Discussion:
Al Gore Looks Like Ted Kennedy
(too old to reply)
hoov85
2004-05-27 22:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Mr. N
2004-05-27 22:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html

"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.

Editor's note: Following is the full text of a speech by former Vice
President Al Gore at New York University on May 26.

- - - - - - - - - - - -




May 27, 2004 | George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility.
Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he
has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as
the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon.

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not
honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our
allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as
"a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice,
experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of
Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or
even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

How did we get from September 12th, 2001, when a leading French newspaper
ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we
had the goodwill and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all
felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought
to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America
since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment
was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they
meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act
preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather
an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to
ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military
action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent
threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere
assertion of a possible, future threat -- and the assertion need be made by
only one person, the president.

More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance" to
describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as
repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless,
naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as
dominance does.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all.
It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger
for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always
happens -- sooner or later -- to those who shake hands with the devil, they
find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with one's
soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom
power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as
animals, and degraded. We also know -- and not just from De Sade and
Freud -- the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other
people's pain. It has been especially shocking and awful to see these paired
evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of America.

Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of
news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire
policy in Iraq. But in order to understand the failure of our overall
policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu
Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions were representative of
who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately
it's more complicated than that.

There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States
special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and
our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural
distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy
are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in
our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.

Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse
of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better
angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation --
especially the temptation to abuse power over others.

Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is
needed in our Constitution because every human being lives with an internal
system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue
if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow
citizens.

Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by Specialist
Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph
M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower. When Darby asked him
to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The
Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love
to make a grown man piss on himself."

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random
acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush
administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has
made war on America's checks and balances.

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of
the truth that characterized the administration's march to war and the abuse
of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people
in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what
Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead
of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe
because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation
against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of
our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any
person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to
a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance,
willfulness and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat
whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and
tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have
resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all
of it done in our name. President Bush said in his speech Monday night that
the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the
central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the
central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may
last the rest of our lives.]

The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made
the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat
of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International
Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably
focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while
diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that
in the wake of the war in Iraq al-Qaida now has more than 18,000 potential
terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its
ranks.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military
professionals, and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its
conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and
cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell
doctrine of overwhelming force.

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for
nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting.

Luckily, there was a high level of competence on the part of our soldiers
even though they were denied the tools and the numbers they needed for their
mission. What a disgrace that their families have to hold bake sales to buy
discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the floorboards of the Humvees! Bake
sales for body armor.

And the worst still lies ahead. Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of the
Marine Corps, said, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We
are looking into the abyss."

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word
"abyss," then the rest of us damn well better listen. Here is what he means:
more American soldiers dying, Iraq slipping into worse chaos and violence,
no end in sight, with our influence and moral authority seriously damaged.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who headed Central Command before
becoming President Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East, said
recently that our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara Falls."

The Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Army Maj. Gen. Charles H.
Swannack Jr., asked by the Washington Post whether he believes the United
States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think strategically, we are."
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the U.S.
occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the
Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I promised myself when I came on
active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from
happening again." Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles
while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence
in our policy, we will lose strategically."

The White House spokesman Dan Bartlett was asked on live television about
these scathing condemnations by generals involved in the highest levels of
Pentagon planning and he replied, "Well they're retired, and we take our
advice from active duty officers."

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against
President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior
general at the Pentagon as saying, "the current OSD (Office of the Secretary
of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice." Rarely if ever
in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge
their commander in chief in public.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of senior
Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush
administration. He listed two reasons. "I think they are going to break the
Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't think they
care."

In his upcoming book, Zinni blames the current catastrophe on the Bush
team's incompetence early on. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war, and its later
conduct," he writes, "I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and
irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Zinni's book will join a growing library of volumes by former advisors to
Bush -- including his principal advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke; his
principal economic policy advisor, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill,
former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was honored by Bush's father for his
service in Iraq, and his former domestic advisor on faith-based
organizations, John Dilulio, who said, "There is no precedent in any modern
White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy
apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, run by the
political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress in February that the
occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." But because
Rumsfeld and Bush did not want to hear disagreement with their view that
Iraq could be invaded at a much lower cost, Shinseki was hushed and then
forced out.

And as a direct result of this incompetent plan and inadequate troop
strength, young soldiers were put in an untenable position. For example,
young reservists assigned to the Iraqi prisons were called up without
training or adequate supervision, and were instructed by their superiors to
"break down" prisoners in order to prepare them for interrogation.

To make matters worse, they were placed in a confusing situation where the
chain of command was crisscrossed between intelligence gathering and prison
administration, and further confused by an unprecedented mixing of military
and civilian contractor authority.

The soldiers who are accused of committing these atrocities are, of course,
responsible for their own actions and if found guilty, must be severely and
appropriately punished. But they are not the ones primarily responsible for
the disgrace that has been brought upon the United States of America.

Private Lynndie England did not make the decision that the United States
would not observe the Geneva Convention. Specialist Charles Graner was not
the one who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag of dark
rooms with naked prisoners to be "stressed" and even -- we must use the
word -- tortured -- to force them to say things that legal procedures might
not induce them to say.

These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White House.
Indeed, the president's own legal counsel advised him specifically on the
subject. His secretary of defense and his assistants pushed these cruel
departures from historic American standards over the objections of the
uniformed military, just as the Judge Advocates General within the Defense
Department were so upset and opposed that they took the unprecedented step
of seeking help from a private lawyer in this city who specializes in human
rights and said to him, "There is a calculated effort to create an
atmosphere of legal ambiguity" where the mistreatment of prisoners is
concerned.

Indeed, the secrecy of the program indicates an understanding that the
regular military culture and mores would not support these activities and
neither would the American public or the world community. Another implicit
acknowledgement of violations of accepted standards of behavior is the
process of farming out prisoners to countries less averse to torture and
giving assignments to private contractors.

President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of
the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had
been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met
a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the
United States and our allies."

George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he did. As
many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the
numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent
death, there were no autopsies.

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit
in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list
of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently
culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators
as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another
by the policies of George W. Bush.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney
administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world
and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such
dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States
of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.

David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with
the famous verdict: "We were all wrong." And for many Americans, Kay's
statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between reality and all of
the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building
support for his policy of going to war.

Now the White House has informed the American people that they were also
"all wrong" about their decision to place their faith in Ahmed Chalabi, even
though they have paid him $340,000 per month. Thirty-three million dollars,
and placed him adjacent to Laura Bush at the State of the Union address.
Chalabi had been convicted of fraud and embezzling $70 million in public
funds from a Jordanian bank, and escaped prison by fleeing the country. But
in spite of that record, he had become one of key advisors to the Bush
administration on planning and promoting the war against Iraq.

And they repeatedly cited him as an authority, perhaps even a future
president of Iraq. Incredibly, they even ferried him and his private army
into Baghdad in advance of anyone else, and allowed him to seize control
over Saddam's secret papers.

Now they are telling the American people that he is a spy for Iran who has
been duping the president of the United States for all these years.

One of the generals in charge of this war policy went on a speaking tour in
his spare time to declare before evangelical groups that the U.S. is in a
holy war as "Christian Nation battling Satan." This same Gen. Boykin was the
person who ordered the officer who was in charge of the detainees in
Guantánamo Bay to extend his methods to Iraq detainees, prisoners ... The
testimony from the prisoners is that they were forced to curse their
religion. Bush used the word "crusade" early on in the war against Iraq, and
then commentators pointed out that it was singularly inappropriate because
of the history and sensitivity of the Muslim world and then a few weeks
later he used it again.

"We are now being viewed as the modern Crusaders, as the modern colonial
power in this part of the world," Zinni said.

What a terrible irony that our country, which was founded by refugees
seeking religious freedom -- coming to America to escape domineering leaders
who tried to get them to renounce their religion -- would now be responsible
for this kind of abuse.

Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh told the Washington Post that he was tortured and
ordered to denounce Islam, and after his leg was broken one of his torturers
started hitting it while ordering him to curse Islam and then, "they ordered
me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." Others reported that they were forced to
eat pork and drink alcohol.

In my religious tradition, I have been taught that "ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so,
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The president convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was
responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. But in truth he had nothing
whatsoever to do with it. The president convinced the country with a mixture
of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league
with al-Qaida, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden.

He asked the nation, in his State of the Union address, to "imagine" how
terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons to
terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and gathering
threat to our nation. He planted the seeds of war, and harvested a
whirlwind. And now, the "corrupt tree" of a war waged on false premises has
brought us the "evil fruit" of Americans torturing and humiliating
prisoners.

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an
impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest lies in
having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new
broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make
a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of
the time the reins of power are finally wrested from the group of
incompetents that created this catastrophe.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed
proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately,
rapidly deteriorating, but should rather preserve his, and our country's,
options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national
nightmare is over.

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's approach
to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952.

When a business enterprise finds itself in deep trouble that is linked to
the failed policies of the current CEO the board of directors and
stockholders usually say to the failed CEO, "Thank you very much, but we're
going to replace you now with a new CEO -- one less vested in a stubborn
insistence on staying the course, even if that course is, in the words of
General Zinni, 'Headed over Niagara Falls.'"

One of the strengths of democracy is the ability of the people to regularly
demand changes in leadership and to fire a failing leader and hire a new one
with the promise of hopeful change. That is the real solution to America's
quagmire in Iraq. But, I am keenly aware that we have seven months and 25
days remaining in this president's current term of office and that
represents a time of dangerous vulnerability for our country because of the
demonstrated incompetence and recklessness of the current administration.

It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice, the
voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for ways to
sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the current
leadership team in place. It is for that reason that I am calling today for
Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate
resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney who are
most responsible for creating the catastrophe that we are facing in Iraq.

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal
competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing
day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers and sharply increasing
the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including
here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and
embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already
near the boiling point.

We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with
more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the
war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith
and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is
especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as secretary of
defense.

Condoleezza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national
security policy, should also resign immediately.

George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about George
Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and
decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have
regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have
new leadership at the CIA immediately.

As a nation, our greatest export has always been hope: hope that through the
rule of law people can be free to pursue their dreams, that democracy can
supplant repression and that justice, not power, will be the guiding force
in society. Our moral authority in the world derived from the hope anchored
in the rule of law. With this blatant failure of the rule of law from the
very agents of our government, we face a great challenge in restoring our
moral authority in the world and demonstrating our commitment to bringing a
better life to our global neighbors.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was
accused of corruption, but eventually, after a lot of publicity, the
indictment was thrown out by the judge. Donovan asked the question, "Where
do I go to get my reputation back?" President Bush has now placed the United
States of America in the same situation. Where do we go to get our good name
back?

The answer is, we go where we always go when a dramatic change is needed. We
go to the ballot box, and we make it clear to the rest of the world that
what's been happening in America for the last four years, and what America
has been doing in Iraq for the last two years, really is not who we are. We,
as a people, at least the overwhelming majority of us, do not endorse the
decision to dishonor the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights ...

Make no mistake, the damage done at Abu Ghraib is not only to America's
reputation and America's strategic interests, but also to America's spirit.
It is also crucial for our nation to recognize -- and to recognize
quickly -- that the damage our nation has suffered in the world is far, far
more serious than President Bush's belated and tepid response would lead
people to believe. Remember how shocked each of us, individually, was when
we first saw those hideous images. The natural tendency was to first recoil
from the images, and then to assume that they represented a strange and rare
aberration that resulted from a few twisted minds or, as the Pentagon
assured us, "a few bad apples."

But as today's shocking news reaffirms yet again, this was not rare. It was
not an aberration. Today's New York Times reports that an Army survey of
prisoner deaths and mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan "show a widespread
pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known."

Nor did these abuses spring from a few twisted minds at the lowest ranks of
our military enlisted personnel. No, it came from twisted values and
atrocious policies at the highest levels of our government. This was done in
our name, by our leaders.

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed
directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law. And the
dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of America --
it is also an illusory goal in its own right.

Our world is unconquerable because the human spirit is unconquerable, and
any national strategy based on pursuing the goal of domination is doomed to
fail because it generates its own opposition, and in the process, creates
enemies for the would-be dominator.

A policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates
enemies for the United States and creates recruits for al-Qaida, it also
undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating the
efforts of terrorists who wish harm and intimidate Americans.

Unilateralism, as we have painfully seen in Iraq, is its own reward. Going
it alone may satisfy a political instinct but it is dangerous to our
military, even without their commander in chief taunting terrorists to
"bring it on."

Our troops are stretched thin and exhausted not only because Secretary
Rumsfeld contemptuously dismissed the advice of military leaders on the size
of the needed force -- but also because President Bush's contempt for
traditional allies and international opinion left us without a real
coalition to share the military and financial burden of the war and the
occupation. Our future is dependent upon increasing cooperation and
interdependence in a world tied ever more closely together by technologies
of communications and travel. The emergence of a truly global civilization
has been accompanied by the recognition of truly global challenges that
require global responses that, as often as not, can only be led by the
United States -- and only if the United States restores and maintains its
moral authority to lead.

Make no mistake, it is precisely our moral authority that is our greatest
source of strength, and it is precisely our moral authority that has been
recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations and mean compromises of
conscience wagered with history by this willful president.

Listen to the way Israel's highest court dealt with a similar question when,
in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to
the security of its people:

"This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it,
and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a
democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it
nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition
of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its
understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its
strength."

The last and best description of America's meaning in the world is still the
definitive formulation of Lincoln's annual message to Congress on December
1, 1862:

"The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must
disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow citizens,
we cannot escape history ... the fiery trial through which we pass will
light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation ... We shall
nobly save, or meanly lose the last best hope of earth ... The way is plain,
peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever
applaud, and God must forever bless."

It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their
unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American
people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and,
we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of
Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the
victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

The same dark spirit of domination has led them to -- for the first time in
American history -- imprison American citizens with no charges, no right to
see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to know of what they
are accused, and no right to gain access to any court to present an appeal
of any sort. The Bush administration has even acquired the power to compel
librarians to tell them what any American is reading, and to compel them to
keep silent about the request -- or else the librarians themselves can also
be imprisoned.

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the right
of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the Congress to have
information to how they are spending the public's money and the right of the
news media to have information about the policies they are pursuing.

The same pattern characterizes virtually all of their policies. They resent
any constraint as an insult to their will to dominate and exercise power.
Their appetite for power is astonishing. It has led them to introduce a new
level of viciousness in partisan politics. It is that viciousness that led
them to attack as unpatriotic, Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in
combat during the Vietnam War.

The president episodically poses as a healer and "uniter". If he president
really has any desire to play that role, then I call upon him to condemn
Rush Limbaugh -- perhaps his strongest political supporter -- who said that
the torture in Abu Ghraib was a "brilliant maneuver" and that the photos
were "good old American pornography," and that the actions portrayed were
simply those of "people having a good time and needing to blow off steam."

This new political viciousness by the president and his supporters is found
not only on the campaign trail, but in the daily operations of our
democracy. They have insisted that the leaders of their party in the
Congress deny Democrats any meaningful role whatsoever in shaping
legislation, debating the choices before us as a people, or even to attend
the all-important conference committees that reconcile the differences
between actions by the Senate and House of Representatives.

The same meanness of spirit shows up in domestic policies as well. Under the
Patriot Act, Muslims, innocent of any crime, were picked up, often
physically abused, and held incommunicado indefinitely. What happened in Abu
Ghraib was difference not of kind, but of degree.

Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The
apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and
clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics
sometimes expresses itself in cruelty. It is also undeniably true that other
countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more brutally, than
ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in Stalin's Russia as "a
boot stamping on a human face forever." That was the ultimate culture of
cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic that everyone in it lived
in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was the nature and degree of state
cruelty in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not
congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others,
although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than
ours. And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should lead us to examine
more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic prison system.

But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great deal
about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is important to
note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed directly from the
policies of the Bush White House, those policies flowed not only from the
instincts of the president and his advisors, but found support in shifting
attitudes on the part of some in our country in response to the outrage and
fear generated by the attack of Sept. 11.

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise sensible
and levelheaded Americans fed them as well. I remember reading
genteel-sounding essays asking publicly whether or not the prohibitions
against torture were any longer relevant or desirable. The same grotesque
misunderstanding of what is really involved was responsible for the tone in
the memo from the president's legal advisor, Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote on
January 25, 2002, that 9/11 "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on
questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

We have seen the pictures. We have learned the news. We cannot unlearn it;
it is part of us. The important question now is, what will we do now about
torture. Stop it? Yes, of course.

But that means demanding all of the facts, not covering them up, as some now
charge the administration is now doing. One of the whistleblowers at Abu
Ghraib, Sergeant Samuel Provance, told ABC News a few days ago that he was
being intimidated and punished for telling the truth. "There is definitely a
coverup," Provance said. "I feel like I am being punished for being honest."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of
impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their
statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war
crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and
statements from the administration.

To me, as glaring as the evidence of this in the pictures themselves was the
revelation that it was established practice for prisoners to be moved around
during ICRC visits so that they would not be available for visits. That, no
one can claim, was the act of individuals. That was policy set from above
with the direct intention to violate U.S. values it was to be upholding. It
was the kind of policy we see -- and criticize -- in places like China and
Cuba.

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own
armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for
that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of the most
tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard
for any of us as Americans -- at least for a very long time -- to
effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other
governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so
monstrously.

This administration has shamed America and deeply damaged the cause of
freedom and human rights everywhere, thus undermining the core message of
America to the world. President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted
apology to the Arab world -- but he should apologize to the American people
for abandoning the Geneva Conventions.

He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into
harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders.

Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and
women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of
America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about
justice under a rule of law in their own lands.

Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere
apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept
responsibility and to hold people accountable.

And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus
far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the
worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of
the United States of America.

He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few
low-ranking enlisted people, whom he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco.

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast
ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a
nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to
prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as
president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that
ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every
turn to frustrate accountability ...

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that
President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at
what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world
to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of
Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and secret locations as-yet undisclosed as
completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the
American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable -- and I believe
we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We -- even we
here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility."
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
Damon Scott Hynes
2004-05-27 23:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. N
How did we get from September 12th, 2001, when a leading French newspaper
ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we
had the goodwill and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all
felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.
Remember when the French blew a Greenpeace boat up in New Zealand? Liberals
eat their own.
Lone Victor
2004-05-28 01:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
Post by Mr. N
How did we get from September 12th, 2001, when a leading French newspaper
ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we
had the goodwill and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all
felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.
Remember when the French blew a Greenpeace boat up in New Zealand? Liberals
eat their own.
Worse yet, they lied to New Zealand to get their agents back. France
applied diplomatic & economic pressures to get the murderers
transferred to French prison, promising to make them server out their
terms. Then they released them almost immediately.

France's actions in this case would be more believable if their name
was "Libya".



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
SNORKY
2004-05-28 00:03:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:54:38 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Mr. N
2004-05-28 02:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.

Why do you hate America?
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.

UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.

Your time is at an end.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the
central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war
on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for
terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.]
The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made
the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat
of terrorism against the United States. "
-Former Vice-President Al Gore, speech at New York Univeristy, May 26, 2004
Ben Nardi
2004-05-28 03:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Time to take the pills again, Mr Hateful LeftWing Lunatic!
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
Why do you hate America?
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Mr. N
2004-05-28 03:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Nardi
Time to take the pills again, Mr Hateful LeftWing Lunatic!
You woudn't know a "left-winger" if they bit you on the ass. To you
pig-fucking right-wing morons, anyone who dares disagree with Jesus Bush is
either crazy, treasonous or "hateful".

Let me tell you someething soon-to-be-extinct pig-fucker: YOU'RE GODDAMNED
RIGHT I'M FILLED WITH HATE FOR YOU AND ANYONE LIKE YOU FOR TURNING PEOPLE
AGAINST THIS GREAT NATION, AND ENDANGERING AMERICANS FOR GENERATIONS TO
COME.

There can be no forgiveness, only change.

Bank on it.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the
central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war
on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for
terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.]
The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made
the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat
of terrorism against the United States. "
-Former Vice-President Al Gore, speech at New York Univeristy, May 26, 2004
Ben Nardi
2004-05-28 04:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Scary. You're beyond psychological help!

I know someone who is going to in an impossibly grumpy mood on November 3rd.
Post by Mr. N
Post by Ben Nardi
Time to take the pills again, Mr Hateful LeftWing Lunatic!
You woudn't know a "left-winger" if they bit you on the ass. To you
pig-fucking right-wing morons, anyone who dares disagree with Jesus Bush is
either crazy, treasonous or "hateful".
Let me tell you someething soon-to-be-extinct pig-fucker: YOU'RE GODDAMNED
RIGHT I'M FILLED WITH HATE FOR YOU AND ANYONE LIKE YOU FOR TURNING PEOPLE
AGAINST THIS GREAT NATION, AND ENDANGERING AMERICANS FOR GENERATIONS TO
COME.
There can be no forgiveness, only change.
Bank on it.
Mr. N
2004-05-28 08:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Nardi
Scary. You're beyond psychological help!
I don't need help - I need what all of America needs - a change in the White
House, and I'm not talking about Bush's diapers.
Post by Ben Nardi
I know someone who is going to in an impossibly grumpy mood on November 3rd.
You right-wing stains on this nation will be running for the cyanide
capsules when you wake up that morning and realize you now will address John
Kerry as "Mr. President".

No being mean, now. Time of war and all that. Wouldn't want to lend aid
and comfort to the enemy by dissing a sitting President.

Looking forward to it.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
Damon Scott Hynes
2004-05-28 11:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. N
You right-wing stains on this nation will be running for the cyanide
capsules when you wake up that morning and realize you now will address John
Kerry as "Mr. President".
Sounds better when you speak it in the original Arabic.
--
Damon Scott Hynes is your Turbo Lover

http://home.att.net/~damonhynes/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheMarnyStanierAppreciationSociety/
Mr. N
2004-05-28 15:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
Sounds better when you speak it in the original Arabic.
Arabs would prefer Bush. After all, Bush has given the 9/11 mass murderers
everything they ever could have wanted.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
S&C Gilbert
2004-05-28 15:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
Sounds better when you speak it in the original Arabic.
Arabs would prefer Bush. After all, Bush has given the 9/11 mass murderers
everything they ever could have wanted.
From March 17, 2004:

CAIRO (Reuters) - WE WANT BUSH TO WIN says Al-Queda Linked group, after
claiming responsiblity for Spanish Bombing.


The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his
reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the
Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible
to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by
force rather than with wisdom."


In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:


"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats
have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and
Muslim nation as civilization."


"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."


The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running
out for allies of the United States.


###



"Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the ...
nation as civilization."

That's funny. The Religious Right says exactly the same thing.
JustForFun
2004-05-28 17:44:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 May 2004 10:32:19 -0500, "S&C Gilbert"
Post by Lone Victor
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
Sounds better when you speak it in the original Arabic.
Arabs would prefer Bush. After all, Bush has given the 9/11 mass
murderers
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
everything they ever could have wanted.
CAIRO (Reuters) - WE WANT BUSH TO WIN says Al-Queda Linked group, after
claiming responsiblity for Spanish Bombing.
The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his
reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the
Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible
to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by
force rather than with wisdom."
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats
have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and
Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running
out for allies of the United States.
Funny stuff...except, dontcha think if they REALLY wanted Bush elected
they'd be out there campaigning for Kerry knowing that physiologically
the American public will automatically support the opposite guy of who
Al Qaida claims to want?

Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
Randolph M. Jones
2004-05-28 18:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JustForFun
On Fri, 28 May 2004 10:32:19 -0500, "S&C Gilbert"
Post by Lone Victor
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
Sounds better when you speak it in the original Arabic.
Arabs would prefer Bush. After all, Bush has given the 9/11 mass
murderers
Post by Damon Scott Hynes
everything they ever could have wanted.
CAIRO (Reuters) - WE WANT BUSH TO WIN says Al-Queda Linked group, after
claiming responsiblity for Spanish Bombing.
The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his
reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the
Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible
to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by
force rather than with wisdom."
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats
have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and
Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running
out for allies of the United States.
Funny stuff...except, dontcha think if they REALLY wanted Bush elected
they'd be out there campaigning for Kerry knowing that physiologically
the American public will automatically support the opposite guy of who
Al Qaida claims to want?
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
EXCEPT that they know that you know that!
Bear
2004-05-29 18:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...

"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
JustForFun
2004-05-29 18:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
Cmon, Larry. Do you think these guys are STUPID? There is NO reason to
get involved in the American political process unless they are trying
to sway it...
will
2004-05-29 20:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.

Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
Allan Guyton
2004-05-29 22:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
And so far, it hasn't. Al-Qaeda and affiliated interests have to import
fighters to Iraq to keep that situation brewing.
Post by will
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
ROTFL. What do you know about the US forces in the Horn of Africa, Will?

What about those in the nation of Georgia?

It's more than conceivable, in fact it's all but certain that Bush is
indeed fighting a covert terror war alongside the more open operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's just not in the news because it's, well, covert.

Allan
will
2004-05-30 00:55:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:02:25 -0400, Allan Guyton
Post by Allan Guyton
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
And so far, it hasn't. Al-Qaeda and affiliated interests have to import
fighters to Iraq to keep that situation brewing.
Post by will
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
ROTFL. What do you know about the US forces in the Horn of Africa, Will?
Not much.
Post by Allan Guyton
What about those in the nation of Georgia?
They're there to enlarge our circle of influence and allow for more
pipelines out of Central Asia.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=georgia+bases+cowboys&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8gbv50ljomua4bldd77jf1737uk0sd5hfa%404ax.com&rnum=6
Post by Allan Guyton
It's more than conceivable, in fact it's all but certain that Bush is
indeed fighting a covert terror war alongside the more open operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's just not in the news because it's, well, covert.
Which only highlights the stupidity of the Iraq invasion, because it
is neither about the war on terror nor is it helping the war on
terror.
Post by Allan Guyton
Allan
JustForFun
2004-05-30 00:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:50:15 -0500, will
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
You got that ALL right except for the part about "Bush does a great
job of that for the terrorists". That actually goes against what Larry
is saying...though the way you termed it is pretty close to accurate.

When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't. You've heard KERRY do it,
though....repeatedly.
SNORKY
2004-05-30 01:43:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:23:55 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't. You've heard KERRY do it,
though....repeatedly.
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-30 16:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:23:55 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't. You've heard KERRY do it,
though....repeatedly.
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
SNORKY
2004-05-30 18:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:23:55 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't. You've heard KERRY do it,
though....repeatedly.
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
And then the next week he'll reverse his position. Kerry will lose,
b/c the public will sense he is completely unprincipled.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-31 16:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
And then the next week he'll reverse his position. Kerry will lose,
b/c the public will sense he is completely unprincipled.
If lack of principle is the deciding factor in this election, your boy
Dubya is stone guaranteed to be the stone one term president in the Bush
family... you're so fucking stupid you can't even realize the reason
Dubya is steadily dropping in the polls is people are coming to the
realization you can't TRUST him...
SNORKY
2004-05-31 19:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
And then the next week he'll reverse his position. Kerry will lose,
b/c the public will sense he is completely unprincipled.
If lack of principle is the deciding factor in this election, your boy
Dubya is stone guaranteed to be the stone one term president in the Bush
family... you're so fucking stupid you can't even realize the reason
Dubya is steadily dropping in the polls is people are coming to the
realization you can't TRUST him...
If true, that would indicate he is sticking to his principles. if he
didn't you would call him a liar. You have TONS to learn about
intellectual honesty.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-06-01 00:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
And then the next week he'll reverse his position. Kerry will lose,
b/c the public will sense he is completely unprincipled.
If lack of principle is the deciding factor in this election, your boy
Dubya is stone guaranteed to be the stone one term president in the Bush
family... you're so fucking stupid you can't even realize the reason
Dubya is steadily dropping in the polls is people are coming to the
realization you can't TRUST him...
If true, that would indicate he is sticking to his principles.
ROTFLMAO... first, you right wingers claim that conservative principles
are mainstream principles, what all REAL Americans ought to believe...
then, you turn around and claim that Dubya is becoming UNpopular because
"he's sticking to his (conservative) principles...
Post by SNORKY
if he
didn't you would call him a liar.
Uhhhhh, I HAVE called him a liar-- repeatedly... I've called him a liar
for claiming that Saddam Hussein was a close ally of al-Qaida, and using
that as a justification for going to war... it was already
well-documented that Osama held Saddam in CONTEMPT, considering him too
hedonistic to be a "real" Muslim... in that regard, he showed himself to
be a right wing little Arab... LOL...

I've also called him a liar for claiming that Saddam Hussein was sitting
on stockpiles of WMDs, a cache that posed a threat to our national
security... clearly, there were no such WMDs...
Post by SNORKY
You have TONS to learn about
intellectual honesty.
Trying to change the subject again?? The subject was PRINCIPLE, not
"intellectual honesty"... intellectual honesty is but one characteristic
of a principled man, and one that Dubya most assuredly does NOT
possess...

You right wingers REALLY don't want this election to turn into a
referendum on character, because your candidate doesn't have any... it
would be about as stupid as your continuing attempts to debate each
candidate's record of military service...
TOE
2004-06-01 01:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Uhhhhh, I HAVE called him a liar-- repeatedly... I've called him a liar
for claiming that Saddam Hussein was a close ally of al-Qaida, and using
that as a justification for going to war... it was already
well-documented that Osama held Saddam in CONTEMPT, considering him too
hedonistic to be a "real" Muslim... in that regard, he showed himself to
be a right wing little Arab... LOL...
Please provide the quote where Bush states
that Hussein and al Qaida are "close allies."
Thanks.

-TOE

<snip>
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
ROTFLMAO... first, you right wingers claim that conservative principles
are mainstream principles, what all REAL Americans ought to believe...
then, you turn around and claim that Dubya is becoming UNpopular because
"he's sticking to his (conservative) principles...
You keep stereotyping my politics, yet trying to maintain
respectabililty at the same time.

I find this as amusing as it is unsuccessful.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Ben Nardi
2004-05-31 06:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:23:55 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't. You've heard KERRY do it,
though....repeatedly.
Kerry has yet to lay out his plan for terrorists and Iraq. So you are
wrong again.
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
Well, that's about the extent that I expect he will give us! It's
sufficiently smart-ass enough to come from a uber-Liberal member of the
jackass Party, and lacking of any specifics so that a serial waffler
like Kerry can take ANY course of action if he's elected and even waffle
a few more times before implementing his vaporous "Plan!" And of course
idiots like you would swallow it hook line and sinker because he's not
Bush!
Bear
2004-05-31 16:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Nardi
Post by Bear
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
Well, that's about the extent that I expect he will give us! It's
sufficiently smart-ass enough to come from a uber-Liberal member of the
jackass Party, and lacking of any specifics so that a serial waffler
like Kerry can take ANY course of action if he's elected and even waffle
a few more times before implementing his vaporous "Plan!" And of course
idiots like you would swallow it hook line and sinker because he's not
Bush!
Wanting to get that incompetent fuckup out of office is hardly idiocy...
defending his record, on the other hand, IS idiocy...

My point is that Kerry doesn't excite me, but he's the only guy with a
shot at getting the President Putz out of office, so I'm stuck with
him... there's simply no chance in hell that I'll cast my vote for the
incumbent...

Your problem is not me, but how many other voters are feeling that way
these days...
SNORKY
2004-05-31 19:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by Ben Nardi
Post by Bear
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
Well, that's about the extent that I expect he will give us! It's
sufficiently smart-ass enough to come from a uber-Liberal member of the
jackass Party, and lacking of any specifics so that a serial waffler
like Kerry can take ANY course of action if he's elected and even waffle
a few more times before implementing his vaporous "Plan!" And of course
idiots like you would swallow it hook line and sinker because he's not
Bush!
Wanting to get that incompetent fuckup out of office is hardly idiocy...
defending his record, on the other hand, IS idiocy...
My point is that Kerry doesn't excite me, but he's the only guy with a
shot at getting the President Putz out of office, so I'm stuck with
him... there's simply no chance in hell that I'll cast my vote for the
incumbent...
Your problem is not me, but how many other voters are feeling that way
these days...
I see more ad hominems filling the intellectual holes in your
"arguments".


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-06-01 00:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Ben Nardi
Post by Bear
All he needs to say is "I won't fuck it up like Dubya has"...
Well, that's about the extent that I expect he will give us! It's
sufficiently smart-ass enough to come from a uber-Liberal member of the
jackass Party, and lacking of any specifics so that a serial waffler
like Kerry can take ANY course of action if he's elected and even waffle
a few more times before implementing his vaporous "Plan!" And of course
idiots like you would swallow it hook line and sinker because he's not
Bush!
Wanting to get that incompetent fuckup out of office is hardly idiocy...
defending his record, on the other hand, IS idiocy...
My point is that Kerry doesn't excite me, but he's the only guy with a
shot at getting the President Putz out of office, so I'm stuck with
him... there's simply no chance in hell that I'll cast my vote for the
incumbent...
Your problem is not me, but how many other voters are feeling that way
these days...
I see more ad hominems filling the intellectual holes in your
"arguments".
The ad hominems are just an adjunct to the arguments being made, which
is clearly laid out-- there is a significant percentage of the
electorate so outraged at this president that they'd vote for Teddy
Kennedy before they'd vote for Dubya...

Even if Kennedy chose Roger Moore as his running mate... and of course,
nobody who feels like that will ever be swayed into voting FOR Dubya...
he has no hope whatsoever of converting that voting bloc... the problem
is, that bloc grows with each passing day...
Bear
2004-05-30 16:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JustForFun
When did you last hear Bush taking specifics where terrorists are
concerned? You haven't.
Perhaps that's because the specifics of Dubya's anti-terrorist plan
aren't all that impressive... I'm just guessing, you understand, and
basing my guess on what a dismal failure that plan has been to date...
SNORKY
2004-05-30 01:39:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:50:15 -0500, will
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
How do you know about classified things you don't know about?


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
will
2004-05-30 02:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JustForFun
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:50:15 -0500, will
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
How do you know about classified things you don't know about?
What's so classified about invading Iraq and calling it part of the
WOT?
SNORKY
2004-05-30 17:58:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:20:16 -0500, will
Post by will
Post by JustForFun
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:50:15 -0500, will
Post by will
Post by Bear
Post by JustForFun
Think about it. the BEST way for them to get rid of Bush, is to claim
they want him to stay...
That sounds almost like Rayfield Wrong logic...you know, the way he used
to try to spin every positive comment about Quincy into a negative
comment...
"Here's what they REALLY meant"... :-)
It is obvious that the terrorists need notoriety and to be the focus
of public attention to create the upheaval they aim for. They do not
have enough firepower to do what they want, therefore their aim is to
create as much noise as possible and to ignite conflict and hope it
spreads.
Bush does a great job of that for the terrorists. To fight the
terrorists covertly removes the publicity they seek and does not
exacerbate tensions between countries and cultures.
How do you know about classified things you don't know about?
What's so classified about invading Iraq and calling it part of the
WOT?
I'm talking about other things that may not have been released to the
public.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
SNORKY
2004-05-28 22:17:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-29 18:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...

So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...

You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...

He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
:-)

And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer... after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
JustForFun
2004-05-29 18:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...
So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...
You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...
He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
LOL...Damn it, Larry, give Will back his tinfoil hat, pronto! It's not
your size.
Post by Bear
And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer...
Well shit....OF COURSE they are planning on it. They want Bush out of
office...REALLY bad.

Think about that for a second, Lar. IF they REALLY wanted Bush
re-elected, don't you think the smart move would be to pull out of
Iraq, and plan NO further attacks until after the election? IOW, make
it "appear" Bush is doing a great job, in order to give themselves 4
more years of "the wimp"?
Post by Bear
after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
Well...he "could" always go with John Kerrys platform (attack your
opponent at all costs and ignore the issues) and simply run on NOT
being an admitted war criminal....
SNORKY
2004-05-29 20:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...
So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...
You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...
He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
:-)
And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer... after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
Anyone with even the most simple awareness of presidential politics
knows the polls mean little until after the conventions.

Again, I find it very odd that you make all these personal attacks and
putdowns of me, yet you have NOTHING to offer: no cites, no proof,
nothing intellectual at all.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
JustForFun
2004-05-30 00:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...
So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...
You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...
He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
:-)
And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer... after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
Anyone with even the most simple awareness of presidential politics
knows the polls mean little until after the conventions.
Again, I find it very odd that you make all these personal attacks and
putdowns of me, yet you have NOTHING to offer: no cites, no proof,
nothing intellectual at all.
He doesn't have to. He owns your ass as-is....That's Larry's M.O....he
defeats his opponents on their own level.
SNORKY
2004-05-30 01:41:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:07:47 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...
So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...
You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...
He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
:-)
And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer... after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
Anyone with even the most simple awareness of presidential politics
knows the polls mean little until after the conventions.
Again, I find it very odd that you make all these personal attacks and
putdowns of me, yet you have NOTHING to offer: no cites, no proof,
nothing intellectual at all.
He doesn't have to. He owns your ass as-is....That's Larry's M.O....he
defeats his opponents on their own level.
Obviously not, as I provided facts backed up with their proof. He's
provided NOTHING but personal attacks, which completely contradicts
what you just (incorrectly) said.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Ben Nardi
2004-05-31 06:45:05 UTC
Permalink
That's because that's what these pinheads do. They attack the messenger
and yet they require NOTHING in the way of specifics from their
political candidates except for them to say "I'm running on the platform
that I'm not George W Bush!"
Post by SNORKY
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:07:47 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:28:52 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
Bullshit. Anything less than exposing this incompetent, corrupt and
murderous President for exactly what he is would be unpatriotic.
It looks like you have a lot of strong beliefs that are not backed up
by ANY facts, which makes me wonder how misinformed you are.
Post by Mr. N
Why do you hate America?
Anyone AGAINST a serious war on terrorists fits that bill, not me.
Post by Mr. N
Post by SNORKY
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with.
Bullshit. He spent 45 minutes backing up his statements with facts.
No, he did not. He went on like a lunatic.
Post by Mr. N
UnAmerican pig-fucking right-wing jackass.
Your time is at an end.
Aw contrare.
That's AU CONTRAIRE, Professor...
So now you're borderline illiterate in two languages, LOL...
You're also whistlin' past the graveyard... President Fuckup is in big
trouble right now, and you know it...
He might even have to pull Osama out of that jail cell he's had him
hidden away in by June, rather than holding him until October like he
originally planned... not much else could save his ass at this point...
:-)
And God help him if the recent FBI reports are true, and al-Qaida DOES
hit an American target this summer... after not only telling us that
he's the guy we want to fight terrorism, but making it the central theme
of his campaign...
Anyone with even the most simple awareness of presidential politics
knows the polls mean little until after the conventions.
Again, I find it very odd that you make all these personal attacks and
putdowns of me, yet you have NOTHING to offer: no cites, no proof,
nothing intellectual at all.
He doesn't have to. He owns your ass as-is....That's Larry's M.O....he
defeats his opponents on their own level.
Obviously not, as I provided facts backed up with their proof. He's
provided NOTHING but personal attacks, which completely contradicts
what you just (incorrectly) said.
--
Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!
Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!
NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.
*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2004-05-28 13:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:54:38 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron? It's an opinion - something that last I heard could
be freely expressed in America. And expressed without people feeling
obligated to question your patriotism. For the record, I fully agree
with Gore - this president is not only dishonest, he's also an imbecile.
Post by SNORKY
--
Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!
Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!
NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.
*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
Bear
2004-05-28 14:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:54:38 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...

Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
SNORKY
2004-05-28 22:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:54:38 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-29 18:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??

Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??

I knew that you could...

Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...

In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...

And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...

You also make him look intelligent...

In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
SNORKY
2004-05-29 20:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??
Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??
I knew that you could...
Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...
In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...
And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...
You also make him look intelligent...
In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
JustForFun
2004-05-30 00:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??
Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??
I knew that you could...
Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...
In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...
And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...
You also make him look intelligent...
In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Fuck off Snorkles, you've already proven you will NOT answer anything
that hits too close to home....

So, which Yale elementary did you attend?
SNORKY
2004-05-30 01:42:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:10:17 -0500, JustForFun
Post by JustForFun
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??
Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??
I knew that you could...
Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...
In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...
And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...
You also make him look intelligent...
In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Fuck off Snorkles, you've already proven you will NOT answer anything
that hits too close to home....
So, which Yale elementary did you attend?
HAhahaHAHA!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE FASCISM HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!



--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-30 16:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by JustForFun
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Fuck off Snorkles, you've already proven you will NOT answer anything
that hits too close to home....
So, which Yale elementary did you attend?
HAhahaHAHA!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE FASCISM HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!
Actually, JFF is waiting for ME to do it...

The REASON he's waiting for me to do it is real simple-- he's seen me
take on that EXACT challenge before, and quite effective... just as I've
just finished doing for you...

What you didn't realize is that way back in my college days, I wrote a
number of research papers on the subject of fascism in general, and
neo-fascism in Europe in the 1970s in particular... I had the advantage
of personal experience in the latter area, having lived in Germany in
the height of the resurgence of that movement... I saw a lot of it first
hand... I also had the advantage of touring the Dachau concentration
camp, which forcibly drove home the horrors of fascism, as practiced by
the Nazis...
SNORKY
2004-05-30 18:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by JustForFun
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Fuck off Snorkles, you've already proven you will NOT answer anything
that hits too close to home....
So, which Yale elementary did you attend?
HAhahaHAHA!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE FASCISM HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!
Actually, JFF is waiting for ME to do it...
The REASON he's waiting for me to do it is real simple-- he's seen me
take on that EXACT challenge before, and quite effective... just as I've
just finished doing for you...
What you didn't realize is that way back in my college days, I wrote a
number of research papers on the subject of fascism in general, and
neo-fascism in Europe in the 1970s in particular... I had the advantage
of personal experience in the latter area, having lived in Germany in
the height of the resurgence of that movement... I saw a lot of it first
hand... I also had the advantage of touring the Dachau concentration
camp, which forcibly drove home the horrors of fascism, as practiced by
the Nazis...
Where did you go to college?


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-31 16:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Where did you go to college?
Some place where they taught political science... apparently, they don't
do that at Yale, LOL...
SNORKY
2004-05-31 19:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Where did you go to college?
Some place where they taught political science... apparently, they don't
do that at Yale, LOL...
When they went over fascism, were you distracted by a bee?


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-06-01 00:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Where did you go to college?
Some place where they taught political science... apparently, they don't
do that at Yale, LOL...
When they went over fascism, were you distracted by a bee?
Actually, when they went over fascism, I was tapped to give the
lecture... the professor had already read my little treatise on
neo-fascism in Europe, and was quite impressed...

True story... I was also called on to lecture the corps of cadets on the
battle of Gettysburg in my Military Sciences class...
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Where did you go to college?
Some place where they taught political science... apparently, they don't
do that at Yale, LOL...
When they went over fascism, were you distracted by a bee?
Actually, when they went over fascism, I was tapped to give the
lecture... the professor had already read my little treatise on
neo-fascism in Europe, and was quite impressed...
Did you progress so far as to learn what "Nazi" stands for?
That would be very important in understanding if Hilter's fascism was
leftwing or rightwing.




--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
S&C Gilbert
2004-05-30 13:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Even though I know better than to step betwen Bear & Snorky when they're
play fighting with each other, here's the definition from one of the
founders of that political genre:

"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the
marriage of government and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
Bear
2004-05-30 16:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by S&C Gilbert
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Even though I know better than to step betwen Bear & Snorky when they're
play fighting with each other, here's the definition from one of the
"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the
marriage of government and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
Whoa, what an elegant addition to the list of definitions I provided...
can't get much more authoritative than one of the architects of that
political movement...

Most telling is how this indictment fits the current administration-- a
marriage of government and corporate power...
SNORKY
2004-05-30 18:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by S&C Gilbert
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Even though I know better than to step betwen Bear & Snorky when they're
play fighting with each other, here's the definition from one of the
"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the
marriage of government and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
Whoa, what an elegant addition to the list of definitions I provided...
can't get much more authoritative than one of the architects of that
political movement...
Most telling is how this indictment fits the current administration-- a
marriage of government and corporate power...
Since fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT, then that marriage would be
controlled by GOVERNMENT, not the corporations. (the "DUH" heard
around the world).


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-31 16:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by S&C Gilbert
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Even though I know better than to step betwen Bear & Snorky when they're
play fighting with each other, here's the definition from one of the
"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the
marriage of government and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
Whoa, what an elegant addition to the list of definitions I provided...
can't get much more authoritative than one of the architects of that
political movement...
Most telling is how this indictment fits the current administration-- a
marriage of government and corporate power...
Since fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT, then that marriage would be
controlled by GOVERNMENT, not the corporations. (the "DUH" heard
around the world).
Once again, Professor Semantics steps on his dick-- where in Mussolini's
definition did it say ANYTHING about "control"??

What it said, was a MARRIAGE of government and corporations... there are
all kinds of marriages, in some the husband is the dominant personality,
in some the wife is... what I find completely ironic is the way you seem
to be admitting that corporations are now controlling the government...

This is precisely the point behind my little taunt about Dubya being a
wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, dipshit...
SNORKY
2004-05-31 19:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by S&C Gilbert
Post by SNORKY
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
Even though I know better than to step betwen Bear & Snorky when they're
play fighting with each other, here's the definition from one of the
"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the
marriage of government and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
Whoa, what an elegant addition to the list of definitions I provided...
can't get much more authoritative than one of the architects of that
political movement...
Most telling is how this indictment fits the current administration-- a
marriage of government and corporate power...
Since fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT, then that marriage would be
controlled by GOVERNMENT, not the corporations. (the "DUH" heard
around the world).
Once again, Professor Semantics steps on his dick-- where in Mussolini's
definition did it say ANYTHING about "control"??
SOmewhere in the 8 or 10 definitions you posted.
Your own cites proved you wrong, which is HILARIOUS!!!!!!
Post by Bear
What it said, was a MARRIAGE of government and corporations... there are
all kinds of marriages, in some the husband is the dominant personality,
in some the wife is... what I find completely ironic is the way you seem
to be admitting that corporations are now controlling the government...
This is precisely the point behind my little taunt about Dubya being a
wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, dipshit...
Now that's just SAD. Be a man and admit you were wrong.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-06-01 00:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
What it said, was a MARRIAGE of government and corporations... there are
all kinds of marriages, in some the husband is the dominant personality,
in some the wife is... what I find completely ironic is the way you seem
to be admitting that corporations are now controlling the government...
This is precisely the point behind my little taunt about Dubya being a
wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, dipshit...
Now that's just SAD. Be a man and admit you were wrong.
Well, isn't THAT just like your archetypical right wing propagandist--
demands that *I* admit I'm wrong, when I'm clearly NOT...

C'mon, aren't there any other readers out there who remember their
political science classes in college, who can verify for Snorky that
what I said is indeed what they teach in there?? Surely I'm not the
only one who studied fascism in school...
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
What it said, was a MARRIAGE of government and corporations... there are
all kinds of marriages, in some the husband is the dominant personality,
in some the wife is... what I find completely ironic is the way you seem
to be admitting that corporations are now controlling the government...
This is precisely the point behind my little taunt about Dubya being a
wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, dipshit...
Now that's just SAD. Be a man and admit you were wrong.
Well, isn't THAT just like your archetypical right wing propagandist--
demands that *I* admit I'm wrong, when I'm clearly NOT...
C'mon, aren't there any other readers out there who remember their
political science classes in college, who can verify for Snorky that
what I said is indeed what they teach in there?? Surely I'm not the
only one who studied fascism in school...
You are apparently the only one who studied it WRONG
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT NAZI STANDS FOR????

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-30 16:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??
Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??
I knew that you could...
Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...
In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...
And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...
You also make him look intelligent...
In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
How 'bout we let a number of different online dictionaries do the job
for me?? First up, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:


"Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from
Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.
W. Aldridge>"


Seems like you've been energetically exalting the nation over the
individual, with your claims that legitimate protest of the war in Iraq
is somehow "unpatriotic"... that also fits nicely into "social
regimentation", and skirts right up to "forcible suppression of
opposition" (the reader has little doubt that you'd enthusiastically
back such forcible suppression of opposition if you only you could get
away with it)...

And of course, you DO exhibit a strong tendency toward strong autocratic
control... next up, the Cambridge Dictionary Online:


"Fascism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is
not allowed

fascist [Show phonetics]
adjective (ALSO fascistic)
fascist groups
a fascist dictator/regime

fascist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
1 someone who supports fascism

2 a person of the far right in politics

3 DISAPPROVING someone who does not allow any opposition:
He reckons all policemen are fascists and bullies."


The passage of particular interest here is number 2-- a person of the
far RIGHT in politics... as I said earlier, fascism is at the extreme
right of the political spectrum, while communism is at the extreme
left... and YOU are on the extreme right, politically...

And of course, you'd LOVE a country in which political opposition is not
allowed... next up, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (4th Edition):


"SYLLABICATION: fas·cism
PRONUNCIATION: fshzm
NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by
centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A
political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of
government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."


"Stringent socioeconomic controls"... yup, that sounds like you...
"censorship"... in your case, ATTEMPTED censorship... "belligerent
nationalism"... calling everybody who disagrees with you "unpatriotic"
is obviously a manifestation of THAT syndrome...

Gee, each and every definition of fascism contains elements that fit
your ignorant, ultra-right wing ass to a T... LOL... for our fourth
definition, we turn to the One Look Dictionaries website:


"Quick definitions (Fascism)

# noun: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"


Once again, pay particular attention to the part that says that fascism
is opposed to LIBERALISM... well, we all know somebody else who's
opposed to LIBERALISM, in fact, STRONGLY opposed, don't we??

To sum up with MY personal definition of fascism, it is a right wing
political philosophy characterized by the cult of the leader, extreme
nationalism (often accompanied by racism), intolerance for dissenting
viewpoints (and a willingness to practice censorship)... it was also the
one political movement that seems most attracted to the use of
propaganda rather than a free press...

You personally believe in the cult of the leader (your precious Dubya),
your are a self-admitted right winger, you are hyper-nationalistic, you
have no tolerance for dissenting viewpoints and a willingness to TRY to
censor your opponents... and of course, you're clearly in love with the
use of propaganda over the truth...

I'll bet by now you're sorry you asked me for the definition of fascism,
LOL... it's almost like you didn't want to believe that fascism was a
RIGHT WING phenomenon...
SNORKY
2004-05-30 18:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron?
Snorky just has the archetypical fascist's knee-jerk reaction to hearing
anything he doesn't like-- you try to shut up the offender by claiming
that he's unpatriotic...
Of course, attempts at fascistic censorship are even more unpatriotic,
IMHO...
Once again, you go for a personal attack, since you have no
intellectual contributions EVER.
You mean, intellectual contributions like "He is CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE,
GRAPES. What a loser"??
Hmmmm, Mr. "Personal Attacks Are Wrong", calling people "losers"... can
you say "hypocrite", bitch??
I knew that you could...
Worse, what you call a personal attack was in fact a completely
legitimate observation-- you have this comical tendency to label anybody
who disagrees with your ultra-right wing mindset "unpatriotic"... this
IS a blatant-- if juvenile-- attempt to censor your opponent's speech...
and censorship IS one of the hallmarks of fascism...
In fact, Herr Snork, fascism IS right wing... its polar opposite is
socialism, which is of course ultra-LEFT wing... the most extreme
conservatives are fascists...
And you, Herr Snork, are the most idiotically extreme conservative that
I've run into in quite a while... you make Rush Limbaugh look like a
moderate...
You also make him look intelligent...
In conclusion, free speech is free speech, and is the right of all
Americans... this fundamental right cannot be suspended, even in time of
war... any American who attempts to deny another American his free
speech is as unpatriotic as it is possible to get... your inability to
grasp that most basic of concepts proves my oft-stated assertion that
you don't have the first fucking clue what being an American is about...
Ok "smart" guy, define fascism.
How 'bout we let a number of different online dictionaries do the job
"Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from
Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.
W. Aldridge>"
Seems like you've been energetically exalting the nation over the
individual, with your claims that legitimate protest of the war in Iraq
is somehow "unpatriotic"... that also fits nicely into "social
regimentation", and skirts right up to "forcible suppression of
opposition" (the reader has little doubt that you'd enthusiastically
back such forcible suppression of opposition if you only you could get
away with it)...
And of course, you DO exhibit a strong tendency toward strong autocratic
"Fascism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is
not allowed
fascist [Show phonetics]
adjective (ALSO fascistic)
fascist groups
a fascist dictator/regime
fascist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
1 someone who supports fascism
2 a person of the far right in politics
He reckons all policemen are fascists and bullies."
The passage of particular interest here is number 2-- a person of the
far RIGHT in politics... as I said earlier, fascism is at the extreme
right of the political spectrum, while communism is at the extreme
left... and YOU are on the extreme right, politically...
And of course, you'd LOVE a country in which political opposition is not
allowed... next up, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
"SYLLABICATION: fas·cism
PRONUNCIATION: fshzm
NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by
centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A
political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of
government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."
"Stringent socioeconomic controls"... yup, that sounds like you...
"censorship"... in your case, ATTEMPTED censorship... "belligerent
nationalism"... calling everybody who disagrees with you "unpatriotic"
is obviously a manifestation of THAT syndrome...
Gee, each and every definition of fascism contains elements that fit
your ignorant, ultra-right wing ass to a T... LOL... for our fourth
"Quick definitions (Fascism)
# noun: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"
Once again, pay particular attention to the part that says that fascism
is opposed to LIBERALISM... well, we all know somebody else who's
opposed to LIBERALISM, in fact, STRONGLY opposed, don't we??
To sum up with MY personal definition of fascism, it is a right wing
political philosophy characterized by the cult of the leader, extreme
nationalism (often accompanied by racism), intolerance for dissenting
viewpoints (and a willingness to practice censorship)... it was also the
one political movement that seems most attracted to the use of
propaganda rather than a free press...
You personally believe in the cult of the leader (your precious Dubya),
your are a self-admitted right winger, you are hyper-nationalistic, you
have no tolerance for dissenting viewpoints and a willingness to TRY to
censor your opponents... and of course, you're clearly in love with the
use of propaganda over the truth...
I'll bet by now you're sorry you asked me for the definition of fascism,
LOL... it's almost like you didn't want to believe that fascism was a
RIGHT WING phenomenon...
Centralized authority and government controls over industry (and the
economy) are the hallmarks of LIBERALS, not conservatives.

Which party is always criticized for letting loose business from gov't
control and advocating states' rights? (you can't argue that Repubs
are paid for by big business AND put excessive controls on them at the
same time...that's simple not credible).

I find it hilarious you posted all these definitions that you THINK
support your argument, but in fact they DO NOT.

I find it doubly hilarious you have added to that about a week of
personal attacks at my intelligence, yet you have clearly been snared
by VERY SIMPLE terminology.

You would think that after reading at least 7 or 8 definitions of
"fascism" a lightbulb would have gone off over your head. It's
obvious something went OVER YOUR HEAD, but it's definitely not a light
bulb (unless the bulb was thrown at you by the DNC for contradicting
50 years of their partisan attacks against the Repubs).

AHAAahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
AHAHAAH!!
HAAHAHAHAH~~H~H!!H

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!



--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-31 16:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
I'll bet by now you're sorry you asked me for the definition of fascism,
LOL... it's almost like you didn't want to believe that fascism was a
RIGHT WING phenomenon...
Centralized authority and government controls over industry (and the
economy) are the hallmarks of LIBERALS, not conservatives.
Which is one distinction that separates ultra-conservatives from true
fascists... think of ultra-conservatives as fasicsts in training...

Conservatives are on the political right... arch-conservatives are
further to the right, and then fascists are further out on the political
spectrum...
Post by SNORKY
I find it hilarious you posted all these definitions that you THINK
support your argument, but in fact they DO NOT.
At least two of those definitions clearly identified fascism as an
ultra-right wing political philosophy... you are an ultra-right winger,
you've never even bothered to dispute that...

There goes that fascistic fondness for propaganda-- claiming that my
definitions did not show fascism to be a right wing phenomenon, when
anybody who read my post clearly saw that they did, on more than one
occasion...

Of course, anybody who ever took a political science course in college
knows that fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the political
spectrum, and are of course natural enemies (hence the Russian hatred
for Hitler)... fascism is at the extreme right of the political
spectrum, communism is at the extreme left...

You might not like hearing that, being a devoted little fascist wannabe,
but it's the plain and simple truth...
SNORKY
2004-05-31 19:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
I'll bet by now you're sorry you asked me for the definition of fascism,
LOL... it's almost like you didn't want to believe that fascism was a
RIGHT WING phenomenon...
Centralized authority and government controls over industry (and the
economy) are the hallmarks of LIBERALS, not conservatives.
Which is one distinction that separates ultra-conservatives from true
fascists... think of ultra-conservatives as fasicsts in training...
That would be an ultra-liberal. An ultra-Con is a libertarian, who
believes in very little gov't interference.
Post by Bear
Conservatives are on the political right... arch-conservatives are
further to the right, and then fascists are further out on the political
spectrum...
You are more than just a little confused.
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
I find it hilarious you posted all these definitions that you THINK
support your argument, but in fact they DO NOT.
At least two of those definitions clearly identified fascism as an
ultra-right wing political philosophy... you are an ultra-right winger,
you've never even bothered to dispute that...
Fascism is left wing and deals with government control over
production. Deal with it.
Post by Bear
There goes that fascistic fondness for propaganda-- claiming that my
definitions did not show fascism to be a right wing phenomenon, when
anybody who read my post clearly saw that they did, on more than one
occasion...
Of course, anybody who ever took a political science course in college
knows that fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the political
spectrum, and are of course natural enemies (hence the Russian hatred
for Hitler)... fascism is at the extreme right of the political
spectrum, communism is at the extreme left...
You might not like hearing that, being a devoted little fascist wannabe,
but it's the plain and simple truth...
--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
S&C Gilbert
2004-05-31 22:29:58 UTC
Permalink
"SNORKY", demonstrating that if nothing else, his skills as a verbal
Post by SNORKY
Fascism is left wing and deals with government control over
production.
Sigh . . . Yale owes you a refund . . . if not for the presumed education,
then for the way your brain is padlocked . . .

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or
by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.

Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political
movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from
the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement,
fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also
refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a
projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by
an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's
group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements
in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and
ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
SNORKY
2004-05-31 23:40:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:29:58 -0500, "S&C Gilbert"
Post by S&C Gilbert
"SNORKY", demonstrating that if nothing else, his skills as a verbal
Post by SNORKY
Fascism is left wing and deals with government control over
production.
Sigh . . . Yale owes you a refund . . . if not for the presumed education,
then for the way your brain is padlocked . . .
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or
by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ahem, my refund would be denied on these grounds (above). Those
CONTROLS are what liberals, not conservatives, do. Liberals want to
control big business and allow no driling in Anwar; conservatives want
to drill in Anwar.

Do you know what "NAZI" stands for????

DUH.

You people make me sad.
Post by S&C Gilbert
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political
movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from
the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement,
fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also
refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a
projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by
an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's
group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements
in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and
ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Uh??????? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!!



--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
S&C Gilbert
2004-06-01 00:21:41 UTC
Permalink
"SNORKY", making his lack of understanding of nuance painfully obvious and
his obliviousness painfully clear, writes this about National Socialism, in
Post by SNORKY
Uh??????? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!!
The writings of George Orwell must just go right over your head like a
jetplane . . .
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:12:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:21:41 -0500, "S&C Gilbert"
Post by S&C Gilbert
"SNORKY", making his lack of understanding of nuance painfully obvious and
his obliviousness painfully clear, writes this about National Socialism, in
Post by SNORKY
Uh??????? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!!
The writings of George Orwell must just go right over your head like a
jetplane . . .
Now you are citing works of FICTION??!???


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-06-01 01:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by S&C Gilbert
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahem, my refund would be denied on these grounds (above). Those
CONTROLS are what liberals, not conservatives, do.
So, because ONE ASPECT of the definition of fascism doesn't fit the
arch-conservative, we're supposed to ignore all the other aspects that
fit like a glove??

Ultra-conservatism is NOT the same thing as fascism, it's just heading
in that direction... they have a LOT in common, including an
ultra-nationalistic mindset, a love of propaganda, and a distaste for
opposing viewpoints...

BTW, conservatives ARE in favor of stringent social controls-- witness
the Patriot Act... it's ECONOMIC controls that they don't like...
Post by SNORKY
Do you know what "NAZI" stands for????
National Socialist... however, THEIR concept of socialism is very
different from yours, and was most assuredly NOT the precursor to
communism...

Hitler considered true socialism to be his mortal enemy... once again,
you are utterly clueless-- you see "socialist" in the Nazi name, and go
straight to knee jerk reaction...

I guess since China calls themselves the People's Republic of China,
their government is JUST like ours, eh??
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
So, because ONE ASPECT of the definition of fascism doesn't fit the
arch-conservative, we're supposed to ignore all the other aspects that
fit like a glove??
That's not exactly a trivial aspect. Looks like you are trying to
marginalize the most significant aspects, and emphasize things like
patriotism. This is misguided.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004

TOE
2004-06-01 01:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by S&C Gilbert
Sigh . . . Yale owes you a refund . . . if not for the presumed education,
then for the way your brain is padlocked . . .
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or
by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship,
Dude...these are the same.

<snip>
Post by S&C Gilbert
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
-TOE
Bear
2004-06-01 00:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Conservatives are on the political right... arch-conservatives are
further to the right, and then fascists are further out on the political
spectrum...
You are more than just a little confused.
I am aghast at the low quality education you received at Yale... this
stuff is basic textbook stuff in any political sciences class...
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
At least two of those definitions clearly identified fascism as an
ultra-right wing political philosophy... you are an ultra-right winger,
you've never even bothered to dispute that...
Fascism is left wing
Show me one credible definition of fascism that identifies it as left
wing... I have offered two that define it as a RIGHT wing phenomenon...
absent anything of substance on your side of the argument (other than
your own, obviously uninformed opinion), you lose this debate...

You saying "no, it's not" does NOT qualify as rebuttal... some actual
PROOF of your claims will be required...

In a way, this comes as no surprise to me-- most ultra-right wingers are
utterly clueless about political science...
SNORKY
2004-06-01 02:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
Conservatives are on the political right... arch-conservatives are
further to the right, and then fascists are further out on the political
spectrum...
You are more than just a little confused.
I am aghast at the low quality education you received at Yale... this
stuff is basic textbook stuff in any political sciences class...
I am aghast at how you cannot process even simple, critical thinking
skills. Don't you remember Shindler's List? Who told him what he had
to manufacture? DO YOU KNOW WHAT NAZI STANDS FOR???
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Post by Bear
At least two of those definitions clearly identified fascism as an
ultra-right wing political philosophy... you are an ultra-right winger,
you've never even bothered to dispute that...
Fascism is left wing
Show me one credible definition of fascism that identifies it as left
wing... I have offered two that define it as a RIGHT wing phenomenon...
And if I do, will you apologize and admit I am right?


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
SNORKY
2004-05-28 22:19:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:49:37 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
With no facts quoted, he has nothing to back this up with. He is
CLEARLY SOUR, PURPLE, GRAPES. What a loser.
What the fuck does the statement have to do with troops being on the
ground you moron? It's an opinion - something that last I heard could
be freely expressed in America. And expressed without people feeling
obligated to question your patriotism. For the record, I fully agree
with Gore - this president is not only dishonest, he's also an imbecile.
Obviously you have yet to realize such statements give moral support
to terrorists and lowers morale of our troops. Gore's actions and
words are not trivial.

--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Bear
2004-05-29 18:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Obviously you have yet to realize such statements give moral support
to terrorists and lowers morale of our troops.
Nothing lowers the morale of our troops more than being told they were
going over there for six months, only to find themselves still in the
field more than a year later...that's the real morale killer these days,
hoss-- the troops want to get the fuck out of there, period...
Post by SNORKY
Gore's actions and
words are not trivial.
No, they're quite substantial, and quite accurate...
JustForFun
2004-05-29 19:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Obviously you have yet to realize such statements give moral support
to terrorists and lowers morale of our troops.
Nothing lowers the morale of our troops more than being told they were
going over there for six months,
Sorry, they weren't told that. My Brother in law was one of the first
over there after the smoke from "shock and awe" cleared, and they were
told to expect *at least* a years tour. I'm playing golf with him,
tomorrow. (That's a little disingenuous because he's ONLY back because
his retirement was approved before he ever shipped out, his battalion
is still there, but expects to return to Germany within the next
couple of months)

BTW, you should SEE some of the shit he shipped back from Saddams
palaces (He spent 4 nights in one of them and two nights in another),
even though they had been looted before he ever got there. I seriously
doubt even Bill Gates home is decorated so ornately.
Post by Bear
only to find themselves still in the
field more than a year later...
Few of our troops have spent that entire time over there. Most of the
original troops are back (though some are on a second tour, already).
Post by Bear
that's the real morale killer these days,
hoss-- the troops want to get the fuck out of there, period...
Wrong again, Larry. Sorry man, but that just isn't the way it is.
These guys are getting frustrated not because of the rhetoric, or
because they are "still" over there, but because the AMERICAN media
isn't paying a damn bit of attention to what they are accomplishing.

They aren't watching CNN and saying "damn we are getting screwed by an
idiot president"...no sir...they are watching CNN and saying "Why are
these fuckwads not telling the WHOLE story".

Yeah, they DO want to come home, but they also want to finish the job
they are doing, first. They PITY the Iraqi people, and what they've
been through, particularly the living conditions they have been forced
to endure in a RICH nation.
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Gore's actions and
words are not trivial.
No, they're quite substantial, and quite accurate...
So he was Inaccurate while addressing the subject when he was actually
IN office, and his political rhetoric NOW is the REAL truth? Give me a
fucking break.
SNORKY
2004-05-29 20:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Obviously you have yet to realize such statements give moral support
to terrorists and lowers morale of our troops.
Nothing lowers the morale of our troops more than being told they were
going over there for six months, only to find themselves still in the
field more than a year later...that's the real morale killer these days,
hoss-- the troops want to get the fuck out of there, period...
They were ever told this would only last six months.
Post by Bear
Post by SNORKY
Gore's actions and
words are not trivial.
No, they're quite substantial, and quite accurate...
--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Exhibitionist
2004-05-31 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Nothing lowers the morale of our troops more than being told they were
going over there for six months, only to find themselves still in the
field more than a year later...that's the real morale killer these days,
hoss-- the troops want to get the fuck out of there, period...
Which is why we gave up after 6 months in WWII.
Gore is a fucking pussy and so is Lurch.
S&C Gilbert
2004-05-30 15:41:43 UTC
Permalink
"SNORKY" subtly shared his views, to wit (or no wit, in his IWENTTOYALE
Post by SNORKY
What a hideous, unpatriotic thing to say with troops on the ground.
William A. Whitlow is a retired major general in the Marine Corps. He served
as director of the expeditionary warfare division in the office of the
deputy chief of naval operations. He recently said:

"It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously flawed policies and
strategies needlessly cost American lives. It is time for the president to
ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and
military -- to resign from public service. Absent such a change in the
current administration, many of us will be forced to choose a presidential
candidate whose domestic policies we may not like but who understands
firsthand the effects of flawed policies and incompetent military strategies
and who fully comprehends the price."
Andrew Smith
2004-05-28 01:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. N
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
My irony meter just spun into the stratosphere.

a.
JustForFun
2004-05-28 02:28:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:54:38 -0700, "Mr. N"
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/print.html
"The most dishonest president since Nixon"
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts
Doesn't MATTER who he blasts...he has no credibility on ANY subject.
Post by Mr. N
George W. Bush for dangerously inept
leadership
Says the man who couldn't even manage a rental property...LOL.
Post by Mr. N
and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the
country.
Yeah, as I recall, those renters WERE "foreigners". I guess that's why
he thought he could treat them so poorly, eh?
Post by Mr. N
Editor's note: Following is the full text of a speech by former Vice
President Al Gore at New York University on May 26.
<snip>

Wasn't interested in Bushes speech 50 miles away, today, I'm sure not
interested in Gores speech yesterday.

For those who don't know, our President was making a speech and dining
at/near the University Al Gore flunked out of (Vanderbilt), today.
Anyone think that was a stab at Al, in his own backyard? ;-)
Doug Sorensen
2004-05-28 03:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when someone
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
You misspelled "endlessly repeat ridiculous lies from DNC talking
points to see how many idiots buy it." HTH

Doug
Ben Nardi
2004-05-28 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
He also forgot the "Al then received his big check from Moveon after the
speech, which he used to buy a handful of the same pills that Tipper
takes which he swallowed with a swig of French wine!"
Post by Mr. N
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing
since
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when
someone
Post by Mr. N
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
You misspelled "endlessly repeat ridiculous lies from DNC talking
points to see how many idiots buy it." HTH
Doug
dna batter
2004-05-28 23:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. N
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing
since
Post by Mr. N
Post by hoov85
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Gee it's neat how you jackass right-wingers get stirred up when
someone
Post by Mr. N
exposes one of your heros for the frauds that they are.
You misspelled "endlessly repeat ridiculous lies from DNC talking
points to see how many idiots buy it." HTH
Please to be citing the lies in Gore's speech.

And I'm sure you already know this but if you change "DNC" to "RNC"
you just described Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Laura
Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Bill O'Reilly,
Matt Drudge, Tony Snow, Dennis Miller, Michael Savage, Brit Hume, John
Gibson, Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson and all the other rightwingers
dominating the "liberal media".

Dan
Puggie_The_Porkrind
2004-05-27 22:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Maybe he's looking over his album from his military service in
Vietnam.
The Dude
2004-05-27 23:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
So Hoov's from Pittsburgh! Get on board with the rest of us Pennsylvanians,
vote Kerry. Rendell would want you to.
jbird
2004-05-28 12:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Dude
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
So Hoov's from Pittsburgh! Get on board with the rest of us Pennsylvanians,
vote Kerry. Rendell would want you to.
Yeah, I'm surprised that anyone from Virginia even knows that Ahrn Cidy
exists.


PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt
Dave Reid
2004-05-28 04:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Getting more votes is now "trounced"?

dave
Bear
2004-05-28 04:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Who gives a fuck about Al Gore?? Once again, it appears that you
right wing zealots are just about DESPERATE to change the subject from
Dubya's fuckups... you'd rather talk about Clinton and Gore-- neither
one of whom is currently running for ANY office-- than discuss Dubya's
record...

We all understand why that is, it must be quite embarrassing for you
to have to stick up for the Fuckup In Chief...
Ben Nardi
2004-05-28 05:54:04 UTC
Permalink
You obviously don't keep up with the daily news. This would explain most
of your posts!
Post by Bear
Post by hoov85
Gore has become another loser fat fucker - what's he been doing since
getting trounced by GWB in the election of 2000, guzzling Iron City
Beer? He could be Ted "Drive Me Over a Bridge" Kennedy.
Who gives a fuck about Al Gore?? Once again, it appears that you
right wing zealots are just about DESPERATE to change the subject from
Dubya's fuckups... you'd rather talk about Clinton and Gore-- neither
one of whom is currently running for ANY office-- than discuss Dubya's
record...
We all understand why that is, it must be quite embarrassing for you
to have to stick up for the Fuckup In Chief...
Tom Enright
2004-05-28 12:05:17 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658

"Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison
abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for
''humiliating'' our nation. How dare he. How dare a former vice president
of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's
policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush
as ''incompetent.'' How dare Gore say that Americans have an ''innate
vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And
that our own ''internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied
upon'' to curb such abuse. And this man - who apparently has so much
disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to
lead it? It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his
party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being
once held the second highest office in this great land."

-TOE

"The Enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while
it is true that the Enemy always hates us for a reason -- it is his reason,
and not ours."
-Lee Harris, "Civilization and its Enemies"
Bear
2004-05-28 13:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658
"Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison
abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for
''humiliating'' our nation. How dare he. How dare a former vice president
of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's
policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush
as ''incompetent.'' How dare Gore say that Americans have an ''innate
vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And
that our own ''internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied
upon'' to curb such abuse. And this man - who apparently has so much
disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to
lead it? It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his
party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being
once held the second highest office in this great land."
ROTFLMAO... if Gore had given speeches like that one during the 00
campaign, he would never have lost the election...
S&C Gilbert
2004-05-28 15:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
ROTFLMAO... if Gore had given speeches like that one during the 00
campaign, he would never have lost the election...
Agreed; however . . . .

( And here comes the part that will prompt our friends who hold a different
opinion to disagree (e.g.: Kev, JFF, Ben N {who gets on this side mainly
because he actually *likes* the 'Skins, but who still needs lessons in
comity, et. al.), and inspire the frontal lobe deficient, foul mouthed, mean
spirited and hateful boors (including though not limited to: Exhibitionist,
Civikman, Snarky - err - Snorky {Even though HE WENT TO YALE}, JF Kerry {I
guess Hoov, that pathetic, repugnant coward, got tired of using that as an
alias}) to spew like the Coulter/O'Reilly/Rush ventriloquist dummies that
they are . . .

(wait for it )

Gore didn't actually *lose* the election, except when you count a 5-4 vote
as a loss (Scalia & Thomas make a resident in chief)
SNORKY
2004-05-28 22:23:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 May 2004 10:21:31 -0500, "S&C Gilbert"
Post by S&C Gilbert
Gore didn't actually *lose* the election, except when you count a 5-4 vote
as a loss (Scalia & Thomas make a resident in chief)
They voted for GORE. Only a dunce wouldn't know that.

They remanded the case for a recount. DUH.

This is VERY BASIC stuff, only a mind obfuscated by partisanship would
not see thru it.


--

Snorky's 2004 New Year's Resolution: No Ad Hominems!

Guarantee: Catch ole Snork in an Ad Hominem and he
will leave RSFC forever*!

NOTE: Applies only to members/posters of RSFC and
not to idiot celebrities/politicians such as Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, etc.

*"Forever" cannot exceed 12/31/2004.

Debate Kill List:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis <drjudsjr> 12/30/2003
Jeffrey Davis 12/31/2003
VicXnews 01/20/2004
gribbee <***@...> 02/29/2004
"ccr"<***@....> 03/30/2004,04/10/2004
StephenJ 04/19/2004
Mr.N<***@hotmail.com> 05/01/2004
***@aol.comgetbush 05/04/2004
Zaphod Beeblebrox 05/14/2004
***@shentel.net (Bear) 05/15/2004
David Galehouse<***@cinci.rr.com> 05/15/2004
JustForFun <***@bellsouth.net> 05/16/2004
Ford
2004-05-30 11:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
Post by Tom Enright
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658
"Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison
abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for
''humiliating'' our nation. How dare he. How dare a former vice president
of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's
policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush
as ''incompetent.'' How dare Gore say that Americans have an ''innate
vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And
that our own ''internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied
upon'' to curb such abuse. And this man - who apparently has so much
disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to
lead it? It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his
party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being
once held the second highest office in this great land."
ROTFLMAO... if Gore had given speeches like that one during the 00
campaign, he would never have lost the election...
Yeah, kinda makes one wonder exactly who was serving whom in 2000, doesn't
it?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
dna batter
2004-05-28 23:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658
"Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison
abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for
''humiliating'' our nation. How dare he. How dare a former vice president
of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's
policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush
as ''incompetent.'' How dare Gore say that Americans have an ''innate
vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And
that our own ''internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied
upon'' to curb such abuse. And this man - who apparently has so much
disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to
lead it? It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his
party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being
once held the second highest office in this great land."
To lazy to post your own opinion? Or were you hoping someone would
mistake this for news?

Dan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...