in my opinion was trying to infer that our foreign policy was
specifically designed to be contradictory to our national interests. I don't
believe this to be the case.

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Hollywood wrote:

>
> KIT,
>
> Where did I say it was misguided? All I said was that i thought this
> was all common knowledge.
> I mean, if a murdering, Muslim extremist fanatic justhappens to be
> killingfolks we don't like at the moment I'm fine with it.i didn't
> mean that. He was a "noble, brave, deeply religious freedom fighter"
> way back then. i think those were the words used to describe osama Bin
> Laden back about 1982.
>
>
> On May 11, 8:45 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
> > have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion,
> those
> > that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was
> somehow
> > misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
> > Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
> > opinion is literally "revisionist history".
> >
> > First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
> > Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
> > tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known
> examples,
> > and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding
> of
> > the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The
> Mujahideen
> > were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman
> Doctrine,
> > and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.
> >
> > To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
> > fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would
> be
> > similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany
> in
> > 1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a
> number
> > of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.
> >
> > It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.
>  We
> > surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
> > anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
> > Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has
> attempted
> > to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama
> bin
> > Laden's own family has disowned him!!
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE  >wrote:
>  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Was and is.
> >
> > > On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > > > bruce,
> >
> > > > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
> >
> > > > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
> >
> > > > > opinions?
> >
> > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > From: Sardar 
> >
> > > > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the
> CIA.
> > > And
> > > > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when
> all
> > > other
> >
> > > > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family
> are
> > > good
> > > > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time
> the
> > > > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > > > Sardar
> >
> > > > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > > > a.. Text size
> > > > > b..
> > > > > c..
> >
> > > > > Infowars
> > > > > May 10, 2009
> > > > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores
> Pakistan
> > > > > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was
> an
> > > > > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari
> > > believes
> > > > > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after
> Bin
> > > Laden.
> >
> > > > > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate
> media
> > > > > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his
> relationship
> > > with
> > > > > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left
> > > Saudi
> > > > > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's
> invasion
> > > in
> > > > > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > > > > al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters
> from
> > > the
> > > > > outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC
> on
> > > August
> > > > > 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> > > > > unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by
> Pakistan's
> > > > > state

Trojan Horse: Somali pirates using London contacts

2009-05-11 Thread d.b.baker


MADRID (Reuters) – Somali pirates are planning attacks on ships using
detailed information telephoned through by contacts in London,
according to an intelligence report cited by Spanish radio on Monday.

The pirates have built up a network of informants in London with
access to sensitive data from shipping companies about vessels, routes
and cargoes, according to a European military intelligence report that
Cadena Ser radio said it had seen.

The pirates receive their information by satellite phone and use
sophisticated equipment to locate their targets, Cadena Ser said.

The intelligence report also said that the pirates seem to avoid
attacks on ships of some nationalities, including British ships.

It listed several attacks in which the pirates had surprised crew with
detailed information of their prey, including the nationalities of
those on board. -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090511/ts_nm/us_spain_pirates

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Party of Rush


rigs,

Didn't say it was.

On May 11, 8:35 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
> Ownership is not a lease. One owns unless the state or usa exercises
> eminent domain. And then, the entire concept of property rights is up
> for grabs.
>
> On May 11, 8:30 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > Do you wish to actually REFUTE what I said about ownership and
> > control of oil once a given lease on land has been awarded to an
> > international oil company or do you not? I take note you were very
> > careful NOT to.
>
> > Fine, some of the ideas promoted by the Republican party are the same
> > as Hitler's Fascist Party. I beileve I'll start calling all Republican
> > Fascists.
>
> > Who said we should not continue to search for more fossil fuels?
> > Certainly not I. I was talking about the control and ownership of
> > those national assets. What? You addressing what you thought i REALLY
> > meant instead of what I actually said again?
>
> > On May 11, 8:15 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
> > > Holly,
>
> > > Therein lies the distinction between the two of us. I provided
> > > documentation and fact to support why I believe that the term, "Democrat" 
> > > is
> > > interchangeable in the New Millennium with the term, "Socialist"; yet you
> > > just go off on some tangent that is unsupported by anything that even
> > > remotely resembles truth, fact, or logic.
>
> > > Yes, our Nation should be energy independent, and we need to "Drill Here,
> > > Drill Now" as one part of a comprehensive energy plan, and to think
> > > otherwise is nonsensical, once again not supported by logic or fact.
>
> > > How on earth, could any American not want us to drill for oil within our 
> > > own
> > > territorial waters, and within our own National borders? The idea is just
> > > mind boggling that you, or any other American could hold such a view. Once
> > > again, with all due respect, the idea that we should not continue to 
> > > search
> > > for new sources of hydrocarbons, again, as a part of a comprehensive 
> > > energy
> > > plan, is just not logical, and threatens our national security.
>
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Hollywood 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > KIT,
>
> > > > You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> > > > Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> > > > fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> > > > I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> > > > of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> > > > Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> > > > Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> > > > drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> > > > oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> > > > private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> > > > wish.
> > > > Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> > > > corporations any longer.
>
> > > > On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > Holly,
>
> > > > > Holly,
>
> > > > > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > > > > interchangeable monikers.
> > > > > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" 
> > > > > that
> > > > > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > > > > (P.S.: At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > > > > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! LOL!!)
>
> > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> > > > >  > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > KIT,
>
> > > > > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > > > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > > > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > > > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > > > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > > > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > > > > The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are
> > > > Socialists.
> > > > > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.
> > > > Many
> > > > > > act
> > > > > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a
> > > > "Socialist",
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > this train of thought is beyond me. Although the Democrats used to
> > > > try
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified 
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > > > > During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his own
> > > > words,
> > > > > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > > > > "redistribution
> > > > > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.co

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now


dick,

No arguement from me on that score. That is pretty much what i said.


On May 11, 8:42 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
> Not totally true.  Corporations can do good and still make a profit, in
> fact many of them make more of a profit by doing good.  they have a
> reputation for the good that they do and that makes people support
> them.  Those are the corporations I support with my dollars first.  I
> have standards and if they do too then it behooves me to spend my bucks
> there.  If you choose not to, then that is your decision and your choice
> of what you will support.  I choose my way and hope that it does good.
>
> As an example I buy quite a bit of Kitchen Aid stuff.  One of the
> reasons is that they give a portion of sales of one line to the team
> that is developing a cure for breast cancer.  they make a profit and do
> good things at the same time.  I am sure they could keep the money but
> they choose not to and that is partly why I support them. Does it do
> good for their bottom line.  Yes if more people buy that line because of
> the support they give to cancer research.  Does good and makes money.
>
>
>
> Hollywood wrote:
> > dick,
>
> > Corporations exist for the purpose of producing profits for their
> > shareholders, nothing else. Promoting baseball, NASCAR or building
> > cars is HOW they produce that profit. Merely a means to an end, that
> > end being profits.
>
> > Of course. that's why I said ethics and/or morals are only relevant if
> > it effects the bottom line. Example: if enough people boycott a
> > particular product (beans, baseball or beer makes no difference)
> > because they are mad at a representative of that product to the point
> > the profits suffer management will damn well do something. NOT because
> > it's 'the moral/ethical thing to do, but because it's costing them
> > money.
>
> > You haven't thought of anything new or unique lad. I've been refusing
> > to shop at Wal-mart stores for freakin' years. Won't buy gasoline from
> > Shell either. Consumer activism is more a liberal/democrat "thing"
> > than a conservative thing.
>
> > Oh well, at least we agree on something. I encourage you to act in
> > such a matter as your ethical/moral beliefs dictate.
>
> > On May 11, 12:05 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >> You are the one who is trying to define what a corporation does.  My
> >> point is that it is up to the "bidness" what it does and that I as a
> >> consumer have the choice of whether to patronize this "bidness" or that
> >> "bidness."  If I choose to favor the one whose ethics agree with mine
> >> then I directly affect the bottom line.  If they don't I can choose not
> >> to favor them and that also directly affects the bottom line.  The
> >> difference is that the choices are up to them and to me - and that is
> >> what makes me a conservative Republican rather than the "nanny-state"
> >> like the one the Democrats favor.  It is the whole concept of my choice
> >> based on ethics and morals.That is one of the reasons I buy from one
> >> source rather than another.  It might cost me more but I will feel
> >> better about my purchase and also have faith that they will treat me
> >> right.  You may choose to go with someone cheaper but you also might get
> >> treated cheaper.  Again it is your choice.  Why do you think companies
> >> like Bloomingdale's and Nieman Marcus last as they do.  They charge more
> >> but the do something to justify that.  To me this transfers as well to
> >> sports as well.  I for one appreciate ethics in sportsmen and do not
> >> appreciate those who try to game the system.  That is why I am a
> >> Republican.  I believe that the Democrats in my lifetime have always
> >> tried to game the system.  I realize that some Republicans do as well
> >> but at least I am sure that fewer of them and a lower percentage of them
> >> do this than the Democrats.
>
> >> Hollywood wrote:
>
> >>> dick,
>
> >>> And you call yourself a conservative Republican!!! HAH!
> >>> Morals and ethics are only a factor in corporation if they directly
> >>> effect the bottom line.
>
> >>> On May 11, 9:06 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
>  Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but
>  it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some
>  ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.
>
>  Hollywood wrote:
>
> > dick,
>
> > Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
> > "bidness is bidness".
>
> > On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >> Kevin Cullen
>
> >>   Not even in same league
>
> >> By Kevin Cullen
> >> 
> >> Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009
>
> >>     * Email
> >>       
> >> http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
> >>     * Print
> >>       
> >>

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


KIT,

Where did I say it was misguided? All I said was that i thought this
was all common knowledge.
I mean, if a murdering, Muslim extremist fanatic justhappens to be
killingfolks we don't like at the moment I'm fine with it.i didn't
mean that. He was a "noble, brave, deeply religious freedom fighter"
way back then. i think those were the words used to describe osama Bin
Laden back about 1982.


On May 11, 8:45 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
> have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion, those
> that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was somehow
> misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
> Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
> opinion is literally "revisionist history".
>
> First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
> Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
> tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known examples,
> and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding of
> the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The Mujahideen
> were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman Doctrine,
> and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.
>
> To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
> fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would be
> similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany in
> 1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a number
> of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.
>
> It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.  We
> surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
> anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
> Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has attempted
> to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama bin
> Laden's own family has disowned him!!
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Was and is.
>
> > On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > > bruce,
>
> > > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
>
> > > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > > opinions?
>
> > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > From: Sardar 
>
> > > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA.
> > And
> > > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all
> > other
>
> > > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are
> > good
> > > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
> > > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > > Sardar
>
> > > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > > a.. Text size
> > > > b..
> > > > c..
>
> > > > Infowars
> > > > May 10, 2009
> > > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
> > > > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
> > > > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari
> > believes
> > > > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin
> > Laden.
>
> > > > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
> > > > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship
> > with
> > > > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left
> > Saudi
> > > > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion
> > in
> > > > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > > > al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from
> > the
> > > > outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on
> > August
> > > > 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> > > > unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
> > > > state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or
> > ISI, the
>
> > > > CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
> > > > occupation."
>
> > > > a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
> > > > b..
> > > > The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light
> > during a
> > > > the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
> > for
> > > > the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden
> > wrote
> > > > about the "deep and insidious connection" between Osama bin Laden and
> > the
> > > > CIA on September 13, 2001, for the Guardian.
>
> > > > "FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and
> > Dar es
>
> > > > Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from

Mother Self-Superior changes her story/memory/mind on water-boarding, again.

2009-05-11 Thread d.b.baker


Like a diseased snake up from the sewer:

[Q] - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush
administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest
directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a
person familiar with the situation said Monday.

The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key
questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn
about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?

Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she
was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation
techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.
Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration
was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it
had the legal authority to do so.

But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after
Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael
Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the
House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been
used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short
letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns
with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been
personally “approved by the president.”

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the
briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority
leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy
to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider
said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter,
the source said, and there is no reference to her in it. --
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22401.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

The future with Bambi


http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00085

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions


Holly,

When will people learn that it takes a weak mind to talk shit and an
even weaker one to listen to it ??

Again, Puritanism is alive and well and most Gringos suffer from it in
one degree or another. All Hail the Founding Fathers. Europe tossed
the trash and it landed at Plymouth.

On May 11, 6:47 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> plain,
>
> So between 1781 and 1863 the federal govt. and pretty much every state
> was violating the Constituion by allowing slavery to exist. How come
> women were not allowed to vote untill the early part of the 20th
> century? Ignoring the Constituion, if it serves the immediate agenda
> of one's politics/social ideaology (and you can get away with it) is
> as American as mom and apple pie.
>
> Oh, you'd have to have the ability to think before needing to worry
> about thought control.
>
> On May 11, 7:31 pm, plainolamerican  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> > race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special"
> > ones
> > above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> > control!
>
> > Peace,
> > Doc
>
> > ---
> > very good!
>
> > On May 5, 7:16 pm, Doc Holliday  wrote:
>
> > > Don't we already react to propaganda and or media with all sorts of
> > > wailing wall embellishments? To hell with hate crimes. A crime is a
> > > crime is a crime; PERIOD! Hey and if one would get the death sentence
> > > for his crimes for murder what would he / she get if a hate crime were
> > > tacked on; the electric chair and then the gas chamber or both twice?
> > > The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> > > race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special" ones
> > > above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> > > control!
>
> > > Peace,
> > > Doc
>
> > > On May 4, 1:54 am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > >  The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > > > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > > > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 
> > > > 1999 Print
> > > > Edition 
>
> > > > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > > > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights 
> > > > groups,
> > > > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift 
> > > > enactment of
> > > > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, 
> > > > executive
> > > > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > > > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > > > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming 
> > > > legislature
> > > > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including 
> > > > one
> > > > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as 
> > > > ranching,
> > > > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill 
> > > > was
> > > > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were 
> > > > defeated in
> > > > committee by wider margins.
>
> > > > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: 
> > > > Wyoming,
> > > > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, 
> > > > adopted
> > > > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right 
> > > > to
> > > > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > > > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not 
> > > > want
> > > > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any 
> > > > other
> > > > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > > > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > > > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the 
> > > > bill.
> > > > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We 
> > > > are
> > > > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on 
> > > > this
> > > > issue."
>
> > > > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > > > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy 
> > > > groups,
> > > > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > > > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > > > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the 
> > > > past
> > > > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > > > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > > > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa 
> > > > County,
> > > > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in 
> > > > Jasper,
> > > > Te

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States

For some reason, there seems to be this inference in the article, (and I
have seen other writers, usually from a far left extremist persuasion, those
that, "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why")  that our foreign policy was somehow
misguided at the time the United States was funding the Mujahideen in
Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s.   Such an outlook and
opinion is literally "revisionist history".

First, at the time, e.g.; the Cold War era, there was the, "Truman
Doctrine", which in essence, was to combat Soviet exansion in a "tit for
tat" manner.   Korea and Viet Nam are two of the most well known examples,
and without going into a long history lesson, to suggest that the funding of
the Mujahideen was somehow funding terrorists is incorrect.  The Mujahideen
were fighting Soviet expansion, which was in line with the Truman Doctrine,
and something we had been doing for the previous thirty-five years.

To suggest that we somehow knew that bin Laden was going to end up a
fanatical Islamic terrorist intent on destroying the United States would be
similar to comparing the United States' cordial relationship to Germany in
1938, or the Japanese in 1939-1940,  or Saddam Hussein in 1982, or a number
of Latin American tin-pot dictators throughout the Twentieth Century.

It boils down to what was in our Nation's best interests, at the time.  We
surely called some of the shots wrong, but I don't think that there was
anything that could be construed as dastardly, or dishonorable in our
Foreign Policy.  At least not in the examples that this writer has attempted
to convey in this article.  The inferences are misplaced.   Hell, Osama bin
Laden's own family has disowned him!!
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:

>
> Was and is.
>
> On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> > bruce,
> >
> > Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
> >
> > On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > opinions?
> >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Sardar 
> >
> > > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA.
> And
> > > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all
> other
> >
> > > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are
> good
> > > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
> > > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > > Sardar
> >
> > > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > > a.. Text size
> > > b..
> > > c..
> >
> > > Infowars
> > > May 10, 2009
> > > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
> > > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
> > > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari
> believes
> > > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin
> Laden.
> >
> > > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
> > > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship
> with
> > > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left
> Saudi
> > > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion
> in
> > > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > > al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from
> the
> > > outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on
> August
> > > 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> > > unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
> > > state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or
> ISI, the
> >
> > > CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
> > > occupation."
> >
> > > a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
> > > b..
> > > The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light
> during a
> > > the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
> for
> > > the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden
> wrote
> > > about the "deep and insidious connection" between Osama bin Laden and
> the
> > > CIA on September 13, 2001, for the Guardian.
> >
> > > "FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and
> Dar es
> >
> > > Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US
> Army,
> >
> > > and that these explosives had been delivered three years earlier to
> Afghan
> > > Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by
> side
> > > with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army," Alexandra
> > > Richard wrote for Le Figaro on October 11, 2001.
> >
> > > In the same article Richard reports that a CIA agent met with Osama bin
> > > Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where the
> terrorist
> > > underwent surgery. "While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received
> visits
> > > from many members of his f

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now

Not totally true.  Corporations can do good and still make a profit, in 
fact many of them make more of a profit by doing good.  they have a 
reputation for the good that they do and that makes people support 
them.  Those are the corporations I support with my dollars first.  I 
have standards and if they do too then it behooves me to spend my bucks 
there.  If you choose not to, then that is your decision and your choice 
of what you will support.  I choose my way and hope that it does good.

As an example I buy quite a bit of Kitchen Aid stuff.  One of the 
reasons is that they give a portion of sales of one line to the team 
that is developing a cure for breast cancer.  they make a profit and do 
good things at the same time.  I am sure they could keep the money but 
they choose not to and that is partly why I support them. Does it do 
good for their bottom line.  Yes if more people buy that line because of 
the support they give to cancer research.  Does good and makes money.

Hollywood wrote:
> dick,
>
> Corporations exist for the purpose of producing profits for their
> shareholders, nothing else. Promoting baseball, NASCAR or building
> cars is HOW they produce that profit. Merely a means to an end, that
> end being profits.
>
> Of course. that's why I said ethics and/or morals are only relevant if
> it effects the bottom line. Example: if enough people boycott a
> particular product (beans, baseball or beer makes no difference)
> because they are mad at a representative of that product to the point
> the profits suffer management will damn well do something. NOT because
> it's 'the moral/ethical thing to do, but because it's costing them
> money.
>
> You haven't thought of anything new or unique lad. I've been refusing
> to shop at Wal-mart stores for freakin' years. Won't buy gasoline from
> Shell either. Consumer activism is more a liberal/democrat "thing"
> than a conservative thing.
>
> Oh well, at least we agree on something. I encourage you to act in
> such a matter as your ethical/moral beliefs dictate.
>
>
>
> On May 11, 12:05 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> You are the one who is trying to define what a corporation does.  My
>> point is that it is up to the "bidness" what it does and that I as a
>> consumer have the choice of whether to patronize this "bidness" or that
>> "bidness."  If I choose to favor the one whose ethics agree with mine
>> then I directly affect the bottom line.  If they don't I can choose not
>> to favor them and that also directly affects the bottom line.  The
>> difference is that the choices are up to them and to me - and that is
>> what makes me a conservative Republican rather than the "nanny-state"
>> like the one the Democrats favor.  It is the whole concept of my choice
>> based on ethics and morals.That is one of the reasons I buy from one
>> source rather than another.  It might cost me more but I will feel
>> better about my purchase and also have faith that they will treat me
>> right.  You may choose to go with someone cheaper but you also might get
>> treated cheaper.  Again it is your choice.  Why do you think companies
>> like Bloomingdale's and Nieman Marcus last as they do.  They charge more
>> but the do something to justify that.  To me this transfers as well to
>> sports as well.  I for one appreciate ethics in sportsmen and do not
>> appreciate those who try to game the system.  That is why I am a
>> Republican.  I believe that the Democrats in my lifetime have always
>> tried to game the system.  I realize that some Republicans do as well
>> but at least I am sure that fewer of them and a lower percentage of them
>> do this than the Democrats.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hollywood wrote:
>> 
>>> dick,
>>>   
>>> And you call yourself a conservative Republican!!! HAH!
>>> Morals and ethics are only a factor in corporation if they directly
>>> effect the bottom line.
>>>   
>>> On May 11, 9:06 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>>>   
 Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but
 it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some
 ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.
 
 Hollywood wrote:
 
> dick,
>   
> Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
> "bidness is bidness".
>   
> On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> Kevin Cullen
>> 
>>   Not even in same league
>> 
>> By Kevin Cullen
>> 
>> Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009
>> 
>> * Email
>>   
>> http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
>> * Print
>>   
>> |
>> * Reprints |
>> * Y

Re: The Party of Rush


Ownership is not a lease. One owns unless the state or usa exercises
eminent domain. And then, the entire concept of property rights is up
for grabs.

On May 11, 8:30�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> KIT,
>
> �Do you wish to actually REFUTE what I said about ownership and
> control of oil once a given lease on land has been awarded to an
> international oil company or do you not? I take note you were very
> careful NOT to.
>
> Fine, some of the ideas promoted by the Republican party are the same
> as Hitler's Fascist Party. I beileve I'll start calling all Republican
> Fascists.
>
> Who said we should not continue to search for more fossil fuels?
> Certainly not I. I was talking about the control and ownership of
> those national assets. What? You addressing what you thought i REALLY
> meant instead of what I actually said again?
>
> On May 11, 8:15�pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holly,
>
> > Therein lies the distinction between the two of us. �I provided
> > documentation and fact to support why I believe that the term, "Democrat" is
> > interchangeable in the New Millennium with the term, "Socialist"; yet you
> > just go off on some tangent that is unsupported by anything that even
> > remotely �resembles truth, fact, or logic.
>
> > Yes, our Nation should be energy independent, and we need to "Drill Here,
> > Drill Now" as one part of a comprehensive energy plan, and to think
> > otherwise is nonsensical, once again not supported by logic or fact.
>
> > How on earth, could any American not want us to drill for oil within our own
> > territorial waters, and within our own National borders? �The idea is just
> > mind boggling that you, or any other American could hold such a view. � Once
> > again, with all due respect, the idea that we should not continue to search
> > for new sources of hydrocarbons, again, as a part of a comprehensive energy
> > plan, is just not logical, and threatens our national security.
>
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Hollywood 
> > wrote:
>
> > > KIT,
>
> > > You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> > > Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> > > fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> > > I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> > > of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> > > Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> > > Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> > > drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> > > oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> > > private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> > > wish.
> > > Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> > > corporations any longer.
>
> > > On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > Holly,
>
> > > > Holly,
>
> > > > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > > > interchangeable monikers.
> > > > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" 
> > > > that
> > > > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > > > (P.S.: �At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > > > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! �LOL!!)
>
> > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > KIT,
>
> > > > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > > > �The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are
> > > Socialists.
> > > > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.
> > > �Many
> > > > > act
> > > > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a
> > > "Socialist",
> > > > > and
> > > > > > this train of thought is beyond me. �Although the Democrats used to
> > > try
> > > > > and
> > > > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > > > �During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his �own
> > > words,
> > > > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > > > "redistribution
> > > > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) �just this past 
> > > > > > summer,
> > > > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for
> > > the
> > > > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > > > >http://www.y

Re: The Party of Rush


KIT,

 Do you wish to actually REFUTE what I said about ownership and
control of oil once a given lease on land has been awarded to an
international oil company or do you not? I take note you were very
careful NOT to.

Fine, some of the ideas promoted by the Republican party are the same
as Hitler's Fascist Party. I beileve I'll start calling all Republican
Fascists.

Who said we should not continue to search for more fossil fuels?
Certainly not I. I was talking about the control and ownership of
those national assets. What? You addressing what you thought i REALLY
meant instead of what I actually said again?


On May 11, 8:15 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Holly,
>
> Therein lies the distinction between the two of us.  I provided
> documentation and fact to support why I believe that the term, "Democrat" is
> interchangeable in the New Millennium with the term, "Socialist"; yet you
> just go off on some tangent that is unsupported by anything that even
> remotely  resembles truth, fact, or logic.
>
> Yes, our Nation should be energy independent, and we need to "Drill Here,
> Drill Now" as one part of a comprehensive energy plan, and to think
> otherwise is nonsensical, once again not supported by logic or fact.
>
> How on earth, could any American not want us to drill for oil within our own
> territorial waters, and within our own National borders?  The idea is just
> mind boggling that you, or any other American could hold such a view.   Once
> again, with all due respect, the idea that we should not continue to search
> for new sources of hydrocarbons, again, as a part of a comprehensive energy
> plan, is just not logical, and threatens our national security.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Hollywood wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> > Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> > fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> > I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> > of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> > Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> > Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> > drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> > oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> > private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> > wish.
> > Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> > corporations any longer.
>
> > On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > Holly,
>
> > > Holly,
>
> > > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > > interchangeable monikers.
> > > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> > > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > > (P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)
>
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  > >wrote:
>
> > > > KIT,
>
> > > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are
> > Socialists.
> > > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.
> >  Many
> > > > act
> > > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a
> > "Socialist",
> > > > and
> > > > > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to
> > try
> > > > and
> > > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own
> > words,
> > > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > > "redistribution
> > > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
> > > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for
> > the
> > > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > > > =
> > > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff
> >  Rahm
> > > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > > summer
> > > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Rep

Re: The Party of Rush


Keep laughing. One of my sons thinks she will run.//Private capital
starts everything. Socialism and Communism chokes everything.

On May 11, 8:20�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> rigs,
>
> Didn't say otherwise. Just enjoying at laugh at Gov. Palin. �:-)
>
> No desire to refute anything I said? You just wanted to point out
> something we all already knew? That it was private capital that
> started the oil industry in this country a bit over 100 years ago?
>
> On May 11, 8:11�pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
>
>
> > You wouldn't have an oil industry in America without royalty owners
> > and the oil industry. Go peddle your bike.
>
> > On May 11, 8:01 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > KIT,
>
> > > You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> > > Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> > > fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> > > I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> > > of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> > > Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> > > Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> > > drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> > > oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> > > private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> > > wish.
> > > Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> > > corporations any longer.
>
> > > On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
> > > > Holly,
>
> > > > Holly,
>
> > > > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > > > interchangeable monikers.
> > > > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" 
> > > > that
> > > > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > > > (P.S.: At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > > > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! LOL!!)
>
> > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > KIT,
>
> > > > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > > > The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are 
> > > > > > Socialists.
> > > > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists. 
> > > > > > Many
> > > > > act
> > > > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a 
> > > > > > "Socialist",
> > > > > and
> > > > > > this train of thought is beyond me. Although the Democrats used to 
> > > > > > try
> > > > > and
> > > > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > > > During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his own words,
> > > > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > > > "redistribution
> > > > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) just this past summer,
> > > > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling 
> > > > > > for the
> > > > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff 
> > > > > > Rahm
> > > > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.) and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > > > summer
> > > > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > > > > colleagues
> > > > > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the 
> > > > > > number of
> > > > > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries 
> > > > > > owned
> > > > > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the 
> > > > > > people of
> > > > > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > put
> > > > > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > > > > Democratic Caucus
> > > > > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
> > > > > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > > > > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > > > > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control 
> > > > > > how
> > > > > much
> > > > > > gets out into the market. Should the peo

Re: The Party of Rush


rigs,

Didn't say otherwise. Just enjoying at laugh at Gov. Palin.  :-)

No desire to refute anything I said? You just wanted to point out
something we all already knew? That it was private capital that
started the oil industry in this country a bit over 100 years ago?

On May 11, 8:11 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
> You wouldn't have an oil industry in America without royalty owners
> and the oil industry. Go peddle your bike.
>
> On May 11, 8:01 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> > Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> > fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> > I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> > of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> > Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> > Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> > drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> > oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> > private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> > wish.
> > Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> > corporations any longer.
>
> > On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
> > > Holly,
>
> > > Holly,
>
> > > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > > interchangeable monikers.
> > > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> > > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > > (P.S.: At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! LOL!!)
>
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > KIT,
>
> > > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > > The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are 
> > > > > Socialists.
> > > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists. Many
> > > > act
> > > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist",
> > > > and
> > > > > this train of thought is beyond me. Although the Democrats used to try
> > > > and
> > > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > > During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his own words,
> > > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > > "redistribution
> > > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) just this past summer,
> > > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for 
> > > > > the
> > > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > > > =
> > > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff 
> > > > > Rahm
> > > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.) and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > > summer
> > > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > > > colleagues
> > > > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number 
> > > > > of
> > > > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries 
> > > > > owned
> > > > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the 
> > > > > people of
> > > > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and
> > > > put
> > > > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > > > Democratic Caucus
> > > > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
> > > > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > > > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > > > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control 
> > > > > how
> > > > much
> > > > > gets out into the market. Should the people of the United States own
> > > > > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we 
> > > > > could
> > > > > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out 
> > > > > on
> > > > the
> > > > > market..."
>
> > > > > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > > > > leadership. *
>
> > > > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_

Re: The Party of Rush


Not only oil but gas and mineral rights. What do you think runs
industry in our nation? Ask Chavez.

On May 11, 8:01�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> KIT,
>
> You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> wish.
> Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> corporations any longer.
>
> On May 11, 11:56�am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holly,
>
> > Holly,
>
> > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > interchangeable monikers.
> > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > (P.S.: �At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! �LOL!!)
>
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> > wrote:
>
> > > KIT,
>
> > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > �The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are 
> > > > Socialists.
> > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists. �Many
> > > act
> > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist",
> > > and
> > > > this train of thought is beyond me. �Although the Democrats used to try
> > > and
> > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > �During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his �own words,
> > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > "redistribution
> > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) �just this past summer,
> > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > > =
> > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.) �and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > summer
> > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > > colleagues
> > > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people 
> > > > of
> > > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and
> > > put
> > > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > > Democratic Caucus
> > > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how
> > > much
> > > > gets out into the market. �Should the people of the United States own
> > > > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> > > > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on
> > > the
> > > > market..."
>
> > > > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > > > leadership. *
>
> > > > �http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats..
> > > ..
>
> > > > ==
>
> > > > Former Senator �and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during
> > > her
> > > > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
> > > > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> > > > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going
> > > to
> > > > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away
> > > from
> > > > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary

Re: The Party of Rush

Holly,

Therein lies the distinction between the two of us.  I provided
documentation and fact to support why I believe that the term, "Democrat" is
interchangeable in the New Millennium with the term, "Socialist"; yet you
just go off on some tangent that is unsupported by anything that even
remotely  resembles truth, fact, or logic.

Yes, our Nation should be energy independent, and we need to "Drill Here,
Drill Now" as one part of a comprehensive energy plan, and to think
otherwise is nonsensical, once again not supported by logic or fact.

How on earth, could any American not want us to drill for oil within our own
territorial waters, and within our own National borders?  The idea is just
mind boggling that you, or any other American could hold such a view.   Once
again, with all due respect, the idea that we should not continue to search
for new sources of hydrocarbons, again, as a part of a comprehensive energy
plan, is just not logical, and threatens our national security.







On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Hollywood wrote:

>
> KIT,
>
> You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> wish.
> Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> corporations any longer.
>
> On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > Holly,
> >
> > Holly,
> >
> > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > interchangeable monikers.
> > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
> >
> > (P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)
> >
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  >wrote:
>  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > KIT,
> >
> > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
> >
> > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
> >
> > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > Young Holly,
> >
> > > >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are
> Socialists.
> > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.
>  Many
> > > act
> > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a
> "Socialist",
> > > and
> > > > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to
> try
> > > and
> > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > socialists, they do so no more.
> >
> > > >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own
> words,
> > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
> >
> > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
> >
> > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > "redistribution
> > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
> >
> > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
> > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for
> the
> > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
> >
> > > > =
> > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff
>  Rahm
> > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > summer
> > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
> >
> > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > > colleagues
> > > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number
> of
> > > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries
> owned
> > > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the
> people of
> > > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined
> and
> > > put
> > > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > > Democratic Caucus
> > > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
> > > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
> >
> > > >
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
> >
> > > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control
> how
> > > much
> > > > gets

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now


dick,

Corporations exist for the purpose of producing profits for their
shareholders, nothing else. Promoting baseball, NASCAR or building
cars is HOW they produce that profit. Merely a means to an end, that
end being profits.

Of course. that's why I said ethics and/or morals are only relevant if
it effects the bottom line. Example: if enough people boycott a
particular product (beans, baseball or beer makes no difference)
because they are mad at a representative of that product to the point
the profits suffer management will damn well do something. NOT because
it's 'the moral/ethical thing to do, but because it's costing them
money.

You haven't thought of anything new or unique lad. I've been refusing
to shop at Wal-mart stores for freakin' years. Won't buy gasoline from
Shell either. Consumer activism is more a liberal/democrat "thing"
than a conservative thing.

Oh well, at least we agree on something. I encourage you to act in
such a matter as your ethical/moral beliefs dictate.



On May 11, 12:05 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
> You are the one who is trying to define what a corporation does.  My
> point is that it is up to the "bidness" what it does and that I as a
> consumer have the choice of whether to patronize this "bidness" or that
> "bidness."  If I choose to favor the one whose ethics agree with mine
> then I directly affect the bottom line.  If they don't I can choose not
> to favor them and that also directly affects the bottom line.  The
> difference is that the choices are up to them and to me - and that is
> what makes me a conservative Republican rather than the "nanny-state"
> like the one the Democrats favor.  It is the whole concept of my choice
> based on ethics and morals.That is one of the reasons I buy from one
> source rather than another.  It might cost me more but I will feel
> better about my purchase and also have faith that they will treat me
> right.  You may choose to go with someone cheaper but you also might get
> treated cheaper.  Again it is your choice.  Why do you think companies
> like Bloomingdale's and Nieman Marcus last as they do.  They charge more
> but the do something to justify that.  To me this transfers as well to
> sports as well.  I for one appreciate ethics in sportsmen and do not
> appreciate those who try to game the system.  That is why I am a
> Republican.  I believe that the Democrats in my lifetime have always
> tried to game the system.  I realize that some Republicans do as well
> but at least I am sure that fewer of them and a lower percentage of them
> do this than the Democrats.
>
>
>
> Hollywood wrote:
> > dick,
>
> > And you call yourself a conservative Republican!!! HAH!
> > Morals and ethics are only a factor in corporation if they directly
> > effect the bottom line.
>
> > On May 11, 9:06 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but
> >> it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some
> >> ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.
>
> >> Hollywood wrote:
>
> >>> dick,
>
> >>> Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
> >>> "bidness is bidness".
>
> >>> On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
>  Kevin Cullen
>
>    Not even in same league
>
>  By Kevin Cullen
>  
>  Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009
>
>      * Email
>        
>  http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
>      * Print
>        
>  |
>      * Reprints |
>      * Yahoo! Buzz
>        
>  |
>      * ShareThis 
>
>  Text size -- +
>
>  Two summers ago, Bobby Doerr, the Hall of Fame second baseman, was at
>  Fenway for one last visit and spied his old pal Johnny Pesky sitting at
>  a table in the EMC Club.
>
>  
>          Discuss
>  COMMENTS (8)
>  
>
>  "Is Dom here?" Doerr asked.
>
>  Pesky shook his head.
>
>  "Couldn't make it," Pesky said. "Legs are bothering him."
>
>  Dom DiMaggio was 90 years old and 60 miles away, at his house in Marion.
>
>  Doerr was crestfallen.
>
>  "Don't worry," Pesky told him. "Emily's taking good care of him."
>
>  Doerr lost his Monica after 65 years of marriage. Pesky had his Ruthie
>  for 61, the same number of years that Dom and Emily DiMaggio were
>  married. So add it up: between the three couples, there was 187 years of
>  marriage.
>
>  That lunch at Fenway would have been the final gathering of the men who
>  often set the table for Ted Wi

Re: The Party of Rush


You wouldn't have an oil industry in America without royalty owners
and the oil industry. Go peddle your bike.

On May 11, 8:01�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> KIT,
>
> You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
> Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
> fact by sane and sober adults.
>
> I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
> of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.
>
> Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
> Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
> drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
> oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
> private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
> wish.
> Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
> corporations any longer.
>
> On May 11, 11:56�am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holly,
>
> > Holly,
>
> > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> > interchangeable monikers.
> > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> > (P.S.: �At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! �LOL!!)
>
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> > wrote:
>
> > > KIT,
>
> > > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > Young Holly,
>
> > > > �The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are 
> > > > Socialists.
> > > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists. �Many
> > > act
> > > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist",
> > > and
> > > > this train of thought is beyond me. �Although the Democrats used to try
> > > and
> > > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > > > �During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his �own words,
> > > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > > "redistribution
> > > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) �just this past summer,
> > > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> > > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > > =
> > > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > > > Emanuel, (D. Il.) �and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > > summer
> > > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > > colleagues
> > > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people 
> > > > of
> > > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and
> > > put
> > > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > > Democratic Caucus
> > > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how
> > > much
> > > > gets out into the market. �Should the people of the United States own
> > > > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> > > > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on
> > > the
> > > > market..."
>
> > > > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > > > leadership. *
>
> > > > �http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats..
> > > ..
>
> > > > ==
>
> > > > Former Senator �and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during
> > > her
> > > > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
> > > > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> > > > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going
> > > to
> > > > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away
> > > from
> > > > you on behalf of the common good." - Sena

Re: The Party of Rush


So what?

On May 11, 7:53�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> Cold,
>
> You must be getting senile dear lady. :-)
> My birth date is July 2, 1949.
>
> On May 11, 11:59�am, Cold Water  wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems to me that Woody has been 59 for three years now. :-)
>
> > CW
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Keith In Tampa
> > To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:56
> > Subject: Re: The Party of Rush
>
> > Holly,
>
> > Holly,
>
> > In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are 
> > interchangeable monikers.
> > When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that 
> > you believe can be attributed from Socialsim. �
>
> > (P.S.: �At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any 
> > olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!! �LOL!!)
>
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  
> > wrote:
>
> > � KIT,
>
> > � Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > � Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > � ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > � Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > � Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > � On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > � > Young Holly,
>
> > � > �The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are 
> > Socialists.
> > � > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists. �Many 
> > act
> > � > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist", 
> > and
> > � > this train of thought is beyond me. �Although the Democrats used to try 
> > and
> > � > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > � > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > � > �During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his �own words,
> > � > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > � >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > � > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, 
> > "redistribution
> > � > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > � >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > � > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.) �just this past summer,
> > � > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> > � > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > � >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > � > =
> > � > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > � > Emanuel, (D. Il.) �and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past 
> > summer
> > � > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > � > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican 
> > colleagues
> > � > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > � > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > � > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people 
> > of
> > � > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and 
> > put
> > � > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > � > Democratic Caucus
> > � > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff �Rahm
> > � > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > � >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > � > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how 
> > much
> > � > gets out into the market. �Should the people of the United States own
> > � > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> > � > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out 
> > on the
> > � > market..."
>
> > � > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > � > leadership. *
>
> > � > 
> > �http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > � > ==
>
> > � > Former Senator �and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during 
> > her
> > � > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
> > � > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> > � > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably 
> > going to
> > � > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away 
> > from
> > � > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27, 
> > 2008
>
> > � > "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government 
> > policies."�
> > � > - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
>
> > � > "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely 
> > to
> > � > die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
> > � > have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
> > � > little bit of their own turf in order to create this commo

Re: The Party of Rush


KIT,

You can "believe" in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus for all I care.
Dosen't mean your belief should be accepted as if it were a matter of
fact by sane and sober adults.

I think I'll believe that George bush is REALLY the illegitimate som
of Adolph Hitle and Eva Braun.

Well for one thing if the oil industry was nationalized that dumbass
Gov. Palin wouldn't have sounded so stupid chanting "drill here",
drill now" as if somehow oil found and brought up by multi-national
oil companies actually belonged to the United Staes and was not the
private property of the oil companies for them to do with what they
wish.
Maybe anything vital to national security cannot be trusted to
corporations any longer.

On May 11, 11:56 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Holly,
>
> Holly,
>
> In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
> interchangeable monikers.
> When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
> you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.
>
> (P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
> olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> > Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> > ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> > Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> > Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
> > On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > Young Holly,
>
> > >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
> > > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many
> > act
> > > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist",
> > and
> > > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try
> > and
> > > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > > socialists, they do so no more.
>
> > >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
> > > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> > >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> > > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> > "redistribution
> > > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> > > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
> > > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> > > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> > > =
> > > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
> > > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> > summer
> > > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> > > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> > colleagues
> > > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> > > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and
> > put
> > > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > > Democratic Caucus
> > > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
> > > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how
> > much
> > > gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
> > > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> > > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on
> > the
> > > market..."
>
> > > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > > leadership. *
>
> > >  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats..
> > ..
>
> > > ==
>
> > > Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during
> > her
> > > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
> > > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> > > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going
> > to
> > > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away
> > from
> > > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27,
> > 2008
>
> > > "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government
> > policies."
> > > - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
>
> > > "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely
> > to
> > > die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So w

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?


So am I.

On May 11, 7:50�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> rigs,
>
> I meant the country has been broke for years and you were not bringing
> big news.
> I'm fine financially.
>
> On May 11, 7:20�pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been broke too, Hollywood, and agree with you- though oddly those
> > years were the most creative of my life and I will probably never
> > return to that me again. And I mourn her passing.
>
> > On May 11, 6:56 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > rigs,
>
> > > Been broke for years. When you are broke you can only do one of two
> > > things, actually if you're smart you'll do both, increase your income
> > > or decrease what you're spending.
>
> > > On May 11, 6:01 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > Obama is where the buck stops now. His spending policies are a
> > > > disaster but the Democrats will deliver. Since we are technically
> > > > broke look for the next move on wealth to extract some dough- tax free
> > > > bonds, estates, etc. Please remind yourself it was always Obama's
> > > > intention to re-distribute the wealth of America.
>
> > > > On May 11, 9:04 am, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > That was my entire point. You were expressing a personal opinion which
> > > > > had nothing to do with objective facts. You would LIKE to believe
> > > > > President is somehow repsonsible for the current recession and are
> > > > > simply willing to use anything to rationalize that desire.
>
> > > > > On May 11, 6:57 am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > 9-11 really began under the Clinton's.//I take things as far as is
> > > > > > warranted but it is just my opinion in the end, Hollywood.
>
> > > > > > On May 10, 9:16 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > > So? 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Shall we refer to that 
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > as the "Bush Failure to Protect America?"
> > > > > > > Vietnam started on John Kennedy's "watch" and ended on Nixons 
> > > > > > > "watch".
> > > > > > > Think we should now call it "The Kennedy-Nixon SE Asia War? How 
> > > > > > > far do
> > > > > > > you take this nonesense?
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 6:16 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > May Ayn Rand? Reagan appointed him and he lasted till 
> > > > > > > > 2006.//Because
> > > > > > > > this is Obama's watch.
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 5:17 pm, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > > > > President Obama put Mr. Greenspan in office? You mention just 
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > everyone EXCEPT President Obama. So why do you call it the 
> > > > > > > > > "obama
> > > > > > > > > recession? Why not the "Greenspan Recession" or the "Bush 
> > > > > > > > > Recession"?
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 3:06 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Accepted. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > > It started with Greenspan being unaware of what could 
> > > > > > > > > > happen.// People
> > > > > > > > > > voted for Bush43 to clean up the Oval Office.// There were 
> > > > > > > > > > incidents
> > > > > > > > > > during the Clinton years that might have been met 
> > > > > > > > > > differently if the
> > > > > > > > > > nation hadn't been caught up in his zipper.// Clinton 
> > > > > > > > > > appointees have
> > > > > > > > > > rebloomed with Obama- some with an ax to grind.// As for 
> > > > > > > > > > Obama, he was
> > > > > > > > > > "present" most of the time and voted against the war with 
> > > > > > > > > > Iraq which
> > > > > > > > > > he used against his opponents.Since Bush43's advice after 
> > > > > > > > > > 9-11 was to
> > > > > > > > > > shop, buy plastic sheeting and duct tape there wasn't much 
> > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > > contest to those who knew the real price. War and 
> > > > > > > > > > occupation drain
> > > > > > > > > > nations who have not been asked to sacrifice along with 
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > military.//Clinton inherited the turnaround economy of 
> > > > > > > > > > Bush41. Bush43
> > > > > > > > > > inherited careless Clintons. Obama has inherited an angry 
> > > > > > > > > > America so
> > > > > > > > > > his foreign moves have been ones of apology to our enemies 
> > > > > > > > > > and our
> > > > > > > > > > competitors= Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India, 
> > > > > > > > > > Brazil/South
> > > > > > > > > > America, Muslims.//Bye.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:57 pm, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Huh? The recession started long before president Obama 
> > > > > > > > > > > took office.
> > > > > > > > > > > Prior to that he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, NOT 
> > > > > > > > > > > the chairman of
> > > > > > > > > > > The Fed or head of any other agency that greaty 
> > > > > > > > > > > influences the U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > economy. What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for on my part.

Re: The Party of Rush


Cold,

You must be getting senile dear lady. :-)
My birth date is July 2, 1949.

On May 11, 11:59 am, Cold Water  wrote:
> It seems to me that Woody has been 59 for three years now. :-)
>
> CW
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Keith In Tampa
> To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:56
> Subject: Re: The Party of Rush
>
> Holly,
>
> Holly,
>
> In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are 
> interchangeable monikers.
> When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that you 
> believe can be attributed from Socialsim.  
>
> (P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any 
> olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  
> wrote:
>
>   KIT,
>
>   Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
>   Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
>   ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
>   Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
>   Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
>   On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>   > Young Holly,
>
>   >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
>   > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many act
>   > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist", and
>   > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try 
> and
>   > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
>   > socialists, they do so no more.
>
>   >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
>   > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
>   >http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
>   > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
>   > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
>   >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
>   > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
>   > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
>   > nationalization of the oil companies:
>
>   >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
>   > =
>   > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
>   > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past 
> summer
>   > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
>   > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican 
> colleagues
>   > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
>   > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
>   > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
>   > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
>   > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
>   > Democratic Caucus
>   > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
>   > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
>   >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
>   > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how 
> much
>   > gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
>   > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
>   > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on 
> the
>   > market..."
>
>   > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
>   > leadership. *
>
>   >  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
>   > ==
>
>   > Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her
>   > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
>   > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
>   > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going 
> to
>   > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away 
> from
>   > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27, 
> 2008
>
>   > "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government 
> policies."
>   > - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
>
>   > "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to
>   > die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
>   > have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
>   > little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The 
> same
>   > with energy. You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on 
> foreign
>   > oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it 
> poses
>   > to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go on,

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?


rigs,

I meant the country has been broke for years and you were not bringing
big news.
I'm fine financially.

On May 11, 7:20 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
> I've been broke too, Hollywood, and agree with you- though oddly those
> years were the most creative of my life and I will probably never
> return to that me again. And I mourn her passing.
>
> On May 11, 6:56 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
>
>
> > rigs,
>
> > Been broke for years. When you are broke you can only do one of two
> > things, actually if you're smart you'll do both, increase your income
> > or decrease what you're spending.
>
> > On May 11, 6:01 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > Obama is where the buck stops now. His spending policies are a
> > > disaster but the Democrats will deliver. Since we are technically
> > > broke look for the next move on wealth to extract some dough- tax free
> > > bonds, estates, etc. Please remind yourself it was always Obama's
> > > intention to re-distribute the wealth of America.
>
> > > On May 11, 9:04 am, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > rigs,
>
> > > > That was my entire point. You were expressing a personal opinion which
> > > > had nothing to do with objective facts. You would LIKE to believe
> > > > President is somehow repsonsible for the current recession and are
> > > > simply willing to use anything to rationalize that desire.
>
> > > > On May 11, 6:57 am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > 9-11 really began under the Clinton's.//I take things as far as is
> > > > > warranted but it is just my opinion in the end, Hollywood.
>
> > > > > On May 10, 9:16 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > So? 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Shall we refer to that now
> > > > > > as the "Bush Failure to Protect America?"
> > > > > > Vietnam started on John Kennedy's "watch" and ended on Nixons 
> > > > > > "watch".
> > > > > > Think we should now call it "The Kennedy-Nixon SE Asia War? How far 
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > you take this nonesense?
>
> > > > > > On May 10, 6:16 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > May Ayn Rand? Reagan appointed him and he lasted till 
> > > > > > > 2006.//Because
> > > > > > > this is Obama's watch.
>
> > > > > > > On May 9, 5:17 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > > > President Obama put Mr. Greenspan in office? You mention just 
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > everyone EXCEPT President Obama. So why do you call it the 
> > > > > > > > "obama
> > > > > > > > recession? Why not the "Greenspan Recession" or the "Bush 
> > > > > > > > Recession"?
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 3:06 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Accepted. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > It started with Greenspan being unaware of what could 
> > > > > > > > > happen.// People
> > > > > > > > > voted for Bush43 to clean up the Oval Office.// There were 
> > > > > > > > > incidents
> > > > > > > > > during the Clinton years that might have been met differently 
> > > > > > > > > if the
> > > > > > > > > nation hadn't been caught up in his zipper.// Clinton 
> > > > > > > > > appointees have
> > > > > > > > > rebloomed with Obama- some with an ax to grind.// As for 
> > > > > > > > > Obama, he was
> > > > > > > > > "present" most of the time and voted against the war with 
> > > > > > > > > Iraq which
> > > > > > > > > he used against his opponents.Since Bush43's advice after 
> > > > > > > > > 9-11 was to
> > > > > > > > > shop, buy plastic sheeting and duct tape there wasn't much of 
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > contest to those who knew the real price. War and occupation 
> > > > > > > > > drain
> > > > > > > > > nations who have not been asked to sacrifice along with their
> > > > > > > > > military.//Clinton inherited the turnaround economy of 
> > > > > > > > > Bush41. Bush43
> > > > > > > > > inherited careless Clintons. Obama has inherited an angry 
> > > > > > > > > America so
> > > > > > > > > his foreign moves have been ones of apology to our enemies 
> > > > > > > > > and our
> > > > > > > > > competitors= Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India, 
> > > > > > > > > Brazil/South
> > > > > > > > > America, Muslims.//Bye.
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:57 pm, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > > Huh? The recession started long before president Obama took 
> > > > > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > > > > Prior to that he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, NOT the 
> > > > > > > > > > chairman of
> > > > > > > > > > The Fed or head of any other agency that greaty influences 
> > > > > > > > > > the U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > economy. What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for on my part. You 
> > > > > > > > > > have my
> > > > > > > > > > apology. Now, explain to me how this is the "Obama 
> > > > > > > > > > recession".
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:12 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes- the Obama Recession. It will take years to get 
> > > > > > > >

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions


plain,

So between 1781 and 1863 the federal govt. and pretty much every state
was violating the Constituion by allowing slavery to exist. How come
women were not allowed to vote untill the early part of the 20th
century? Ignoring the Constituion, if it serves the immediate agenda
of one's politics/social ideaology (and you can get away with it) is
as American as mom and apple pie.

Oh, you'd have to have the ability to think before needing to worry
about thought control.

On May 11, 7:31 pm, plainolamerican  wrote:
> The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special"
> ones
> above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> control!
>
> Peace,
> Doc
>
> ---
> very good!
>
> On May 5, 7:16 pm, Doc Holliday  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't we already react to propaganda and or media with all sorts of
> > wailing wall embellishments? To hell with hate crimes. A crime is a
> > crime is a crime; PERIOD! Hey and if one would get the death sentence
> > for his crimes for murder what would he / she get if a hate crime were
> > tacked on; the electric chair and then the gas chamber or both twice?
> > The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> > race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special" ones
> > above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> > control!
>
> > Peace,
> > Doc
>
> > On May 4, 1:54 am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > >  The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 1999 
> > > Print
> > > Edition 
>
> > > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights 
> > > groups,
> > > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift enactment 
> > > of
> > > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, 
> > > executive
> > > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming 
> > > legislature
> > > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including one
> > > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as ranching,
> > > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill was
> > > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were defeated 
> > > in
> > > committee by wider margins.
>
> > > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: 
> > > Wyoming,
> > > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, adopted
> > > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right to
> > > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not want
> > > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any 
> > > other
> > > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the bill.
> > > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We are
> > > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on 
> > > this
> > > issue."
>
> > > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy 
> > > groups,
> > > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the past
> > > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa 
> > > County,
> > > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper,
> > > Texas; and Shepard's silhouetted body lashed to a Laramie, Wyoming, buck
> > > fence--to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate
> > > directed at members of unpopular groups. Although demonstrably false (even
> > > the statistics gathered by the advocates of hate crime legislation
> > > demonstrate there is thankfully no "epidemic" of such heinous acts), the
> > > formula remains popular, partly because it provides the media with a
> > > ready-made angle by elevating "ordinary" crimes to matters of urgent,
> > > national concern involving sexism, racism, and

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions


Except there are several "laws"- Constitutional, State, social,
religious, moral, ethical, familial, ethnic that collide.

On May 11, 7:31�pm, plainolamerican  wrote:
> The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special"
> ones
> above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> control!
>
> Peace,
> Doc
>
> ---
> very good!
>
> On May 5, 7:16�pm, Doc Holliday  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't we already react to propaganda and or media with all sorts of
> > wailing wall embellishments? To hell with hate crimes. A crime is a
> > crime is a crime; PERIOD! Hey and if one would get the death sentence
> > for his crimes for murder what would he / she get if a hate crime were
> > tacked on; the electric chair and then the gas chamber or both twice?
> > The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> > race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special" ones
> > above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> > control!
>
> > Peace,
> > Doc
>
> > On May 4, 1:54�am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > �The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 1999 
> > > Print
> > > Edition 
>
> > > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights 
> > > groups,
> > > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift enactment 
> > > of
> > > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, 
> > > executive
> > > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming 
> > > legislature
> > > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including one
> > > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as ranching,
> > > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill was
> > > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were defeated 
> > > in
> > > committee by wider margins.
>
> > > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: 
> > > Wyoming,
> > > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, adopted
> > > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right to
> > > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not want
> > > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any 
> > > other
> > > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the bill.
> > > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We are
> > > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on 
> > > this
> > > issue."
>
> > > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy 
> > > groups,
> > > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the past
> > > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa 
> > > County,
> > > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper,
> > > Texas; and Shepard's silhouetted body lashed to a Laramie, Wyoming, buck
> > > fence--to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate
> > > directed at members of unpopular groups. Although demonstrably false (even
> > > the statistics gathered by the advocates of hate crime legislation
> > > demonstrate there is thankfully no "epidemic" of such heinous acts), the
> > > formula remains popular, partly because it provides the media with a
> > > ready-made angle by elevating "ordinary" crimes to matters of urgent,
> > > national concern involving sexism, racism, and homophobia. Indeed, the
> > > formula provides big ratings and material benefits both to advocates and 
> > > to
> > > their academic allies. And it provides politicians with the opportunity to
> > > engage in cost-free, camera-friendly symbolic activity.
>
> > > With the Shepard case, the Wild West setting of the murder augmented the
> > > standard me

Stress Test








--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
  For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
  * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions

2009-05-11 Thread plainolamerican


The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special"
ones
above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
control!

Peace,
Doc

---
very good!

On May 5, 7:16 pm, Doc Holliday  wrote:
> Don't we already react to propaganda and or media with all sorts of
> wailing wall embellishments? To hell with hate crimes. A crime is a
> crime is a crime; PERIOD! Hey and if one would get the death sentence
> for his crimes for murder what would he / she get if a hate crime were
> tacked on; the electric chair and then the gas chamber or both twice?
> The constitution already makes no exceptions and or privileges for
> race, color, creed, religion etc. You have placed these "special" ones
> above the lowly masses which is unconstitutional. Fuck thought
> control!
>
> Peace,
> Doc
>
> On May 4, 1:54 am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
>
>
> >  The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 1999 
> > Print
> > Edition 
>
> > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights groups,
> > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift enactment of
> > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, executive
> > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming legislature
> > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including one
> > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as ranching,
> > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill was
> > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were defeated in
> > committee by wider margins.
>
> > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: Wyoming,
> > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, adopted
> > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right to
> > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not want
> > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any other
> > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the bill.
> > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We are
> > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on this
> > issue."
>
> > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy groups,
> > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the past
> > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa County,
> > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper,
> > Texas; and Shepard's silhouetted body lashed to a Laramie, Wyoming, buck
> > fence--to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate
> > directed at members of unpopular groups. Although demonstrably false (even
> > the statistics gathered by the advocates of hate crime legislation
> > demonstrate there is thankfully no "epidemic" of such heinous acts), the
> > formula remains popular, partly because it provides the media with a
> > ready-made angle by elevating "ordinary" crimes to matters of urgent,
> > national concern involving sexism, racism, and homophobia. Indeed, the
> > formula provides big ratings and material benefits both to advocates and to
> > their academic allies. And it provides politicians with the opportunity to
> > engage in cost-free, camera-friendly symbolic activity.
>
> > With the Shepard case, the Wild West setting of the murder augmented the
> > standard media narrative: *Of course*, the coverage implied, Wyoming's
> > macho, frontier culture is closed-minded, bigoted, and homophobic--what else
> > could it be? As an NBC reporter put it while standing outside a Laramie
> > drinking joint, "At Wild Willies Cowboy Bar today, patrons said hate is easy
> > to find here." Never mind that Wyoming was the first state to grant women
> > the right not o

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions


There are hate crimes that determine thoughts so it is a short jump to
limiting free speech and freedom of the press.

On May 11, 7:19�pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE  wrote:
> The only problem here is that any one of you Puritanical Idiots thinks
> its even worth discussion... this only happens in Gringolandia.
>
> On May 4, 10:14�am, Hollywood  wrote:
>
>
>
> > bruce,
>
> > Think and hate all you wish, just don't physically express those
> > thoughts and/or hatred. I can HATE a person and THINK and express the
> > OPINION he/she ought to have his/her assed kicked. BUT, I better keep
> > my hands off them or I'll find myself in jail for A&B, or worse.
>
> > On May 4, 1:54�am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
> > > �The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 1999 
> > > Print
> > > Edition 
>
> > > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights 
> > > groups,
> > > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift enactment 
> > > of
> > > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, 
> > > executive
> > > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming 
> > > legislature
> > > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including one
> > > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as ranching,
> > > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill was
> > > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were defeated 
> > > in
> > > committee by wider margins.
>
> > > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: 
> > > Wyoming,
> > > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, adopted
> > > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right to
> > > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not want
> > > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any 
> > > other
> > > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the bill.
> > > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We are
> > > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on 
> > > this
> > > issue."
>
> > > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy 
> > > groups,
> > > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the past
> > > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa 
> > > County,
> > > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper,
> > > Texas; and Shepard's silhouetted body lashed to a Laramie, Wyoming, buck
> > > fence--to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate
> > > directed at members of unpopular groups. Although demonstrably false (even
> > > the statistics gathered by the advocates of hate crime legislation
> > > demonstrate there is thankfully no "epidemic" of such heinous acts), the
> > > formula remains popular, partly because it provides the media with a
> > > ready-made angle by elevating "ordinary" crimes to matters of urgent,
> > > national concern involving sexism, racism, and homophobia. Indeed, the
> > > formula provides big ratings and material benefits both to advocates and 
> > > to
> > > their academic allies. And it provides politicians with the opportunity to
> > > engage in cost-free, camera-friendly symbolic activity.
>
> > > With the Shepard case, the Wild West setting of the murder augmented the
> > > standard media narrative: *Of course*, the coverage implied, Wyoming's
> > > macho, frontier culture is closed-minded, bigoted, and homophobic--what 
> > > else
> > > could it be? As an NBC reporter put it while standing outside a Laramie
> > > drinking joint, "At Wild Willies Cowboy Bar today, patrons said hate is 
> > > easy
> > > to find here." Never mind that Wyoming was the first state to grant women
> > > the right not only to vote but

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


Was and is.

On May 11, 5:59 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> bruce,
>
> Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.
>
> On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
>
>
>
> > opinions?
>
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Sardar 
>
> > This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA. And
> > right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all other
>
> > flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are good
> > friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
> > government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> > Sardar
>
> > Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> > a.. Text size
> > b..
> > c..
>
> > Infowars
> > May 10, 2009
> > In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
> > president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
> > "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes
> > Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.
>
> > Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
> > published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship with
> > the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi
> > Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in
> > 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> > al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the
> > outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on August
> > 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> > unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
> > state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the
>
> > CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
> > occupation."
>
> > a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
> > b..
> > The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light during a
> > the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed for
> > the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden wrote
> > about the "deep and insidious connection" between Osama bin Laden and the
> > CIA on September 13, 2001, for the Guardian.
>
> > "FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es
>
> > Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army,
>
> > and that these explosives had been delivered three years earlier to Afghan
> > Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side
> > with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army," Alexandra
> > Richard wrote for Le Figaro on October 11, 2001.
>
> > In the same article Richard reports that a CIA agent met with Osama bin
> > Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where the terrorist
> > underwent surgery. "While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits
> > from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis.
> > During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was
> > seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital
> > room."
>
> > Not only did the CIA and its ISI partner create MAK and ultimately what the
> > corporate media would call al-Qaeda, they also created the Taliban, although
>
> > you won't read that in the New York Times. The ISI organized and the United
> > States, Britain, and the Saudis funded the madrassas (religious schools)
> > that nurtured the fanatical Wahhabi Taliban. "They were literally the
> > orphans of war [a war orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski against the
> > Soviets], the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically
> > deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the
> > only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a
> > messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village
> > mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives
> > some meaning," writes Phil Gasper.
>
> > NBC's David Gregory might want to ask the CIA or maybe Robert Gates about
> > the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (the current secretary of defense
> > basically ran the Osama operation through Pakistan's ISI back in the day
> > when he was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
> > and then CIA director under Bush Senior).
>
> > Gregory and NBC are merely setting the stage for Obama's increased meddling
> > in Pakistan. Part of that effort is to make Asif Ali Zadari look like he is
> > hiding Osama bin Laden and protecting the perennial bogeyman, al-Qaeda.
>
> > Zadari, however, knows the truth and is not afraid to speak it on American
> > television: Osama bin Laden was an "operative" for the United States.
>
> > a..
> > b.. Social bookmarks
> > c..
> > d.. Email this article
> > e..
> > f.

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?


I've been broke too, Hollywood, and agree with you- though oddly those
years were the most creative of my life and I will probably never
return to that me again. And I mourn her passing.

On May 11, 6:56�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> rigs,
>
> Been broke for years. When you are broke you can only do one of two
> things, actually if you're smart you'll do both, increase your income
> or decrease what you're spending.
>
> On May 11, 6:01�pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Obama is where the buck stops now. His spending policies are a
> > disaster but the Democrats will deliver. Since we are technically
> > broke look for the next move on wealth to extract some dough- tax free
> > bonds, estates, etc. Please remind yourself it was always Obama's
> > intention to re-distribute the wealth of America.
>
> > On May 11, 9:04 am, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > rigs,
>
> > > That was my entire point. You were expressing a personal opinion which
> > > had nothing to do with objective facts. You would LIKE to believe
> > > President is somehow repsonsible for the current recession and are
> > > simply willing to use anything to rationalize that desire.
>
> > > On May 11, 6:57 am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > 9-11 really began under the Clinton's.//I take things as far as is
> > > > warranted but it is just my opinion in the end, Hollywood.
>
> > > > On May 10, 9:16 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > So? 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Shall we refer to that now
> > > > > as the "Bush Failure to Protect America?"
> > > > > Vietnam started on John Kennedy's "watch" and ended on Nixons "watch".
> > > > > Think we should now call it "The Kennedy-Nixon SE Asia War? How far do
> > > > > you take this nonesense?
>
> > > > > On May 10, 6:16 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > May Ayn Rand? Reagan appointed him and he lasted till 2006.//Because
> > > > > > this is Obama's watch.
>
> > > > > > On May 9, 5:17 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > > President Obama put Mr. Greenspan in office? You mention just 
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > everyone EXCEPT President Obama. So why do you call it the "obama
> > > > > > > recession? Why not the "Greenspan Recession" or the "Bush 
> > > > > > > Recession"?
>
> > > > > > > On May 9, 3:06 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Accepted. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > It started with Greenspan being unaware of what could happen.// 
> > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > voted for Bush43 to clean up the Oval Office.// There were 
> > > > > > > > incidents
> > > > > > > > during the Clinton years that might have been met differently 
> > > > > > > > if the
> > > > > > > > nation hadn't been caught up in his zipper.// Clinton 
> > > > > > > > appointees have
> > > > > > > > rebloomed with Obama- some with an ax to grind.// As for Obama, 
> > > > > > > > he was
> > > > > > > > "present" most of the time and voted against the war with Iraq 
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > he used against his opponents.Since Bush43's advice after 9-11 
> > > > > > > > was to
> > > > > > > > shop, buy plastic sheeting and duct tape there wasn't much of a
> > > > > > > > contest to those who knew the real price. War and occupation 
> > > > > > > > drain
> > > > > > > > nations who have not been asked to sacrifice along with their
> > > > > > > > military.//Clinton inherited the turnaround economy of Bush41. 
> > > > > > > > Bush43
> > > > > > > > inherited careless Clintons. Obama has inherited an angry 
> > > > > > > > America so
> > > > > > > > his foreign moves have been ones of apology to our enemies and 
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > competitors= Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India, Brazil/South
> > > > > > > > America, Muslims.//Bye.
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:57 pm, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > Huh? The recession started long before president Obama took 
> > > > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > > > Prior to that he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, NOT the 
> > > > > > > > > chairman of
> > > > > > > > > The Fed or head of any other agency that greaty influences 
> > > > > > > > > the U.S.
> > > > > > > > > economy. What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for on my part. You have 
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > apology. Now, explain to me how this is the "Obama recession".
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:12 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes- the Obama Recession. It will take years to get 
> > > > > > > > > > employment back up
> > > > > > > > > > and solve all the economic problems. No, I am not surprised 
> > > > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > don't think it in good taste during tough times for 
> > > > > > > > > > struggling
> > > > > > > > > > Americans or during a war but we seem to have a struggle 
> > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > dazzle and dismal in this country. It even happened in 
> > > > > > > > > >

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions


The only problem here is that any one of you Puritanical Idiots thinks
its even worth discussion... this only happens in Gringolandia.

On May 4, 10:14 am, Hollywood  wrote:
> bruce,
>
> Think and hate all you wish, just don't physically express those
> thoughts and/or hatred. I can HATE a person and THINK and express the
> OPINION he/she ought to have his/her assed kicked. BUT, I better keep
> my hands off them or I'll find myself in jail for A&B, or worse.
>
> On May 4, 1:54 am, bruce majors  wrote:
>
>
>
> >  The "Hate State" MythIn Wyoming, there are a few bigots who don't like
> > gays. In the media, there are a lot more bigots who don't like Wyoming.
>
> > Robert O. Blanchard  | May 1999 
> > Print
> > Edition 
>
> > In the wake of the brutal October 1998 murder-robbery of University of
> > Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, the news media, liberal gay rights groups,
> > politicians, and others engaged in a national outcry for swift enactment of
> > hate crime legislation. A hate crime law would, as Joan M. Garry, executive
> > director of the Washington, D.C.-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > Defamation, put it, "protect Wyoming gays from the kind of horrors which
> > Matthew Shepard and his family have had to endure." The Wyoming legislature
> > responded in February by voting on several hate crime bills--including one
> > that even included protection of particular occupations, such as ranching,
> > mining, and logging, from "ecoterrorists." A House version of the bill was
> > defeated in committee with a 30-30 tie. Two Senate versions were defeated in
> > committee by wider margins.
>
> > National proponents of hate crime laws were quick to pass judgment: Wyoming,
> > rather than being "The Equality State"--Wyoming's official motto, adopted
> > after it became the first state in the nation to grant women the right to
> > vote--was really the "Hate State." Even as Shepard's grieving parents
> > reaffirmed on NBC's *Dateline* and in *Vanity Fair* that they did not want
> > their son's death used in a campaign for hate crime legislation or any other
> > political cause, groups such as the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force
> > (NLGTF) inferred that the legislature had not merely declined to fight
> > intolerance but itself embodied intolerance for failing to pass the bill.
> > "If not now, when?" demanded NLGTF Executive Director Kerry Lobel. "We are
> > extremely disappointed that Wyoming refused to take real leadership on this
> > issue."
>
> > Such reactions fit into the "hate crime news formula" that has become
> > increasingly popular since the early 1980s with the media, advocacy groups,
> > academics, and liberal politicians--all of whom have vested interests in
> > fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis. A product of the identity
> > politics mind-set that has come to dominate American society over the past
> > two decades, the hate crime news formula uses widely recognizable and
> > understood images--burning crosses and churches, neo-Nazi goosesteppers,
> > and, most recently, the burned corpse of Billy Jack Gaither in Coosa County,
> > Alabama; James Byrd, chained and dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper,
> > Texas; and Shepard's silhouetted body lashed to a Laramie, Wyoming, buck
> > fence--to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate
> > directed at members of unpopular groups. Although demonstrably false (even
> > the statistics gathered by the advocates of hate crime legislation
> > demonstrate there is thankfully no "epidemic" of such heinous acts), the
> > formula remains popular, partly because it provides the media with a
> > ready-made angle by elevating "ordinary" crimes to matters of urgent,
> > national concern involving sexism, racism, and homophobia. Indeed, the
> > formula provides big ratings and material benefits both to advocates and to
> > their academic allies. And it provides politicians with the opportunity to
> > engage in cost-free, camera-friendly symbolic activity.
>
> > With the Shepard case, the Wild West setting of the murder augmented the
> > standard media narrative: *Of course*, the coverage implied, Wyoming's
> > macho, frontier culture is closed-minded, bigoted, and homophobic--what else
> > could it be? As an NBC reporter put it while standing outside a Laramie
> > drinking joint, "At Wild Willies Cowboy Bar today, patrons said hate is easy
> > to find here." Never mind that Wyoming was the first state to grant women
> > the right not only to vote but to own property and to hold office; that it
> > elected the nation's first female governor in 1924; that it ratified the
> > Equal Rights Amendment in 1973; that it was at the forefront of a trend in
> > the 1970s to repeal sodomy laws; and that in the 1990s, more than 70 percent
> > of its voters rejected anti-abortion initiatives. For the media, Wyoming was
> > a natural setting for

Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions

2009-05-11 Thread linda Paschall

do not send this to me again.

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, dick thompson  wrote:

From: dick thompson 
Subject: Re: criminalizing unfashionable thoughts and opinions
To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 5:45 PM

Problem was that the first one expressing the opposing opinion was using his 
power to damage her future.  And all the damaging that has been done since is 
in support of that one who did the damaging.  

Hollywood wrote: 
jgg,

Let me get this straight. The lady in question has a perfect right to
express her opinions, of course.
But people who do not agree with her personal opinion are Brown-Shirts
for expressing the opinion she's full of shit?
Aren't BOTH protected under the First Ammendment?

So far as "destroying" the lady. The only thing I've seen reported
that might damage her "profession" as a beauty contest contestant
would be the breast augumentation surgery, and even then ONLY if it
violates some pagent rule. Anyone offer to answer that question as of
yet?
So far as the nude photo issue goes, that's entirely subjective. MIGHT
hurt her in some contest judges minds, MIGHT not. Guess she should
have thought of that.

Anyway, either one of these "issues" untrue?
Much ado and bullshit over nothing by BOTH sides.

On May 8, 12:06 pm, jgg1000a  wrote:

If only they went after her for rule infractions...   They went after
her for expressing a non pro gay marriage answer AS YOU WELL KNOW...
The same position as Obama...    The purpose was to penalize her for
"FREE SPEECH" that was contrary to their POV...    And that Hollywood
is why your friends you are seeking to cover-up for ARE Brown-
shirts...

On May 8, 11:04 am, Hollywood  wrote:

jgg,

Jesus Christ man, you want to get your panties all in a wad over a few
people criticizing the actions (destroying) some woman that won a
beauty contest be my guest.
I did not DEFEND jackshit. I asked it the allegations were true and if
doing such things violated the rules of the contest.

On May 8, 9:13 am, jgg1000a  wrote:

Well Hollywood, THEY ARE...  And it is clear to all without an
ideological POV to defend blindly...

On May 8, 10:10 am, Hollywood  wrote:

jgg,

There you go with the hysterics, "they are trying to DESTROY her!"
Your starting to bore me.

On May 8, 9:01 am, jgg1000a  wrote:

Here Hollywood is the comment which I agree with...  It is Ideological
bigotry which you seek to excuse away here...   I note you ignore the
plain fact I did not ALL folks on the Left are seeking to personally
destroy Miss California, but it is clear SOME are   That you
refuse to condemn those folks is telling...

http://deceiver.com/2009/05/08/hey-lets-destroy-carrie-prejean-for-ag...

As you watch the Carrie Prejean brouhaha unfold, you might be saying to 
yourself, “Hold on a second, Self. Doesn’t this young lady have the same 
opinion about gay marriage as President Obama? Why is a beauty pageant 
contestant getting raked over the coals for this, being called every name in 
the book and having her private life strewn all over the media landscape, but 
they’re giving the leader of the free world a pass? Doesn’t he have a little 
more power and influence over the issue than she does?”

If that is indeed that you’re thinking, you’re not alone. ABC’s Jake
Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it the
other day:

    TAPPER: Does the president or the White House have a reaction to
the governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?

    GIBBS: No, I think the president’s position on same-sex marriage
is — has been talked about and discussed.

    TAPPER: He opposes same-sex marriage?

    GIBBS: He supports civil unions.

    TAPPER: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything
against what the citizens of Maine did — did today?

    GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. I think the president believes this
is an issue that’s best addressed by the states.

If this is substantively different than what Prejean said, somebody
please explain it to me. “We live in a land where you can choose same-
sex marriage or opposite[-sex] marriage,” she noted, before revealing
that she disagreed with the same-sex variety. For which she is an
evil, gay-hating demon. Whereas Obama thinks the states should be able
to choose as they see fit, but personally he believes that marriage
should be between a man and a woman. For which he is a friend to gays
everywhere, and indeed to all of humanity.

Why isn’t Obama getting called out? U.S. News & World Report’s Robert
Schlesinger thinks he knows:

    The answer lies in tone and nuance.

    It is true that Obama’s position is that marriage is “between a
man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay m

Re: Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States


bruce,

Thought this was pretty much common knowledge.

On May 11, 6:31 pm, bruce majors  wrote:
> opinions?
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Sardar 
>
> This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA. And
> right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all other
>
> flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are good
> friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
> government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
> Sardar
>
> Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
> a.. Text size
> b..
> c..
>
> Infowars
> May 10, 2009
> In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
> president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
> "operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes
> Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.
>
> Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
> published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship with
> the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi
> Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in
> 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
> al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the
> outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on August
> 24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
> unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
> state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the
>
> CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
> occupation."
>
> a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
> b..
> The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light during a
> the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed for
> the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden wrote
> about the "deep and insidious connection" between Osama bin Laden and the
> CIA on September 13, 2001, for the Guardian.
>
> "FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es
>
> Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army,
>
> and that these explosives had been delivered three years earlier to Afghan
> Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side
> with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army," Alexandra
> Richard wrote for Le Figaro on October 11, 2001.
>
> In the same article Richard reports that a CIA agent met with Osama bin
> Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where the terrorist
> underwent surgery. "While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits
> from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis.
> During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was
> seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital
> room."
>
> Not only did the CIA and its ISI partner create MAK and ultimately what the
> corporate media would call al-Qaeda, they also created the Taliban, although
>
> you won't read that in the New York Times. The ISI organized and the United
> States, Britain, and the Saudis funded the madrassas (religious schools)
> that nurtured the fanatical Wahhabi Taliban. "They were literally the
> orphans of war [a war orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski against the
> Soviets], the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically
> deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the
> only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a
> messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village
> mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives
> some meaning," writes Phil Gasper.
>
> NBC's David Gregory might want to ask the CIA or maybe Robert Gates about
> the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (the current secretary of defense
> basically ran the Osama operation through Pakistan's ISI back in the day
> when he was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
> and then CIA director under Bush Senior).
>
> Gregory and NBC are merely setting the stage for Obama's increased meddling
> in Pakistan. Part of that effort is to make Asif Ali Zadari look like he is
> hiding Osama bin Laden and protecting the perennial bogeyman, al-Qaeda.
>
> Zadari, however, knows the truth and is not afraid to speak it on American
> television: Osama bin Laden was an "operative" for the United States.
>
> a..
> b.. Social bookmarks
> c..
> d.. Email this article
> e..
> f.. Print this page
> g..
> h.. Share on Twitter
>
> Comment Rules
>
> 38 Responses to "Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for 
> thehttp://www.infowars.com/zadari-osama-was-an-operator-for-the-united-s...
>
> [Non-text port

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?


rigs,

Been broke for years. When you are broke you can only do one of two
things, actually if you're smart you'll do both, increase your income
or decrease what you're spending.


On May 11, 6:01 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
> Obama is where the buck stops now. His spending policies are a
> disaster but the Democrats will deliver. Since we are technically
> broke look for the next move on wealth to extract some dough- tax free
> bonds, estates, etc. Please remind yourself it was always Obama's
> intention to re-distribute the wealth of America.
>
> On May 11, 9:04 am, Hollywood  wrote:
>
>
>
> > rigs,
>
> > That was my entire point. You were expressing a personal opinion which
> > had nothing to do with objective facts. You would LIKE to believe
> > President is somehow repsonsible for the current recession and are
> > simply willing to use anything to rationalize that desire.
>
> > On May 11, 6:57 am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > 9-11 really began under the Clinton's.//I take things as far as is
> > > warranted but it is just my opinion in the end, Hollywood.
>
> > > On May 10, 9:16 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > So? 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Shall we refer to that now
> > > > as the "Bush Failure to Protect America?"
> > > > Vietnam started on John Kennedy's "watch" and ended on Nixons "watch".
> > > > Think we should now call it "The Kennedy-Nixon SE Asia War? How far do
> > > > you take this nonesense?
>
> > > > On May 10, 6:16 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > May Ayn Rand? Reagan appointed him and he lasted till 2006.//Because
> > > > > this is Obama's watch.
>
> > > > > On May 9, 5:17 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > President Obama put Mr. Greenspan in office? You mention just about
> > > > > > everyone EXCEPT President Obama. So why do you call it the "obama
> > > > > > recession? Why not the "Greenspan Recession" or the "Bush 
> > > > > > Recession"?
>
> > > > > > On May 9, 3:06 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Accepted. :-)
>
> > > > > > > It started with Greenspan being unaware of what could happen.// 
> > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > voted for Bush43 to clean up the Oval Office.// There were 
> > > > > > > incidents
> > > > > > > during the Clinton years that might have been met differently if 
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > nation hadn't been caught up in his zipper.// Clinton appointees 
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > rebloomed with Obama- some with an ax to grind.// As for Obama, 
> > > > > > > he was
> > > > > > > "present" most of the time and voted against the war with Iraq 
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > he used against his opponents.Since Bush43's advice after 9-11 
> > > > > > > was to
> > > > > > > shop, buy plastic sheeting and duct tape there wasn't much of a
> > > > > > > contest to those who knew the real price. War and occupation drain
> > > > > > > nations who have not been asked to sacrifice along with their
> > > > > > > military.//Clinton inherited the turnaround economy of Bush41. 
> > > > > > > Bush43
> > > > > > > inherited careless Clintons. Obama has inherited an angry America 
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > his foreign moves have been ones of apology to our enemies and our
> > > > > > > competitors= Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India, Brazil/South
> > > > > > > America, Muslims.//Bye.
>
> > > > > > > On May 9, 1:57 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > Huh? The recession started long before president Obama took 
> > > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > > Prior to that he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, NOT the 
> > > > > > > > chairman of
> > > > > > > > The Fed or head of any other agency that greaty influences the 
> > > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > economy. What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for on my part. You have my
> > > > > > > > apology. Now, explain to me how this is the "Obama recession".
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:12 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes- the Obama Recession. It will take years to get 
> > > > > > > > > employment back up
> > > > > > > > > and solve all the economic problems. No, I am not surprised 
> > > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > don't think it in good taste during tough times for struggling
> > > > > > > > > Americans or during a war but we seem to have a struggle 
> > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > dazzle and dismal in this country. It even happened in 
> > > > > > > > > Hollywood
> > > > > > > > > during the Great Depression. What is your last remark 
> > > > > > > > > supposed to
> > > > > > > > > mean? That's just a cheap shot when you don't agree with me. I
> > > > > > > > > expected more of you and am disappointed.
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 8:53 am, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > > WHAT Obama recession? No such thing.
> > > > > > > > > > WOW, it surprises and shocks you that wealthy people spend 
> >

Fwd: [govtwatch4] Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States

opinions?

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sardar 




This makes sense since the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA. And
right after 9-11 the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country when all other

flights were grounded. Another thing is that the Bin Laden family are good
friends of the Bushes. Just some thing to think about the next time the
government trots out the fear card and Osama or the Taliban.
Sardar

Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the United States
a.. Text size
b..
c..

Infowars
May 10, 2009
In the interview here, NBC's David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan
president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an
"operator" for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes
Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.

Before "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, the corporate media
published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship with
the CIA. "As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi
Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in
1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab
al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the
outside world into the Afghan war," Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on August
24, 1998. "What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its
unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the

CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's
occupation."

a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t
b..
The CIA's intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden came to light during a
the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed for
the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Giles Foden wrote
about the "deep and insidious connection" between Osama bin Laden and the
CIA on September 13, 2001, for the Guardian.

"FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es

Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army,

and that these explosives had been delivered three years earlier to Afghan
Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side
with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army," Alexandra
Richard wrote for Le Figaro on October 11, 2001.

In the same article Richard reports that a CIA agent met with Osama bin
Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where the terrorist
underwent surgery. "While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits
from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis.
During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was
seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital
room."

Not only did the CIA and its ISI partner create MAK and ultimately what the
corporate media would call al-Qaeda, they also created the Taliban, although

you won't read that in the New York Times. The ISI organized and the United
States, Britain, and the Saudis funded the madrassas (religious schools)
that nurtured the fanatical Wahhabi Taliban. "They were literally the
orphans of war [a war orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski against the
Soviets], the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically
deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the
only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a
messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village
mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives
some meaning," writes Phil Gasper.

NBC's David Gregory might want to ask the CIA or maybe Robert Gates about
the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (the current secretary of defense
basically ran the Osama operation through Pakistan's ISI back in the day
when he was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
and then CIA director under Bush Senior).

Gregory and NBC are merely setting the stage for Obama's increased meddling
in Pakistan. Part of that effort is to make Asif Ali Zadari look like he is
hiding Osama bin Laden and protecting the perennial bogeyman, al-Qaeda.

Zadari, however, knows the truth and is not afraid to speak it on American
television: Osama bin Laden was an "operative" for the United States.

a..
b.. Social bookmarks
c..
d.. Email this article
e..
f.. Print this page
g..
h.. Share on Twitter

Comment Rules

38 Responses to "Zadari: Osama was an "Operator" for the
http://www.infowars.com/zadari-osama-was-an-operator-for-the-united-states/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 __._,_.___
  Messages in this topic

Re: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2

As little as 1 teaspoon.

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Hollywood wrote:

>
> Travis,
>
> Well duh.
> Guess what? Same holds true for water. What happens if you get too
> much of it, too fast in certain locations? They call it drowning.
>
> On May 11, 2:45 pm, Travis  wrote:
> > From: Travis
> > Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> > Subject: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2
> >
> >  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10987
> >
> > --
> > *~@):~{>
> >
>


-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?


Obama is where the buck stops now. His spending policies are a
disaster but the Democrats will deliver. Since we are technically
broke look for the next move on wealth to extract some dough- tax free
bonds, estates, etc. Please remind yourself it was always Obama's
intention to re-distribute the wealth of America.

On May 11, 9:04�am, Hollywood  wrote:
> rigs,
>
> That was my entire point. You were expressing a personal opinion which
> had nothing to do with objective facts. You would LIKE to believe
> President is somehow repsonsible for the current recession and are
> simply willing to use anything to rationalize that desire.
>
> On May 11, 6:57�am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
>
>
> > 9-11 really began under the Clinton's.//I take things as far as is
> > warranted but it is just my opinion in the end, Hollywood.
>
> > On May 10, 9:16 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > Rigs,
>
> > > So? 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Shall we refer to that now
> > > as the "Bush Failure to Protect America?"
> > > Vietnam started on John Kennedy's "watch" and ended on Nixons "watch".
> > > Think we should now call it "The Kennedy-Nixon SE Asia War? How far do
> > > you take this nonesense?
>
> > > On May 10, 6:16 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > May Ayn Rand? Reagan appointed him and he lasted till 2006.//Because
> > > > this is Obama's watch.
>
> > > > On May 9, 5:17 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > Rigs,
>
> > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > President Obama put Mr. Greenspan in office? You mention just about
> > > > > everyone EXCEPT President Obama. So why do you call it the "obama
> > > > > recession? Why not the "Greenspan Recession" or the "Bush Recession"?
>
> > > > > On May 9, 3:06 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > Accepted. :-)
>
> > > > > > It started with Greenspan being unaware of what could happen.// 
> > > > > > People
> > > > > > voted for Bush43 to clean up the Oval Office.// There were incidents
> > > > > > during the Clinton years that might have been met differently if the
> > > > > > nation hadn't been caught up in his zipper.// Clinton appointees 
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > rebloomed with Obama- some with an ax to grind.// As for Obama, he 
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > "present" most of the time and voted against the war with Iraq which
> > > > > > he used against his opponents.Since Bush43's advice after 9-11 was 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > shop, buy plastic sheeting and duct tape there wasn't much of a
> > > > > > contest to those who knew the real price. War and occupation drain
> > > > > > nations who have not been asked to sacrifice along with their
> > > > > > military.//Clinton inherited the turnaround economy of Bush41. 
> > > > > > Bush43
> > > > > > inherited careless Clintons. Obama has inherited an angry America so
> > > > > > his foreign moves have been ones of apology to our enemies and our
> > > > > > competitors= Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, India, Brazil/South
> > > > > > America, Muslims.//Bye.
>
> > > > > > On May 9, 1:57 pm, Hollywood  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > Huh? The recession started long before president Obama took 
> > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > Prior to that he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, NOT the 
> > > > > > > chairman of
> > > > > > > The Fed or head of any other agency that greaty influences the 
> > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > economy. What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > > Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for on my part. You have my
> > > > > > > apology. Now, explain to me how this is the "Obama recession".
>
> > > > > > > On May 9, 1:12 pm, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Yes- the Obama Recession. It will take years to get employment 
> > > > > > > > back up
> > > > > > > > and solve all the economic problems. No, I am not surprised but 
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > don't think it in good taste during tough times for struggling
> > > > > > > > Americans or during a war but we seem to have a struggle between
> > > > > > > > dazzle and dismal in this country. It even happened in Hollywood
> > > > > > > > during the Great Depression. What is your last remark supposed 
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > mean? That's just a cheap shot when you don't agree with me. I
> > > > > > > > expected more of you and am disappointed.
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 8:53 am, Hollywood  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > rigs,
>
> > > > > > > > > WHAT Obama recession? No such thing.
> > > > > > > > > WOW, it surprises and shocks you that wealthy people spend 
> > > > > > > > > more on
> > > > > > > > > food and clothes than poor people do? Don't get out much do 
> > > > > > > > > you?
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 5:52 am, rigsy03  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > It could also be a countermove in his taste for $100. per 
> > > > > > > > > > pound Kobe
> > > > > > > > > > Beef and Michelle's $500.(+) sneakers during the Obama 
> > > > > > > > > > Recession.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 9:02 pm, VT VirtualTruth 
> > > > > > > > > >  wrote:
>
> >

Re: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2


Actually an enema can perforate your intestines. :-)

On May 11, 5:37�pm, Hollywood  wrote:
> Travis,
>
> Well duh.
> Guess what? Same holds true for water. What happens if you get too
> much of it, too fast in certain locations? They call it drowning.
>
> On May 11, 2:45�pm, Travis  wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Travis
> > Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> > Subject: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2
>
> > �http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10987
>
> > --
> > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2


Travis,

Well duh.
Guess what? Same holds true for water. What happens if you get too
much of it, too fast in certain locations? They call it drowning.

On May 11, 2:45 pm, Travis  wrote:
> From: Travis
> Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> Subject: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2
>
>  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10987
>
> --
> *~@):~{>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Fwd: [ATC] Tea Party - May 16

Note: Watch out for spaces inserted during transmission.

May 16 - Tallahassee
http://www.express-press-release.net/61/Statewide%20Tea%20Party%20Planned%20at%20Florida%20State%20Capitol%20on%20May%2016th.php

Tea Party attendee comments
http://www.newrichmond-news.com/articles/index.cfm?id=25456§ion=Opinion

About the Tea Party “activists”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518658,00.html

The MSM chose to deep-six the Tea Parties happening in their own back yards.

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/letters/local_story_127084426.html

Pasadena had a May Day Tea Party (ot reported)
http://www.truveo.com/pasadena-tea-party-may-day-rally/id/3785093082

* Shout Out *

To any one organizng a Tea Party. Reply with your details (when where, etc)
to this email with "TP" in the subject to be further posted to others on the
Internet.

I'M MAD, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE
--

You are welcome to join the
slick_ez...@yahoogroups.com

Rich Martin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
(
1) Reply (via web post)
|
Start
a new topic

Messages
ATC website: http://www.atcoalition.com/
MARKETPLACE
I Got Fired But now make $350/day
online!.
--
I'm happy I lost my Job. Now I make $12,000/mo online! See how I do it:
WealthResource.org.
--
Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for
the world and for each
other
[image: Yahoo!
Groups]
Change settings via the
Web(Yahoo!
ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest|
Switch
format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo!
Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

- 2
New
Members

Visit Your Group

Yahoo! News

Odd
News

You won't believe

it, but it's true
Search Ads

Get new
customers.

Buyers' Remorse (From Jason Van Steenwyk - Countercolumn)





I love the last comment:


Buyers' Remorse 
 From the Daily Telegraph:

A
top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: "I'm appalled at the
anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it's the
real world. I'm surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing.
He's a real class warrior."

Do they have blanket parties on Wall Street?
Labels: Obama, stupid,
taxes

[CLICK HERE TO
ENTER THE NET] posted by Jason : 10:29 EST, Sunday, May 10, 2009
3 transmissions this net

Comments:
 If hedge
fund managers are dim enough to believe that Barack Obama
wouldn't do what he said he would do, many times, no wonder the
financial sector is such a mess.
# posted by  SparcVark
: 2:34 PM
 

 We tried
to warn them, but the celebrity of Candidate Obama was too
much for them to resist. That and the hatred so many of them had for
President Bush.
# posted by  tyree
: 5:38 PM
 

  From the
article:
"Mr
Obama said last week that it was "an aberration" that profits in the
financial sector had grown so large over the last decade. It was
ridiculous he suggested, that '25-year-olds (were) getting
million-dollar bonuses, (and) they were willing to pay $100 for a steak
dinner and the waiter was getting the kinds of tips that would make a
college professor envious.' 

He warned that by the time he was
done with them, Silicon Valley and Wall Street would remain large parts
of the US economy, but not 'half of our economy'. "

It is the
antithesis of liberty that any man should declare who does or does not
make too much money. I've been served by waiters who are worth more
than some college professors I've sat under, and who is this president
to say that the waiters haven't earned what they are getting, or that
professors aren't getting what they've earned?
And, does his ridicule of bonuses for 25 year olds extend to the
sporting arena?
Politicians
of all stripes have made similar statements to pander when they thought
it was necessary, but now his supporters are starting to understand
that THIS politician really believes what he is saying.
Mark L.
Lawrence KS
# posted by  Anonymous
: 3:10 PM
  

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2009/05/buyers-remorse.html

Finally a professor I can appreciate (got this one from Jim Miller)

*Lying And Runaway Costs In Megaprojects:  *Ever find a diamond on a 
trash-laden beach?  I haven't, but that's how I felt when I read this 
Danny Westneat column 
. 
 (Those unfamiliar with the Seattle Times columnist may need an 
explanation for my reaction.   Westneat is not the worst journalist in 
this area by any means, but he is closed-minded on many subjects, and 
limited in his range.  His columns on local subjects are often worth 
reading; his columns on national and international affairs often make me 
cringe.  And he is no better with numbers than the average journalist, 
which is to say that he is not very good.)

Somehow, Westneat managed, in a single column, to make an important 
generalization, apply it to a local project, and introduce me to an 
academic, Bent Flyvbjerg, who has been doing work that every citizen of 
a democratic country should know about.  I have no idea how Westneat 
produced this gem, considering his past work, but I am deeply 
appreciative.  (Flyvbjerg is pronounced, Westneat tells us, "flew-byair")

But enough of the build-up, let's go to the bottom line.  The very 
inflated bottom line.

But a professor at Oxford University in England has done a
compelling series of studies trying to get at why big public-works
projects such as bridges, tunnels and light-rail systems almost
always turn out to be far more costly than estimated.

"It cannot be explained by error," sums up one of his papers,
matter-of-factly.  "It is best explained by strategic
misrepresentation --- that is, lying."

That should be enough to get you to read the whole column, especially if 
you live in this area.   If not, let me urge you to take a few minutes 
to do so.

And let me go a little farther and suggest that most of you should take 
the time to read this Flyvbjerg speech 
,
 
where he presents some of the evidence he has gathered for his 
unpleasant conclusion, that over-runs on megaprojects are best explained 
by lying.  (And I plan to go even farther and buy his book 

 
on the subject.)

It is not surprising to learn that politicians have been lying to us 
about the costs of these megaprojects, and it is not entirely surprising 
to learn that project planners have been lying to us, too.   
Disappointing, but not surprising.

If citizens learn how common these lies are, how almost universal they 
are on megaprojects, we may be able to detect more of those lies in 
advance, and we may be able to punish some of the politicians and 
planners who have lied to us.

Cross posted at Sound Politics .

(Here's Professor Flyvbjerg's web site 
 and here's an 
article 
 
describing his work.)
- 1:42 PM, 11 May 2009 

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/May2009_2.html#jrm7373


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Shotgun Golf


Funny

On May 11, 1:36 pm, Travis  wrote:
> From: Travis
> Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> Subject: Shotgun Golf
>
>  http://1guysview.blogspot.com/2009/05/shotgun-golf.html
>
> --
> *~@):~{>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Just lovely - the bondholders must be thrilled to death over this one


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12auto.html?8au&emc=au

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Who is going to buy them???


http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/three-banks-sell-stock-to-repay-tarp-fund/index.html?8au&emc=au
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Wonderful - just what we need - another $90 billion on the deficit


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/economy/12budget.html?_r=1&8au&emc=au
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Shotgun Golf

LOVE IT!!!  ROFL.

Travis wrote:
>
> From: *Travis*
> Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> Subject: Shotgun Golf
>
>
> http://1guysview.blogspot.com/2009/05/shotgun-golf.html
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *~@):~{>
>
> >

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Firefighter Hero -


>From 1986 - 1994 I was a volunteer firefighter in Southern California.
I would still be in it if I still live out in the county instead of
the city.

On May 11, 1:36 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
> Definitely agree.  I still remember some of the volunteer firemen I knew
> in Maryland.  Three of them were also county cops and really good guys.  
> They worked hard to make sure everyone in the community was safe.  And
> luckily the community supported them as well.  Same thing when I lived
> in Ohio.  Great guys and really dedicated.
>
> Right now one of my best friends (on the net) is an EMT by profession
> and is also a deputy for the local sheriff's dept and a volunteer
> fireman in small town Iowa.  We are lucky to have people like them.
>
> Fritz da Cat wrote:
> > All firefighters are heroes. This firefighter is of exceptional
> > valor.
>
> > On May 11, 1:08 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weird-news/story/1041509.html
>
> >> Boy, you talk about polluted!!  The driver and the canal both.
>
> >> bet he felt like dunking the driver back in the canal
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

US Government Police State Shaping Up Nicely

From: Travis
Subject: US Government Police State Shaping Up Nicely
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009,

http://americandaily.ws/index.php/article/2453
 Monday, May 11, 2009 US Government Police State Shaping Up Nicely
  Police State  piece by Sher
Zieve While most of the US population - at least those who voted for him -
continue their somnambulant activities, Supreme Leader
*Obama*has been
methodically and without much-if-any reportage from his mainstream
media been setting up his personal police state.  While existence continues
to become more and more tenuous with each passing day for We-the-People,
Obama and his minions (AKA the Political Power Elite Class) are living the
best days of their lives.  And they are paying for their excesses with what
were formerly OUR monies and OUR wealth.
Note:  Although Obama’s apparently-bought-and-paid-for alphabet networks and
print media refuse to report on them, his increasingly immoderate parties
have taken on a rather legendary status on Washington D.C.  And now, Obama
is also demanding a HUGE *tax*
increase be implemented
against the American people.  By the way, this tax
increase is NOT relegated to the wealthy.  The wealthy - soon to be as poor
as Obama decides they should be - among us cannot solely pay for Obama’s $2
TRILLION+ healthcare system or his now over $1.2 TRILLION national debt.
Observation:  This is another way to fleece the public and put more money
and power into the wallets and purses of the Obama-corrupt.
While Obama and his *friends*
are partying it up and
feasting on $100/lb and up Kobe steaks and other
world delicacies, the usurper has been setting up his own version of
Stalin’s secret police - to shut up (or eliminate) all opposition to his
Communo-Fascist policies and to take what’s left of US citizens’ resources.
But, I digress.  In a previous column - “The Reason the Left Must Destroy
the USA” - I included a well-documented list of what the current US federal
administration is doing to end freedom and liberty within the USA.  One of
these - for which I was promptly and roundly vilified by leftists (the
benchmark by which I can accurately judge that I’m doing my job) - was “the
elevation of terrorists to a protected class (Islamists soon to be the
global power elite’s Secret Police force?).” After I had written it - it
came true.  Scary!  The Obama Administration is planning to release Islamist
prisoners from Guantanamo Bay into the US population - and then pay them!
Note:  This sort of a script wouldn’t even sell in decidedly leftist
Hollywood.
HR 1388 Obama’s soon to be mandatory “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism
and *Education*  Act” - AKA
GIVE - has become law.  This new law gives - no pun intended - Obama and his
minions full sway over what these ‘young adults’ will be called to do.  With
Obama’s current excesses - including intimidation of private citizens and
his assaults on the US
*Constitution*’s
Fifth Amendment - this does not bode well.  Even Uber-leftist and probable
Communist Keith Olbermann doesn’t like this one.  And left-leaning Newsweek
alerts:  “Intelligence experts warn that a proposal to merge two Pentagon
intelligence units could create an ominous new agency.”
There is more coming from the USA’s new narcissistic combination of Stalin
and Mussolini.  And chillingly it’s getting worse and worse.  Can the USA
stand against thi8s destroyer without anyone supporting her?  I doubt it.
The problem, as I view it, is that too many of the USA’s “leaders” are
wringing their hands and asking “why is Obama doing these things? It doesn’t
make sense” instead of realizing and admitting the obvious.  He wants to end
this country, guys.  Why don’t you get it?
Like it or not, I also believe Thomas Jefferson may have said it best:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very
energetic government. It is always oppressive.  God forbid we should ever be
twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always,
well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion
to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.  And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the
facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or
two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Sher

Moonbats Recycle Fingernail Clippings

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Moonbats Recycle Fingernail Clippings



  http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/05/moonbats_recycl.html



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Shotgun Golf

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Shotgun Golf


  http://1guysview.blogspot.com/2009/05/shotgun-golf.html



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Firefighter Hero -

Definitely agree.  I still remember some of the volunteer firemen I knew 
in Maryland.  Three of them were also county cops and really good guys.  
They worked hard to make sure everyone in the community was safe.  And 
luckily the community supported them as well.  Same thing when I lived 
in Ohio.  Great guys and really dedicated.

Right now one of my best friends (on the net) is an EMT by profession 
and is also a deputy for the local sheriff's dept and a volunteer 
fireman in small town Iowa.  We are lucky to have people like them.

Fritz da Cat wrote:
> All firefighters are heroes. This firefighter is of exceptional
> valor.
>
> On May 11, 1:08 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weird-news/story/1041509.html
>>
>> Boy, you talk about polluted!!  The driver and the canal both.
>>
>> bet he felt like dunking the driver back in the canal
>> 
> >
>
>   

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Firefighter Hero -


All firefighters are heroes. This firefighter is of exceptional
valor.

On May 11, 1:08 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weird-news/story/1041509.html
>
> Boy, you talk about polluted!!  The driver and the canal both.
>
> bet he felt like dunking the driver back in the canal
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Firefighter Hero -


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weird-news/story/1041509.html

Boy, you talk about polluted!!  The driver and the canal both.

bet he felt like dunking the driver back in the canal

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Don't they ever learn?


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1042930.html

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Elitist, Arrogant BHO Demands Commoners Be Banned At Normandy Commemoration?

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Elitist, Arrogant BHO Demands Commoners Be Banned At Normandy
Commemoration?




http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/05/elitist-arrogant-bho-demands-commoners.html



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

New Mental Disease Identified

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: New Mental Disease Identified



  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10994



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

All Life On Panet Depends On CO2

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: All Life On Panet Depends On CO2



  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10987



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

AARP-true meaning

From: *Travis*
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009
Subject: AARP-true meaning







*
*  *I don't belong but:*






__._,_.___


__,_._,___



-- 
*~@):~{>



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

<>

Re: Friend of mine sent this letter to Rich Galen re senatorial selections for Pennsylvania

2009-05-11 Thread Daniel Seigler


First off, what ARE derivatives?  Aren't they the things that help
send this Union into this financial mess?

On May 11, 7:51 am, dick thompson  wrote:
> Mike grew up in  Pennsylvania and is very involved in following the
> politics there.  I think he made some good points in his letter.  Just
> hope the people of Pennsylvania take note, especially with regard to
> Specter.
>
> I have enjoyed your columns in the past as well as your frequent
> appearances on TV. I am not at all enthused by your current column
> concerning Pennsylvania and attempting to place Tom Ridge on a pedestal
> and declaring Pat Toomey to be a Thug, a Hoodlum, and involved with an
> organization that tries to eliminate moderate Republicans. Derivatives
> are an essential financial vehicle to organizations to use for the last
> 15 years.
>
> Tom Ridge was Governor of the Keystone state in 2000. He was unable to
> hand the Commonwealth to Bush. His tenure at the Department of Homeland
> Security was less than stellar. He has had limited successes with
> projects at the RNC and the White House under Bush. Though I have
> admired him while he was in the Governor's chair, I always felt that
> there was still more he could have done for the state I was born and
> raised. I will look forward to seeing him still be a force in the
> Republican party.
>
> The only reason Pat Toomey isn't a Senator is directly related to
> actions taken by the RNC and Bush. Bush backed Specter as I know your aware.
>
> Republican moderates. How many right now hold Congressional or
> Senatorial seats from the Northeast? What this party has attempted to
> accomplish is to become the all-inclusive party with limited amounts of
> integrity, values or political views that matter. When you see two
> candidates and both speak to the same viewpoints on the issues which one
> are the voters to choose.
>
> What has built the Republican party is the character, views, values and
> integrity that has stood them apart from the norm, and especially from
> most Democrats. This is what needs to be recaptured, not a middle of the
> road person. We have witnessed what happens when middle of the road
> candidates for President gets us. We witnessed in 1992, 1996, and last
> year. You'll  never win. As for the Commonwealth, the early polling has
> always been suspect because of the fact that there is no emotion in the
> state concerning next year's election. Later this year would have been a
> better point to do the polling. The Keystone state whether Ridge or
> Toomey was the candidate will poise an uphill road to climb especially
> with the mobilization of the Democrat party and unions. The two hundred
> thousand who switched could be brought back into the fold with the right
> message. If it's a similar one given by his opponent it will be disastrous.
>
> Thank you for the time to air my opinion concerning this matter, and I
> will look forward to your columns next week.
>
> Take Care
>
> Mike ...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

The purpose of the financial crisis

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: The purpose of the financial crisis



  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10954



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: I don't really think so, thank you very much


Or a fatal heart attack.

On May 11, 12:03 pm, dick thompson  wrote:
> Sounds about right.  Can you imagine walking through there at night with
> someone who is scared and all of a sudden you hear .
>
> I would imagine the world record for the 100 yd dash would be broken
> even if it were a 91 year old granny with a Zimmer frame.
>
> Fritz da Cat wrote:
> > Looks like someone spent too much time in the Haunted House at
> > Disneyland on acid.
>
> > On May 11, 11:40 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2422651.ece
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Sean Hannity Reveals What HE Takes on His Hamburger






http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=7108



“FORGET THE DIJON MUSTARD AND
THE KETCHUP, I TOP OFF MY
BURGER WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH’S ASS
SWEAT – WHICH IS THE REAL
MEAT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.”

http://gawker.com/5244126/obama-orders-burger-with-elitist-european-condiment


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
  For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
  * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: I don't really think so, thank you very much

Sounds about right.  Can you imagine walking through there at night with 
someone who is scared and all of a sudden you hear .

I would imagine the world record for the 100 yd dash would be broken 
even if it were a 91 year old granny with a Zimmer frame.

Fritz da Cat wrote:
> Looks like someone spent too much time in the Haunted House at
> Disneyland on acid.
>
> On May 11, 11:40 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2422651.ece
>> 
> >
>
>   

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: I don't really think so, thank you very much


Looks like someone spent too much time in the Haunted House at
Disneyland on acid.

On May 11, 11:40 am, dick thompson  wrote:
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2422651.ece
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

I don't really think so, thank you very much


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2422651.ece

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Stress Test











--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
  For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
  * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Out of Power and Pissed








--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
  For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
  * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now

You are the one who is trying to define what a corporation does.  My 
point is that it is up to the "bidness" what it does and that I as a 
consumer have the choice of whether to patronize this "bidness" or that 
"bidness."  If I choose to favor the one whose ethics agree with mine 
then I directly affect the bottom line.  If they don't I can choose not 
to favor them and that also directly affects the bottom line.  The 
difference is that the choices are up to them and to me - and that is 
what makes me a conservative Republican rather than the "nanny-state" 
like the one the Democrats favor.  It is the whole concept of my choice 
based on ethics and morals.That is one of the reasons I buy from one 
source rather than another.  It might cost me more but I will feel 
better about my purchase and also have faith that they will treat me 
right.  You may choose to go with someone cheaper but you also might get 
treated cheaper.  Again it is your choice.  Why do you think companies 
like Bloomingdale's and Nieman Marcus last as they do.  They charge more 
but the do something to justify that.  To me this transfers as well to 
sports as well.  I for one appreciate ethics in sportsmen and do not 
appreciate those who try to game the system.  That is why I am a 
Republican.  I believe that the Democrats in my lifetime have always 
tried to game the system.  I realize that some Republicans do as well 
but at least I am sure that fewer of them and a lower percentage of them 
do this than the Democrats.

Hollywood wrote:
> dick,
>
> And you call yourself a conservative Republican!!! HAH!
> Morals and ethics are only a factor in corporation if they directly
> effect the bottom line.
>
> On May 11, 9:06 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but
>> it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some
>> ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hollywood wrote:
>> 
>>> dick,
>>>   
>>> Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
>>> "bidness is bidness".
>>>   
>>> On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>>>   
 Kevin Cullen

   Not even in same league

 By Kevin Cullen

 Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009

 * Email

 http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
 * Print

 |
 * Reprints |
 * Yahoo! Buzz

 |
 * ShareThis 

 Text size -- +

 Two summers ago, Bobby Doerr, the Hall of Fame second baseman, was at
 Fenway for one last visit and spied his old pal Johnny Pesky sitting at
 a table in the EMC Club.

 Discuss
 COMMENTS (8)

 "Is Dom here?" Doerr asked.

 Pesky shook his head.

 "Couldn't make it," Pesky said. "Legs are bothering him."

 Dom DiMaggio was 90 years old and 60 miles away, at his house in Marion.

 Doerr was crestfallen.

 "Don't worry," Pesky told him. "Emily's taking good care of him."

 Doerr lost his Monica after 65 years of marriage. Pesky had his Ruthie
 for 61, the same number of years that Dom and Emily DiMaggio were
 married. So add it up: between the three couples, there was 187 years of
 marriage.

 That lunch at Fenway would have been the final gathering of the men who
 often set the table for Ted Williams, the men David Halberstam so
 perfectly described simply as The Teammates. But age catches up even to
 boys of summer, and so it never happened. The lunch that didn't happen
 stands today, the day they will bury Dom DiMaggio, as a poignant coda to
 a bygone era.

 Losing Dom DiMaggio, who was a terrific centerfielder and a better human
 being, is all the sadder because the way he played the game and
 comported himself off the field is so jarringly juxtaposed against
 somebody who patrolled the outfield for the Red Sox more recently: Manny
 Ramírez.

 It is beyond ironic that DiMaggio died the day after Manny's reputation
 did. In an attempt to get more in touch with his feminine side, Manny
 took female fertility drugs. Manny didn't appeal his 50-game suspension
 but insists it was all an innocent mistake. Those who know about such
 things say what Manny did is co

Re: The Party of Rush

2009-05-11 Thread Cold Water

It seems to me that Woody has been 59 for three years now. :-)

CW
- Original Message - 
From: Keith In Tampa 
To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:56
Subject: Re: The Party of Rush


Holly,

Holly,

In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are 
interchangeable monikers.
When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that you 
believe can be attributed from Socialsim.   

(P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any 
olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)






On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood  wrote:


  KIT,

  Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.

  Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
  ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
  Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
  Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.






  On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
  > Young Holly,
  >
  >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
  > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many act
  > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist", and
  > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try and
  > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
  > socialists, they do so no more.
  >
  >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
  > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
  >
  > http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
  >
  > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
  > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
  >
  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
  >
  > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
  > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
  > nationalization of the oil companies:
  >
  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
  >
  > =
  > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
  > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past summer
  > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
  >
  > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
  > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
  > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
  > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
  > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
  > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
  > Democratic Caucus
  > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
  > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
  >

  > http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats

  >
  > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much
  > gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
  > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
  > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the
  > market..."
  >
  > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
  > leadership. *
  >

  >  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats

  >
  > ==
  >
  > Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her
  > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
  >
  > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
  > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to
  > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from
  > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27, 2008
  >
  > "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
  > - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
  >
  > "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to
  > die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
  > have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
  > little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same
  > with energy. You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign
  > oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses
  > to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go on,
  > and that means something has to be taken away from some people." -
  >
  > *Former Senator & Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008
  > presidential candidate, June 3, 2007*
  > * *
  > =
  >
  > Democrats openly call for redistribution of

Re: The Party of Rush

Holly,

Holly,

In the New Millennium, I believe that "Socialist" and "Democrat" are
interchangeable monikers.
When you have a moment, please point out, "Some [of the] good ideas" that
you believe can be attributed from Socialsim.

(P.S.:  At 52, my ass is just right behind ya, and I refuse to get any
olderYou ain't draggin' my ass with ya!!!  LOL!!)





On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Hollywood wrote:

>
> KIT,
>
> Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.
>
> Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
> ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
> Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
> Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > Young Holly,
> >
> >  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
> > The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many
> act
> > as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist",
> and
> > this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try
> and
> > evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> > socialists, they do so no more.
> >
> >  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
> > openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
> >
> > http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
> >
> > Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist,
> "redistribution
> > of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
> >
> > Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
> > parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> > nationalization of the oil companies:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
> >
> > =
> > Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
> > Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past
> summer
> > called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
> >
> > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> colleagues
> > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and
> put
> > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> > Democratic Caucus
> > *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
> > Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
> >
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
> >
> > "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how
> much
> > gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
> > refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> > control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on
> the
> > market..."
> >
> > *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> > leadership. *
> >
> >  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats..
> ..
>  >
> > ==
> >
> > Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during
> her
> > presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
> >
> > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> > We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going
> to
> > cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away
> from
> > you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27,
> 2008
> >
> > "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government
> policies."
> > - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
> >
> > "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely
> to
> > die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
> > have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
> > little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The
> same
> > with energy. You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on
> foreign
> > oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it
> poses
> > to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go
> on,
> > and that means something has to be taken away from some people." -
> >
> > *Former Senator & Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008
> > presidential candidate, June 3, 2007*
> > * *
> > =
> >
> > Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they
> call
> > for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democrat
> > Party openly advocates the federal government's  involvement in each

Re: The Party of Rush


KIT,

Thank you, I AM a rather young 59.

Socialism does have SOME good ideas,as does almost ALL political
ideaologies. I repeat, in what precincts in Minnesota does the
Socialist Party have a majority over the Democratic and Republican
Party. Not interested in your partisan labels.





On May 11, 11:04 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Young Holly,
>
>  The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
> The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many act
> as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist", and
> this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try and
> evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
> socialists, they do so no more.
>
>  During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
> openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
> of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
> parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
> nationalization of the oil companies:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> =
> Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
> Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past summer
> called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:
>
> "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
> are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
> out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
> Democratic Caucus
> *Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
> Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much
> gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
> refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
> control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the
> market..."
>
> *Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
> leadership. *
>
>  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> ==
>
> Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her
> presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:
>
> "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
> We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to
> cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from
> you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27, 2008
>
> "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
> - Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
>
> "...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to
> die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
> have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
> little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same
> with energy. You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign
> oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses
> to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go on,
> and that means something has to be taken away from some people." -
>
> *Former Senator & Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008
> presidential candidate, June 3, 2007*
> * *
> =
>
> Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they call
> for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democrat
> Party openly advocates the federal government's  involvement in each and
> every facet of our lives.   Period.  What part of this can anyone, with a
> straight face, argue is NOT socialism?  The basic premise of all Democrats,
> is:  "Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Lenninism, etc. were not all that bad,
> we just haven't had the right people try to implement these economic and
> political policies yet".
>
> Holly, just to refresh your memory, here is  the definition of socialism:
>
>  "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or
> "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating
> collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
> production and d

Re: Razzle-Dazzle or Reagan

2009-05-11 Thread Cold Water

Actually Keith, I have been known as "our own Ann Coulter" in more than one 
political group for years now.  My Aussie bf actually believes AC is one of my 
multiple personalities.  ; - )))  You nailed it today Keith.  LOL

CW
- Original Message - 
From: Keith In Tampa 
To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:08
Subject: Re: Razzle-Dazzle or Reagan

Hey C.W.!!

Here Here!!  

Are you sure that you are not the future "Mrs. Keith In Tampa"; e.g.; Ann 
Coulter, parading around in PF as "CW"???  (LOL!!)

Well written commentary, I hope everyone in the group takes a moment to read 
this article!!  Thanks for sharing!!

Keith

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Cold Water  wrote:

  Razzle-Dazzle or Reagan

   While the Republican Party has not moved to the right, it needs to 
concentrate on fiscal responsibility and size of government to regain a measure 
of power before it can take on the social issues that are  important as well. 

  Laura Ingraham has recently asked the question of whether or not the 
Republican Party needs to add some razzle-dazzle to their image.  It's a good 
question; after all, a large part of politics is marketing.  However, while the 
Republicans need better marketing, we should be very careful in how it is 
applied.  After all, remember what happened last autumn with the story of Sarah 
Palin's wardrobe.  The liberal wing of the press had a field day making 
something out of what should have been a non-story.  Meanwhile, there is very 
little attention paid to the public relations machine employed by the Obama 
administration to maintain the campaign image well past the election.  Michelle 
Obama’s wardrobe including the $400 athletic shoes gets little attention.  The 
moral is clear; it is ok to work on a positive public image if you are a 
democrat, but if you are not, then what would otherwise be normal behavior 
becomes fair game for public criticism, regardless of the justification.  There 
may be better ways to get the message across than traditional image building 
techniques.   

  Meanwhile, the general opinion of other commentators that the Republican 
Party is a party of diverse opinions, and already is really a "big tent" should 
probably be the starting point for analyzing the current position.  In fact, 
this opinion is correct.  Republicans and conservatives have always had their 
differences on significant issues.  For example, the paleoconservative vs. 
neoconservative argument was a serious matter throughout the Bush 
administration, and President Bush was roundly criticized by many of those who 
voted for him.  Conservatives have never operated in lockstep, despite what the 
propagandists may say. 

  Secondly, we have to realize that the political left has effectively seized 
control of the Democrat Party, which has, despite what many media pundits would 
like us to believe, been the party that has done most of the “moving” in the 
last ten years.  While George W. Bush moved the Republican Party, as well, he 
also moved it to the left.  No Child Left Behind, and the Medicare Part D are 
perfect examples of this.  The only aspects of political administration where 
he did not do so were in the arena of national security. 

  Many other Republican office holders moved to the left along with him, 
accepting the idea that they could promote the Republican Party by emulating 
the Democrats.  While this movement took place many of the center and 
essentially all of the right elements of the electorate were left behind.  
Radio talkers have been the voice of the public, post November 2008, but what 
those who call talk radio "extremist" are ignoring one very important piece of 
information; Barack Obama ran on a public image as a moderate, but his policies 
are showing him to be the true extremist.  His public image and his private and 
political persona are two completely different things. 

  Meanwhile, the suggestion that Republicans should abandon Ronald Reagan are 
misguided.  The truth is that many Republican politicians have already done so 
during their move leftwards.  Because their public image is being shaped by 
people with an extremist agenda, this fact is being ignored.  What they need to 
recognize is that in abandoning the Reagan principles they have abandoned the 
public as well.  Recent polling data showing a negative reaction to big 
government and out of control spending supports this.  Republican politicians 
should take note of this and concentrate on a return to the successful policies 
of governmental restraint, controlled spending and popular liberty to become 
successful.  At t he same time they must name the enemy; they must go after 
“big government” as President Reagan did. 

  The problem with the use of the term "socialist" is that a large part of the 
public does not understand it sufficiently.  While this shows an unconscionable 
lack of education in many people, conservatives must work within their l

Re: Razzle-Dazzle or Reagan

Hey C.W.!!

Here Here!!

Are you sure that you are not the future "Mrs. Keith In Tampa"; *e.g*.; Ann
Coulter, parading around in PF as "CW"???  (LOL!!)

Well written commentary, I hope everyone in the group takes a moment to read
this article!!  Thanks for sharing!!

Keith

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Cold Water  wrote:

>  *Razzle-Dazzle or Reagan*
>   While the Republican Party has not moved to the right, it needs to
> concentrate on fiscal responsibility and size of government to regain a
> measure of power before it can take on the social issues that are  important
> as well.
>
> Laura Ingraham has recently asked the question of whether or not the
> Republican Party needs to add some razzle-dazzle to their image.  It's a
> good question; after all, a large part of politics is marketing.  However,
> while the Republicans need better marketing, we should be very careful in
> how it is applied.  After all, remember what happened last autumn with the
> story of Sarah Palin's wardrobe.  The liberal wing of the press had a field
> day making something out of what should have been a non-story.  Meanwhile,
> there is very little attention paid to the public relations machine employed
> by the Obama administration to maintain the campaign image well past the
> election.  Michelle Obama’s wardrobe including the $400 athletic shoes gets
> little attention.  The moral is clear; it is ok to work on a positive public
> image if you are a democrat, but if you are not, then what would otherwise
> be normal behavior becomes fair game for public criticism, regardless of the
> justification.  There may be better ways to get the message across than
> traditional image building techniques.
>
> Meanwhile, the general opinion of other commentators that the Republican
> Party is a party of diverse opinions, and already is really a "big tent"
> should probably be the starting point for analyzing the current position.
> In fact, this opinion is correct.  Republicans and conservatives have always
> had their differences on significant issues.  For example, the
> paleoconservative vs. neoconservative argument was a serious matter
> throughout the Bush administration, and President Bush was roundly
> criticized by many of those who voted for him.  Conservatives have never
> operated in lockstep, despite what the propagandists may say.
>
> Secondly, we have to realize that the political left has effectively seized
> control of the Democrat Party, which has, despite what many media pundits
> would like us to believe, been the party that has done most of the “moving”
> in the last ten years.  While George W. Bush moved the Republican Party, as
> well, he also moved it to the left.  No Child Left Behind, and the Medicare
> Part D are perfect examples of this.  The only aspects of political
> administration where he did not do so were in the arena of national
> security.
>
> Many other Republican office holders moved to the left along with him,
> accepting the idea that they could promote the Republican Party by emulating
> the Democrats.  While this movement took place many of the center and
> essentially all of the right elements of the electorate were left behind.
> Radio talkers have been the voice of the public, post November 2008, but
> what those who call talk radio "extremist" are ignoring one very important
> piece of information; Barack Obama ran on a public image as a moderate, but
> his policies are showing him to be the true extremist.  His public image and
> his private and political persona are two completely different things.
>
> Meanwhile, the suggestion that Republicans should abandon Ronald Reagan are
> misguided.  The truth is that many Republican politicians have already done
> so during their move leftwards.  Because their public image is being shaped
> by people with an extremist agenda, this fact is being ignored.  What they
> need to recognize is that in abandoning the Reagan principles they have
> abandoned the public as well.  Recent polling data showing a negative
> reaction to big government and out of control spending supports this.
> Republican politicians should take note of this and concentrate on a return
> to the successful policies of governmental restraint, controlled spending
> and popular liberty to become successful.  At t he same time they must name
> the enemy; they must go after “big government” as President Reagan did.
>
> The problem with the use of the term "socialist" is that a large part of
> the public does not understand it sufficiently.  While this shows an
> unconscionable lack of education in many people, conservatives must work
> within their limited knowledge and use something they understand.  The must
> identify Democrats as the party of big government, fiscal irresponsibility
> and reduction in popular liberties.  The issues of government size and
> spending will be the long-term winners.
>
> Meanwhile, the issues championed by "social conservatives" such as abortion
> and

Re: The Party of Rush

Young Holly,

 The truth is, that most Democrats in the New Millennium, are Socialists.
The Democrat Party has literally been infiltrated by socialists.  Many act
as if it is some kind of an insult to call a Socialist, a "Socialist", and
this train of thought is beyond me.  Although the Democrats used to try and
evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as
socialists, they do so no more.

 During the presidential campaign, President Obama, in his  own words,
openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html


Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc


Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Socialist, Cal.)  just this past summer,
parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the
nationalization of the oil companies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

=
Former House Democratic Caucus Chairman and current Chief of Staff  Rahm
Emanuel, (D. Il.)  and Congressman. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) this past summer
called for nationalizing our oill companies and our oil refineries:


"So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." House
Democratic Caucus
*Former Chairman, & Current Obama Administration Chief of Staff  Rahm
Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 *


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html


"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much
gets out into the market.  Should the people of the United States own
refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could
control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the
market..."

*Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 18 June Press Conference with Democratic
leadership. *

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html

==

Former Senator  and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her
presidential campaign, openly advocated a socialist platform:


"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to
cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good." - Senator Hillary Clinton, April 27, 2008


"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007

"...because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to
die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We
have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a
little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same
with energy. You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign
oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses
to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go on,
and that means something has to be taken away from some people." -

*Former Senator & Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008
presidential candidate, June 3, 2007*
* *
=


Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they call
for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democrat
Party openly advocates the federal government's  involvement in each and
every facet of our lives.   Period.  What part of this can anyone, with a
straight face, argue is NOT socialism?  The basic premise of all Democrats,
is:  "Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Lenninism, etc. were not all that bad,
we just haven't had the right people try to implement these economic and
political policies yet".

Holly, just to refresh your memory, here is  the definition of socialism:


 "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or
"associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property;
in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between
capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of
goods and pay according to work done."


The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled:
"Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan
& Co. 1913).  Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar.


"Any of various economic a

Re: Some Fathers Teach Their Daughters Important Stuff

Absolutely.

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Cold Water  wrote:

>
>
> >
>


-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now


dick,

And you call yourself a conservative Republican!!! HAH!
Morals and ethics are only a factor in corporation if they directly
effect the bottom line.

On May 11, 9:06 am, dick thompson  wrote:
> Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but
> it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some
> ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.
>
>
>
> Hollywood wrote:
> > dick,
>
> > Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
> > "bidness is bidness".
>
> > On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>
> >> Kevin Cullen
>
> >>   Not even in same league
>
> >> By Kevin Cullen
> >> 
> >> Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009
>
> >>     * Email
> >>       
> >> http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
> >>     * Print
> >>       
> >> |
> >>     * Reprints |
> >>     * Yahoo! Buzz
> >>       
> >> |
> >>     * ShareThis 
>
> >> Text size -- +
>
> >> Two summers ago, Bobby Doerr, the Hall of Fame second baseman, was at
> >> Fenway for one last visit and spied his old pal Johnny Pesky sitting at
> >> a table in the EMC Club.
>
> >> 
> >>         Discuss
> >> COMMENTS (8)
> >> 
>
> >> "Is Dom here?" Doerr asked.
>
> >> Pesky shook his head.
>
> >> "Couldn't make it," Pesky said. "Legs are bothering him."
>
> >> Dom DiMaggio was 90 years old and 60 miles away, at his house in Marion.
>
> >> Doerr was crestfallen.
>
> >> "Don't worry," Pesky told him. "Emily's taking good care of him."
>
> >> Doerr lost his Monica after 65 years of marriage. Pesky had his Ruthie
> >> for 61, the same number of years that Dom and Emily DiMaggio were
> >> married. So add it up: between the three couples, there was 187 years of
> >> marriage.
>
> >> That lunch at Fenway would have been the final gathering of the men who
> >> often set the table for Ted Williams, the men David Halberstam so
> >> perfectly described simply as The Teammates. But age catches up even to
> >> boys of summer, and so it never happened. The lunch that didn't happen
> >> stands today, the day they will bury Dom DiMaggio, as a poignant coda to
> >> a bygone era.
>
> >> Losing Dom DiMaggio, who was a terrific centerfielder and a better human
> >> being, is all the sadder because the way he played the game and
> >> comported himself off the field is so jarringly juxtaposed against
> >> somebody who patrolled the outfield for the Red Sox more recently: Manny
> >> Ramírez.
>
> >> It is beyond ironic that DiMaggio died the day after Manny's reputation
> >> did. In an attempt to get more in touch with his feminine side, Manny
> >> took female fertility drugs. Manny didn't appeal his 50-game suspension
> >> but insists it was all an innocent mistake. Those who know about such
> >> things say what Manny did is commonly done by those coming off a cycle
> >> of steroids.
>
> >> That may explain why Manny, long thought of as being just goofy, started
> >> acting like a professional wrestler last year, dope slapping Kevin
> >> Youkilis in the dugout and manhandling 64-year-old traveling secretary
> >> Jack McCormick in the clubhouse.
>
> >> So, if you're picking a team today, whom do you take in their prime? Dom
> >> DiMaggio or Manny Ramírez? The statistics say Manny. That's the wrong
> >> choice. Dom DiMaggio was a class act who brought out the best in his
> >> teammates. He respected the game because he respected himself and
> >> others. Manny respects neither teammates nor the game.
>
> >> You would think that Manny's teammates would be mortified, appalled, and
> >> furious with him, that he would never be welcomed back to their clubhouse.
>
> >> Hah.
>
> >> The Dodgers are counting the days until he comes back, because that
> >> might mean a championship and millions more for all their bank accounts.
> >> Meanwhile, the Yankees are thrilled to have A-Roid, their DH -
> >> designated hypocrite - back in the lineup. They're back in business in
> >> the Bronx.
>
> >> Baseball is more than our national pastime. It is a reflection of what
> >> we are as a people. And right now the reflection isn't very pretty.
> >> Comparing Dom DiMaggio and Manny Ramírez is not merely a reflection of
> >> the characters of two baseball players, but a reflection of what we have
> >> become.
>
> >> Americans have always loved winners. Now we tolerate jerks, as long as
> >> they can hit a fastball. We love to bask in the reflected glory of grown
> >> men who get paid millions to play a kid's game. Dodgers fans used to
> >> taunt another cheater, Barry Bonds, mercilessly. Now, everybody a

News of the Weird, May 10, 2009

From:  Travis

From: Chuck Shepherd
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009
Subject: News of the Weird, May 10, 2009

WEIRDNUZ.M109 (News of the Weird, May 10, 2009)
by Chuck Shepherd

Copyright 2009 by Chuck Shepherd.  All rights reserved.

Lead Story

* "Consensual Living" parenting, which was developed in 2006
and now has many hundreds of followers, supposes that every
family member's needs are equally valid and respectworthy.  Even
pre-adolescents are assumed able to understand their own needs
and respect those of others.  When little Kiernen, 3, of Langley,
British Columbia, hits another child, his mom told Toronto's Globe
& Mail in March, she does not invoke authority but instead asks
about his feelings and whether he'd like to express himself
differently.  If Kahlan, 18 months old, of Nanaimo, British
Columbia, is grumpy at a time when her mother has made plans,
mom says she is obligated to consider other plans.  And when
Savannah, 6, insisted on wearing her Halloween cat costume every
single day for several months, mom in Burlington, Ontario, just
shrugged, since she recalled how contentious the morning dressing
rituals were, pre-Consensual Living. [Globe & Mail, 3-31-09]

Building a Risk-Free Society

* Safety-First in Britain:  (1) Recently, 118 local government
councils conducted formal tests on their cemeteries' gravestones, to
see how susceptible they are to toppling over and hurting people,
according to an April Daily Telegraph report.  (2) In April, a circus
clown performing in Liverpool was ordered not to wear his classic
oversized shoes because he could trip and injure someone.  (3)
BBC producers, wielding a "telephone-book-size" set of safety
precautions while making a recent adventure documentary, ordered
Sir Robin Knox-Johnston (the first person to sail single-handedly
and non-stop around the world) not to light a portable stove unless
a "safety advisor" supervised. [Daily Telegraph, 4-19-09] [Daily
Telegraph, 4-23-09] [Daily Mail, 4-18-09]

Oops!

* For 15 years, police in southern Germany have been futilely
tracking a female "serial killer" whose DNA (but little other
matching physical evidence) was found at 40 crime scenes,
including six murders.  Only in 2007 did they begin to consider
alternative theories, and in March 2009, a state justice minister
announced that the case had been solved:  The DNA matched up in
the tests because the cotton swabs used to collect it had been
contaminated at the factory (but authorities still have not
determined which female factory worker inadvertently supplied the
DNA). [BBC News, 3-26-09]

The Continuing Crisis

* Be Wary of Discount Funeral Services:  (1) A 2004 burial in
Allendale, S.C., is just now being investigated after relatives
learned that the deceased, a 6-foot-7 man, was somehow laid to
rest in a six-foot-long coffin that was part of his prepaid. plan.  (2)
Authorities in Houston, Tex., are investigating a funeral home that
handles burial of paupers on contract from the county after,
somehow, a 91-year-old male (who was supposed to be preserved
for viewing) was cremated instead of the female who was
scheduled. [Charlotte Observer-AP, 3-31-09] [Houston Chronicle,
4-8-09]

* Lobbying Pays:  University of Kansas researchers, reporting in
April, disclosed that a single tax provision in a 2004 law (allowing
U.S. multinational corporations to avoid federal tax on foreign
profits) gained a typical company $220 for every $1 the company
had spent lobbying Congress to enact that provision.  Among the
big winners was the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical company, which
disclosed spending $8.5 million to lobby for the law and gaining a
tax break of more than $2 billion.  (The lobbying emphasized that
the lower tax would enable the companies to create more jobs, but
the Congressional Research Service found that most of the tax
savings went to pay dividends or buy back company stock.)
[Washington Post, 4-12-09]

* In a study of the last six years' admissions at hospital emergency
rooms in the Austin, Tex., area (reported in April), 900 people
were identified as using ERs six or more times in the previous
three months, and nine specific patients had made a total of 2,678
visits in the six-year period. [Austin American-Statesman, 4-1-09]

* Mixed Signs from the Middle East:  (1) In March, at a soccer
match in Hilla, Iraq, between two local teams, as a player with the
ball approached the goal to attempt a tying kick late in the game,
an overenthusiastic spectator drew his gun and shot him dead.  (2)
In more hopeful news, authorities in Ramallah said that the March
24th bank robbery by armed gunmen who snatched the equivalent
of $30,000 was pulled off by five Palestinians and an Israeli Jew,
working together. [Reuters, 3-16-09] [Agence France-Presse, 3-30-
09]

The Miracle Drug That Changes Everything

* (1) A 44-year-old intoxicated man was arrested in Ann Arbor,
Mich., in March, blocking traffic by approaching an officer and
requesting a big hug (and then cursing the office

Re: Newsbusters: NYT celebrates anti-America/anti-capitalist kids enviro video working its way into classrooms :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience


Travis,

List the school boards that have approved this film for use in their
classrooms.
List the schools where this film "has found it's way into".


On May 11, 9:37 am, Travis  wrote:
> From: Travis
> Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
> Subject: Newsbusters: NYT celebrates anti-America/anti-capitalist kids
> enviro video working its way into classrooms :: Political News and
> commentaries :: Hyscience
>
>  http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/05/newsbusters_nyt.php
>
> --
> *~@):~{>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Friend of mine sent this letter to Rich Galen re senatorial selections for Pennsylvania

Mike grew up in  Pennsylvania and is very involved in following the 
politics there.  I think he made some good points in his letter.  Just 
hope the people of Pennsylvania take note, especially with regard to 
Specter.



I have enjoyed your columns in the past as well as your frequent 
appearances on TV. I am not at all enthused by your current column 
concerning Pennsylvania and attempting to place Tom Ridge on a pedestal 
and declaring Pat Toomey to be a Thug, a Hoodlum, and involved with an 
organization that tries to eliminate moderate Republicans. Derivatives 
are an essential financial vehicle to organizations to use for the last 
15 years.

Tom Ridge was Governor of the Keystone state in 2000. He was unable to 
hand the Commonwealth to Bush. His tenure at the Department of Homeland 
Security was less than stellar. He has had limited successes with 
projects at the RNC and the White House under Bush. Though I have 
admired him while he was in the Governor's chair, I always felt that 
there was still more he could have done for the state I was born and 
raised. I will look forward to seeing him still be a force in the 
Republican party.

The only reason Pat Toomey isn't a Senator is directly related to 
actions taken by the RNC and Bush. Bush backed Specter as I know your aware.

Republican moderates. How many right now hold Congressional or 
Senatorial seats from the Northeast? What this party has attempted to 
accomplish is to become the all-inclusive party with limited amounts of 
integrity, values or political views that matter. When you see two 
candidates and both speak to the same viewpoints on the issues which one 
are the voters to choose.

What has built the Republican party is the character, views, values and 
integrity that has stood them apart from the norm, and especially from 
most Democrats. This is what needs to be recaptured, not a middle of the 
road person. We have witnessed what happens when middle of the road 
candidates for President gets us. We witnessed in 1992, 1996, and last 
year. You'll  never win. As for the Commonwealth, the early polling has 
always been suspect because of the fact that there is no emotion in the 
state concerning next year's election. Later this year would have been a 
better point to do the polling. The Keystone state whether Ridge or 
Toomey was the candidate will poise an uphill road to climb especially 
with the mobilization of the Democrat party and unions. The two hundred 
thousand who switched could be brought back into the fold with the right 
message. If it's a similar one given by his opponent it will be disastrous.

Thank you for the time to air my opinion concerning this matter, and I 
will look forward to your columns next week.

Take Care

Mike ...



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: And these people should be allowed to stay here because ..... and what about the ones who are trying to do it legally

All illegals should be deported with NO exceptions and send their lettle
bastard brats with them. We should stop all immigration to this country as
we have enough people living here now .

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:01 AM, dick thompson wrote:

> Shouldn't they be written about as well?  Seems to me that they are the
> ones who should be helped, not the ones who are trying to do it illegally.
>
> Family life a complex affair for immigrants Illegal status creates fault
> lines
>
> By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff  |  May 11, 2009
>
> When school lets out for the summer, Eliane will take her only son to Logan
> International Airport and put him on an airplane to Brazil. She will miss
> his birthday party in July, his soccer games, and all of his summer
> vacation.
>
> Eliane will stay behind because she is an illegal immigrant, unlike her
> 5-year-old American son and a sister who will escort him to South America.
> If she leaves the United States, she will not be allowed back in.
>
> "I don't like it," she said, speaking on the condition that her last name
> not be used for fear of deportation. "When I have my papers, he won't ever
> go with anyone else."
>
> For families such as Eliane's, made up of illegal and legal immigrants,
> life is a dizzying array of complications, disappointments, and fears.
> Having legal papers determines who can work, drive a car, and afford to go
> to college, but also who can rush out of the country to sit by a parent's
> deathbed, dance at a wedding, or visit grandparents.
>
> Such mixed-status families are at the heart of the national debate over
> immigration, which is expected to intensify as soon as this month as
> President Obama attempts to tackle illegal immigration. Advocates are
> pushing for a path to legal residency for the nation's 11.9 million illegal
> immigrants, in part because so many are related to American-born children.
>
> But critics say illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for breaking the
> law, whatever their family ties.
>
> "It's a consequence of what happens when parents make bad decisions," said
> Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Im migration
> Studies, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that favors stricter controls on
> immigration.
>
> For many illegal immigrants, there is little benefit in being related to
> someone here legally. US laws limit relatives' ability to sponsor
> immigrants, and having an American child does not confer legal status.
>
> About 4 million American-born children in the United States have at least
> one parent in the country illegally, according to a report by the
> Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center.
>
> In Massachusetts, about 30,000 children are in that predicament.
>
> Parents who are illegal immigrants say that having US-born children is a
> strong incentive to remain in the country.
>
> Maria, a 43-year-old housecleaner, earns more than double what she had as a
> science teacher in Brazil. But her 6-year-old daughter, and a baby on the
> way, will have even more opportunities in the United States to go to college
> and have thriving careers. Because of that, she ignores her 86-year-old
> mother's pleas to move back home.
>
> It is also difficult for brothers and sisters who were on equal footing in
> their homelands but have different legal statuses here.
>
> Eliane, 44, who comes from a big family in Brazil, said one sister has
> legal status, while she and another sister do not.
>
> When her sister received her legal papers through her husband, Eliane could
> not help but feel a pang of jealousy.
>
> "I was happy for her, but a little sad for me," said Eliane, who has been
> here since 2001 and works as a housecleaner.
>
> Erica, a 28-year-old from Brazil, has two sons: One is 11, and was caught
> with her crossing the US-Mexico border illegally in 2001. Her other son, 5,
> is an American citizen, born here years after she was released at the border
> pending a court date that she never kept.
>
> The younger child is always begging her to take him to Brazil, but the
> 11-year-old never asks to go. He struggles in school and has trouble
> sleeping, worried about his family getting caught.
>
> "He's always anxious," she said in a near whisper, as the boys played in
> another room. "I think he wants to go to Brazil, but he's afraid. He knows
> he can't come back."
>
> Erica and her boys live in Boston with an uncle, who has a green card and a
> driver's license. He drives the family around on weekends to reduce the
> chance of them getting caught. (Illegal immigrants cannot get a driver's
> license in Massachusetts.)
>
> Often, she wonders what it must be like to be here legally.
>
> "It must be fantastic," said Erica, who cleans houses here after having
> worked on a farm in Brazil. "It's like you're free. For us, it's like being
> in jail. We are always afraid."
>
> Critics of illegal immigrants say parents created this scenario by
> disobeying the law, and they blame politician

Newsbusters: NYT celebrates anti-America/anti-capitalist kids enviro video working its way into classrooms :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Newsbusters: NYT celebrates anti-America/anti-capitalist kids
enviro video working its way into classrooms :: Political News and
commentaries :: Hyscience



  http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/05/newsbusters_nyt.php



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Cartoon video: Circle of life in Gaza/Israel :: Middle East News and Perspectives

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Cartoon video: Circle of life in Gaza/Israel :: Middle East News
and Perspective


  http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/05/cartoon_circle.php



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Don't be fooled by inflation

From: Travis
Date: Mon, May 11, 2009
Subject: Don't be fooled by inflation



  http://www.roguegovernment.com/index.php?news_id=15583



-- 
*~@):~{>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Party of Rush


KIT,

Don't we normally have an investigation and then a trial before
declaring someone guilty? THAT was my point.
By all means, let the proper authority properly investigate ANY valid
accusation of fraud.

What the fuck is a "socialist majority precint"? In what Minnesota
precincts is the Socialist Party in the majority and NOT either the
Democratic or republican Party? I say you are either lying or badly
mistaken.
Yeah, if a recount is ordered by the election board and/or a court
with jurisdiction sometimes ballots ARE counted twice. So?

On May 10, 10:18 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Uhm.Holly???
>
> Isn't that the point of the current litigation?
>
> I'll be happy to point you to a number of factual sites, with empirical data
> that pretty much establishes the dishonesty of ACORN, the Minnesota State
> Attorney's Office, and a number of County Supervisors of Elections, that
> utilized different standards in some socialist majority precincts, and other
> standards for conservative majority precincts.   Just as important, there
> were a number of precincts that had their votes counted twice, and I think
> is as Rigs is alluding too, there are still a number of absentee ballots
> that to this day, have not been counted.
>
> Sounds a lot like the typical far left extremist tactics used by the
> socialists around the Nation!
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Hollywood 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > Prove it, legally.
>
> > On May 10, 6:38 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > I'll give you one word for what has caused the problem Studio:
>
> > > Soros.
>
> > > Your premise is incorrect.
>
> > > The socialist Anti-American machine which is funded by George Soros
> > > literally stole this election from the good people of Minnesota.  Coleman
> > > should be suing, and every American, from both sides of the aisle, should
> > be
> > > up in arms, demanding a new election.   It is despicable what transpired
> > in
> > > Minnesota, and one word, two syllables is where it can all be attributed:
>
> > > Soros.
>
> > >http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/george-soros/
>
> > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, studio  wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 3:00 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > Here are just a few:
>
> > > > > I don't even know where to start with Stuart Smalley:
>
> > > > Why at conservative propaganda-blog-o-spheres naturally, where else?
>
> > > > Remember Mark saying how Smalley would sue if he didn't win?
> > > > But now who's suing because they didn't win?
>
> > > > A one name answer is all I require.
>
> > > > dick thompson wrote:
> > > > > What does McCain have to do with it.  McCain would never seek
> > Sharpton's
> > > > support.  Why should he. <
>
> > > > Perhaps for the same reason I was asked to join the Insane Clown
> > > > Party?
> > > > But why shouldn't he?
> > > > Sharpton is American after all, and it never hurts to ask.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Shame that Dom had to die before the sportswriters noticed and wrote about him rather than the creeps who star now

Maybe that satisfies your ideals of what is a good "bidness" model but 
it does not satisfy mine.  I expect my "bidness" people to have some 
ethics and ideals.  Maybe that is why I am not a big sports fan.

Hollywood wrote:
> dick,
>
> Grow up man. Professional sports is just another big business. And
> "bidness is bidness".
>
> On May 11, 7:16 am, dick thompson  wrote:
>   
>> Kevin Cullen
>>
>>   Not even in same league
>>
>> By Kevin Cullen
>> 
>> Globe Columnist / May 11, 2009
>>
>> * Email
>>   
>> http://tools.boston.com/pass-it-on?story_url=http://www.boston.com/ne...>|
>> * Print
>>   
>> |
>> * Reprints |
>> * Yahoo! Buzz
>>   
>> |
>> * ShareThis 
>>
>> Text size -- +
>>
>> Two summers ago, Bobby Doerr, the Hall of Fame second baseman, was at
>> Fenway for one last visit and spied his old pal Johnny Pesky sitting at
>> a table in the EMC Club.
>>
>> 
>> Discuss
>> COMMENTS (8)
>> 
>>
>> "Is Dom here?" Doerr asked.
>>
>> Pesky shook his head.
>>
>> "Couldn't make it," Pesky said. "Legs are bothering him."
>>
>> Dom DiMaggio was 90 years old and 60 miles away, at his house in Marion.
>>
>> Doerr was crestfallen.
>>
>> "Don't worry," Pesky told him. "Emily's taking good care of him."
>>
>> Doerr lost his Monica after 65 years of marriage. Pesky had his Ruthie
>> for 61, the same number of years that Dom and Emily DiMaggio were
>> married. So add it up: between the three couples, there was 187 years of
>> marriage.
>>
>> That lunch at Fenway would have been the final gathering of the men who
>> often set the table for Ted Williams, the men David Halberstam so
>> perfectly described simply as The Teammates. But age catches up even to
>> boys of summer, and so it never happened. The lunch that didn't happen
>> stands today, the day they will bury Dom DiMaggio, as a poignant coda to
>> a bygone era.
>>
>> Losing Dom DiMaggio, who was a terrific centerfielder and a better human
>> being, is all the sadder because the way he played the game and
>> comported himself off the field is so jarringly juxtaposed against
>> somebody who patrolled the outfield for the Red Sox more recently: Manny
>> Ramírez.
>>
>> It is beyond ironic that DiMaggio died the day after Manny's reputation
>> did. In an attempt to get more in touch with his feminine side, Manny
>> took female fertility drugs. Manny didn't appeal his 50-game suspension
>> but insists it was all an innocent mistake. Those who know about such
>> things say what Manny did is commonly done by those coming off a cycle
>> of steroids.
>>
>> That may explain why Manny, long thought of as being just goofy, started
>> acting like a professional wrestler last year, dope slapping Kevin
>> Youkilis in the dugout and manhandling 64-year-old traveling secretary
>> Jack McCormick in the clubhouse.
>>
>> So, if you're picking a team today, whom do you take in their prime? Dom
>> DiMaggio or Manny Ramírez? The statistics say Manny. That's the wrong
>> choice. Dom DiMaggio was a class act who brought out the best in his
>> teammates. He respected the game because he respected himself and
>> others. Manny respects neither teammates nor the game.
>>
>> You would think that Manny's teammates would be mortified, appalled, and
>> furious with him, that he would never be welcomed back to their clubhouse.
>>
>> Hah.
>>
>> The Dodgers are counting the days until he comes back, because that
>> might mean a championship and millions more for all their bank accounts.
>> Meanwhile, the Yankees are thrilled to have A-Roid, their DH -
>> designated hypocrite - back in the lineup. They're back in business in
>> the Bronx.
>>
>> Baseball is more than our national pastime. It is a reflection of what
>> we are as a people. And right now the reflection isn't very pretty.
>> Comparing Dom DiMaggio and Manny Ramírez is not merely a reflection of
>> the characters of two baseball players, but a reflection of what we have
>> become.
>>
>> Americans have always loved winners. Now we tolerate jerks, as long as
>> they can hit a fastball. We love to bask in the reflected glory of grown
>> men who get paid millions to play a kid's game. Dodgers fans used to
>> taunt another cheater, Barry Bonds, mercilessly. Now, everybody at
>> Chavez Ravine is busy concocting excuses for Manny.
>>
>> Players like Dom DiMaggio thought nothing of putting their careers on
>> hold and going off to war. How many players would do that today? Manny
>> couldn't even be bothered to visit the wounded at Walter Reed Army
>> Medical Center when the Sox went to the White House to celebrate t

Re: Care to explain why it was so important to cover the trip of Bambi and Joe to get Hell Burgers?