"Lionel" wrote in message
...
paul packer a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
oil.


**I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that
it
was not about the oil.


I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person can over-simplify
to such an astonishing degree. These things are never "just" about
anything. The political idealism of Bush and his advisers has been well
documented. It was NOT just about oil.

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's constant
denials) allowed him to attack.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists. Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly, he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to all.

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:

Domestically, Bush is a nightmare. But what did the dems offer that
was better? IMO, nothing.
As far as taxes go... you obviously don't have a clue how little you
can make in ordinary income before the government starts taking 40+%
and eliminating all your deductions. You start feeling it well before
200K in ordinary income. How about a nice one time bonus like a
non-qualified stock option? It can be upto 47% in taxes, eliminated
deductions and AMT.

Yes. I am led to believe that we're expecting a bumper bonus this year,
which will naturally be taxed at 50%.

I think that rate is excessive, nothing fair about it. And the
whole tax law is getting worse when it comes to the "make the rich pay
for it". There was a bond initiative for something in Ca that came up
on the ballot every other year and never passed. This year they put a
wrinkle in it by funding it with a tweak in the tax code so only people
making over 100K income got tagged for it. It finally passed.
Follow that path to its natural conclusion.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush
&
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'. Much
as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.

Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
wrote:

There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
conservative.

Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
bastion
of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):

----

Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
very
conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they
were
muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

----
And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
losing
big
time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
and
balanced as well.

LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.

As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many
TV
news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
Look
at how outnumbered George Will is.


You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
"liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
hosts, than there are liberals.

Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta they
always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
they discuss.

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
wrote:

There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
conservative.

Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
bastion
of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):

----

Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
very
conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they
were
muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

----
And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
losing
big
time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
and
balanced as well.

LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.

As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many
TV
news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
Look
at how outnumbered George Will is.


You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
"liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
hosts, than there are liberals.

Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta they
always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
they discuss.

A "liberal viewpoint" by people you call "liberal" who don't give that
viewpoint, such as Greta.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush
&
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.

Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

Not that it's you job to woory about his duty to the U.S.

In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq, he
is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the world,
thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as well.

It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than that
in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal family
is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a looney bin.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
wrote:

There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
conservative.

Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
bastion
of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):

----

Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a
more
comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was
never
censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
very
conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that
they
were
muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

----
And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
losing
big
time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being
fair
and
balanced as well.

LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.

As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing
their
ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed
many
TV
news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
Look
at how outnumbered George Will is.


You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
"liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
hosts, than there are liberals.

Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta
they
always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
they discuss.

A "liberal viewpoint" by people you call "liberal" who don't give that
viewpoint, such as Greta.

It is AFAIK a fact that she is a liberal. It is also a fact that the hosts
of the shows on FNC are not told what they can and cannot say.

It is also a fact that there are many people on FNC that are Liberal and
espouse a Liberal viewpoint.

It is also a fact that they give opposing viewpoints on every topic they
discuss.
When the bias of the persons hosting the shows is known and always subjected
to an opposing viewpoint I see no bias towards the GOP or any other
political party.

If they were the GOP news channel no other views would be represented, and
certainly not half of the time.

If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
guess you will just have to watch more.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
..
In article
. net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

om.
..
In article
. net,
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in
message
...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
in
message
...
http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv

**You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series.
Much
was
local
humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
stupidity
of
the
average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
realise
how
Dubya
got
voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a
President
with
the
same
level of intelligence.


The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at
CNN
and
that
they
don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.

CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.

50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
commentary
is
Conservative.

Bull****.

Their news reporting is objective.

More bull****.

Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
reporting,
unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
networks.

You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
co-host
Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?

Greta Van Susteren,

Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has
she
ever said, specifically, to show that she:
A. is liberal?
B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
work?


On Fox it doesn't.

Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How
does
she show that she allegedly liberal?

AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time
when
I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt
there's
much opportunity for her to comment on such things.

Thanks for admitting that your use of her as your first example of a
liberal on Fox was bogus.


Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.

Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are
not
Liberals?

I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
Greta.



Next:
Mara Liasson,

What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint on, watch
the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be a Liberal and
compared to the other people on that panel that would seem to be the case,
considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the other from "The
Hill."

I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult time
finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is because
you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.

They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
..
In article
. net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

om.
..
In article
. net,
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in
message
...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
in
message
...
http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv

**You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series.
Much
was
local
humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
stupidity
of
the
average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
realise
how
Dubya
got
voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a
President
with
the
same
level of intelligence.


The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at
CNN
and
that
they
don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.

CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.

50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of
their
commentary
is
Conservative.

Bull****.

Their news reporting is objective.

More bull****.

Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not
objective
reporting,
unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
networks.

You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
co-host
Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?

Greta Van Susteren,

Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth
has
she
ever said, specifically, to show that she:
A. is liberal?
B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in
her
work?


On Fox it doesn't.

Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How
does
she show that she allegedly liberal?

AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time
when
I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt
there's
much opportunity for her to comment on such things.

Thanks for admitting that your use of her as your first example of a
liberal on Fox was bogus.


Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.

Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are
not
Liberals?

I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
Greta.



Next:
Mara Liasson,

What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some time,
I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint on,
watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be a
Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem to
be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the other
from "The Hill."

Let's fix the above paragraph.

It should go more like this:

Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she might
have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be Liberal,
especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of the Weekly
Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.


I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.

They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.

wrote in message
nk.net...


What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some
time, I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint
on, watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
a Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem
to be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the
other from "The Hill."

Let's fix the above paragraph.

It should go more like this:

Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she might
have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be Liberal,
especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of the Weekly
Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.


I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.

They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.




some interesting sidebars:

http://www.scientology-kills.org/cel...ansusteren.htm

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...5604093.column

her sister is running as a Democrat for the Maryland US Senate seat.
BUT, I never heard of this till this morning.

http://www.vansusterenforsenate.com/bio

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...
: I think that rate is excessive, nothing fair about it. And the
: whole tax law is getting worse when it comes to the "make the rich pay
: for it". There was a bond initiative for something in Ca that came up
: on the ballot every other year and never passed. This year they put a
: wrinkle in it by funding it with a tweak in the tax code so only people
: making over 100K income got tagged for it. It finally passed.
: Follow that path to its natural conclusion.
:
: ScottW
:
sounds like a chessgame where the rich may get checkmated
too few queens..

;-)

what about taking the following to it's conclusion ?

there is always ample opportunity to realize a return on investment
that is well above inflation levels if you have the capital to invest

all true, then, money makes money,
but with it comes power, not only _buying power_,
evidently,

and forces creating counter forces
great difference makes for great outrage

so a society that let's capital _pile up unchecked_
will become more and more unstable

there is no easy solution for stability and prosperity,
it seems

Rudy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, wrote:

If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
guess you will just have to watch more.

You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
minority. By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).

BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
"Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
them anyway...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...


What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some
time, I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint
on, watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
a Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem
to be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the
other from "The Hill."

Let's fix the above paragraph.

It should go more like this:

Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she
might have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
Liberal, especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of
the Weekly Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.


I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.

They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.




some interesting sidebars:

http://www.scientology-kills.org/cel...ansusteren.htm

Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...5604093.column

Seems like Mr. Moore was reaching just a bit too far in his attempt to
slander.

her sister is running as a Democrat for the Maryland US Senate seat.
BUT, I never heard of this till this morning.

http://www.vansusterenforsenate.com/bio

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, wrote:

If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
guess you will just have to watch more.

You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
minority.

The hosts might be, but the liberal viewpoint is presented daily, in every
item they discuss.

By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).

BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
"Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
them anyway...

I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
blown out of proprtion.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.

Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

Not that it's you job to woory about his duty to the U.S.

**It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the planet.
Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not defending US
citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their deaths in Iraq.


In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq, he
is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
well.

**If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this area.


It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
looney bin.

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

NOT!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, wrote:

If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
guess you will just have to watch more.

You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
minority.

The hosts might be, but the liberal viewpoint is presented daily, in every
item they discuss.


Well, YOU said "when the Liberal hosts views are expressed".

By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).

BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
"Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
them anyway...

I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

Only to capture, and then release, Iraqi war criminals.

Apparently, catching that peasant Saddam is enough for the neocons. No
need to bring the real perpetrators to justice after all.

I must admit that even I was surprised after I read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc;_...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Why did they show up to question him?
Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.


Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem to
think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
invaded them.

Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
directly, he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.

**It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the planet.
Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not defending US
citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their deaths in
Iraq.

In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been and
considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is exteremely
small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is a volunteer,
and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.

The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of. It is
going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab world
the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have a base of
operations that is very strategic.


In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
he is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
well.

**If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
area.

Much better than under the former ruler. I suspect there will be some sort
of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
country.

Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil would
matter, or at least not nearly as much.


It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
looney bin.

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

NOT!

The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the way
Saddam did.
Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.
Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.

wrote in message
nk.net...



some interesting sidebars:

http://www.scientology-kills.org/cel...ansusteren.htm

Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.


Judaism has some ridiculous rules.
Its ok to wipe your ass on the Sabbath,
yet it is NOT ok to tear a sheet
of toilet paper off the roll.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Why did they show up to question him?

Here's the story.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a09lo650.htm

You decide.

Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
can be an indictment.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
cares?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Why did they show up to question him?

Here's the story.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a09lo650.htm

You decide.

So he wasn't arrested., just questioned. While it may be a bit over the
top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.


Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
can be an indictment.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
cares?

It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in the
Constitution could exist without it. That some folks on the right don't
acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative, or
a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness, since
I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about bias
in the media.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:10:29 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Why did they show up to question him?

Here's the story.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a09lo650.htm

You decide.

So he wasn't arrested., just questioned.

Well, that's exactly what I said. Did you think I said anything
different?

While it may be a bit over the
top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.

Great. Next, your neighbors might be questioned because you were in
Vietnam and have been monitored checking out right wing websites. It
sounds absurd on its face, but so does investigating an American
college Ivy league senior because he checked out a library book and
travelled overseas.

Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
can be an indictment.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
cares?

It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in the
Constitution could exist without it.

Well, we agree for a change. However, you seem to be in favor of
throwing out this very basic implied right.

That some folks on the right don't
acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative, or
a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness,

Perhaps I should have said "rightist", which you certainly are.
However, I would think that as a Libertarian, you'd be very concerned
about The Government overstepping its bounds on the pretext of
"protecting the people". Sure, you guys don't mind The Government
performing security functions, but I suspect that most Libertarians
would be suspicious about allowing The Government to function contrary
to the Constitution, regardless of the circumstances.

since
I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about bias
in the media.

I saw it. I wasn't surprised about it. I can see how YOU were
surprised since it didn't really support your ideas bout the sinister
nature of the media, although I don't know what this sudden veer in
the discussion has to do with the subject at hand.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:10:29 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, wrote:


I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
been
blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Why did they show up to question him?

Here's the story.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a09lo650.htm

You decide.

So he wasn't arrested., just questioned.

Well, that's exactly what I said. Did you think I said anything
different?

While it may be a bit over the
top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.

Great. Next, your neighbors might be questioned because you were in
Vietnam and have been monitored checking out right wing websites. It
sounds absurd on its face, but so does investigating an American
college Ivy league senior because he checked out a library book and
travelled overseas.

Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
can be an indictment.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
cares?

It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in
the
Constitution could exist without it.

Well, we agree for a change. However, you seem to be in favor of
throwing out this very basic implied right.

That some folks on the right don't
acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative,
or
a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness,

Perhaps I should have said "rightist", which you certainly are.
However, I would think that as a Libertarian, you'd be very concerned
about The Government overstepping its bounds on the pretext of
"protecting the people". Sure, you guys don't mind The Government
performing security functions, but I suspect that most Libertarians
would be suspicious about allowing The Government to function contrary
to the Constitution, regardless of the circumstances.

since
I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about
bias
in the media.

I saw it. I wasn't surprised about it. I can see how YOU were
surprised since it didn't really support your ideas bout the sinister
nature of the media,

The part that's sinister is that the tendency towards bias from certain
places has been denied.
Take the New York Times decision to run the story on the eavesdropping story
on the day of the Iraqi eclections when it was a story they had for a year.
What possible motive would there be for releasing it that day?


although I don't know what this sudden veer in
the discussion has to do with the subject at hand.

Fox News is part of the report in that they talk about the Brit Hume show
Special Report, plus we were talking about the perceived bias of Fox News,
so it seemed relevant to me that a report on bias be mentioned.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab
terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.


Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem
to think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
invaded them.

**Let's examine the facts:

* The vast majority (all?) of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.
* OBL is a Saudi
* The Saudi Royal Family has (and probably still is) funding OBL.
* I said nothing about invading anyone.

So, it is Saudis which caused the problems for the US and the US invaded
Iraq. That makes perfect sense.

NOT!


Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
directly, he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.

**It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the
planet. Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not
defending US citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their
deaths in Iraq.

In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been
and considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is
exteremely small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is
a volunteer, and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.

**Strawman noted. Dubya is not defending US citizens or territory. The real
enemy is in Saudi Arabia, yet Dubya does nothing.


The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of.

**Really? How's that? In your answer, please feel free to include references
to the bombing in Madrid, London, Bali, Jakarta and in Iraq, itself. Also
account for the massive extra security costs throughout the world.

It is
going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab
world the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have a
base of operations that is very strategic.

**Now you can predict the future? Wow!



In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
he is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
well.

**If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
area.

Much better than under the former ruler.

**And again. You're predicting the future.

I suspect there will be some sort
of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
country.

**And that justifies the death of 2,000+ US service personel how? Give me a
number. How much oil is each dead soldier worth?


Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil
would matter, or at least not nearly as much.

**Your inability to understand the processes involved is duly noted. The oil
in the US now costs more to extract, than is provided in energy by that same
amount of oil.



It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
looney bin.

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

NOT!

The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the
way Saddam did.

**Oh really? The Saudi Royal Family (the government) funds OBL.

Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.

**Yep.

Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.

**Yep. Saudi Arabia invaded and killed US citizens.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



some interesting sidebars:

http://www.scientology-kills.org/cel...ansusteren.htm

Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.


Judaism has some ridiculous rules.
Its ok to wipe your ass on the Sabbath,
yet it is NOT ok to tear a sheet
of toilet paper off the roll.


Yeah but some of the rules are what is repsonsible for them being alive at
all, can you say Kosher?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab
terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab
Terrorists'. Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing
so.


Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem
to think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
invaded them.

**Let's examine the facts:

* The vast majority (all?) of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.
* OBL is a Saudi
* The Saudi Royal Family has (and probably still is) funding OBL.
* I said nothing about invading anyone.

So, it is Saudis which caused the problems for the US and the US invaded
Iraq. That makes perfect sense.

NOT!


Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
directly, he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial
to all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.

**It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the
planet. Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not
defending US citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their
deaths in Iraq.

In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been
and considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is
exteremely small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is
a volunteer, and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.

**Strawman noted. Dubya is not defending US citizens or territory. The
real enemy is in Saudi Arabia, yet Dubya does nothing.


The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of.

**Really? How's that? In your answer, please feel free to include
references to the bombing in Madrid, London, Bali, Jakarta and in Iraq,
itself. Also account for the massive extra security costs throughout the
world.

It is
going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab
world the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have
a base of operations that is very strategic.

**Now you can predict the future? Wow!



In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
he is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
well.

**If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
area.

Much better than under the former ruler.

**And again. You're predicting the future.

I suspect there will be some sort
of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
country.

**And that justifies the death of 2,000+ US service personel how? Give me
a number. How much oil is each dead soldier worth?


Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil
would matter, or at least not nearly as much.

**Your inability to understand the processes involved is duly noted. The
oil in the US now costs more to extract, than is provided in energy by
that same amount of oil.



It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the
royal family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a
bit of a looney bin.

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the
terrorists who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

NOT!

The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the
way Saddam did.

**Oh really? The Saudi Royal Family (the government) funds OBL.

No, some members of the Royal family do,. It is not official policy of the
saudi government.

Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.

**Yep.

Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.

**Yep. Saudi Arabia invaded and killed US citizens.


NO, some Saudis did, it was not an act of the Saudi government.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Judaism has some ridiculous rules.
Its ok to wipe your ass on the Sabbath,
yet it is NOT ok to tear a sheet
of toilet paper off the roll.


Yeah but some of the rules are what is repsonsible for them being alive at
all, can you say Kosher?


I can say it, but I can hardly eat most of it.
Not one of the world's best cuisines.

Kosher was and is meant to isolate the Jewish community
from the rest of the world. Same with the other weird rules.
It is protection against the most deadly threat to
the Jewish world; no, not terrorism, pogroms, nor
holocausts. The biggest threat is conversion to
Christianity.

Clyde Slick said:

I can say it, but I can hardly eat most of it.
Not one of the world's best cuisines.

I was told that if you order a kosher meal on an airline flight, you get
freshly prepared mediocre food.

Kosher was and is meant to isolate the Jewish community
from the rest of the world. Same with the other weird rules.
It is protection against the most deadly threat to
the Jewish world; no, not terrorism, pogroms, nor
holocausts. The biggest threat is conversion to
Christianity.

Is this your personal theory? I've never heard it stated so bluntly.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

I can say it, but I can hardly eat most of it.
Not one of the world's best cuisines.

I was told that if you order a kosher meal on an airline flight, you get
freshly prepared mediocre food.

Kosher was and is meant to isolate the Jewish community
from the rest of the world. Same with the other weird rules.
It is protection against the most deadly threat to
the Jewish world; no, not terrorism, pogroms, nor
holocausts. The biggest threat is conversion to
Christianity.

Is this your personal theory? I've never heard it stated so bluntly.


Yep

wrote:


Why did they show up to question him?
Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

Except, the government decides who is linked to Al Qaeda, not you.




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow