On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:29:51 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



said:

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

Aren't you worried that JEE-zus will stop loving you for being such a
flaming asshole?


Even if I believed in 'him', no. I'd be much more concerned
that 'he' would stop loving you, because you make all 'his' creations
look like **** by association.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

Ed Foster wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or
perhaps it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not
really sure. (I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.


It's called BDS. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html

Krauthammer is being dishonest at least in part here. He quotes Dean
out of context:

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I
don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What
I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy
depends on getting information from all portions of the political
spectrum, not just one."

The actual transcript of that show reads:

OFFICIAL MSNBC TRANSCRIPT:

MATTHEWS: Travel, the Democrats’ Ted Kennedy was part of that
deregulation, the deregulation of radio. There are so many things
that have been deregulated. Is that wrong trend and would you reverse
it?

DEAN: I would reverse in some areas.
First of all, 11 companies in this country control 90 percent
of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their
television. That’s wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions
in every community. We don’t have that because of Michael Powell and
what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.
MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I’m serious.
DEAN: I’m keeping a...
MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The
Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got
“The New York Post.” Would you break it up?
DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring
industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of
power?
DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or
not,
because, obviously
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?
DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: The answer to that is yes.
I would say that there is too much penetration by single
corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-
owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left
in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The
rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.
MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going
to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?
DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that
believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of
the political spectrum, not just one.
ENDQUOTE

By leaving out the (laughter) and Matthews responding with "No,
seriously," Krauthammer leads us to believe that Dean was talking
about breaking up Fox on ideological grounds with a completely
straight face. You're certainly left with the impression from
Krauthammer that were Dean to be elected, he'd exercise federal power
to break Fox up. In context, that's a ridiculous idea. What he does
support is regulation controlling the amount of media concentration.
He's against the fact that "11 companies in this country control 90
percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their
television."

Mike

[--Follow-ups, for ****'s sake!--]

writes:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:
[...]
One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were
allowed INTO his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined
areas 1/2 mile away. Who is against the other side being
heard?????? There goes free speech.......

Bull****.

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

The President of the United States is a man whose right to free speech
is constantly threatened by protesters.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:


"Marie A." wrote in message
Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie

One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed
INTO
his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile
away.
Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
speech.......
-JA


Bull****.

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.


All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
president!

'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.


No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

"ScottW" wrote

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US market
but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people going to start
taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.
Look at the technological increase between 1800
and 2000, and quit yer whining.

--Ted

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'
and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.

You really don't understand it at all, do you ? Free speech
does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
else up'.

All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
president!

That's a lie ! What they want is to take over the
Presidential podium and kick everyone else off it.

No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!

Bull****. They do it each and every day, it's on the news
every night. They will continue, and that is their right.

But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

Only because it's not.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to
be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'

IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
right to express thier opinion !

and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.

You really don't understand it at all, do you ? Free speech
does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
else up'.


You really don't get it do you. People have been arrested for peacefully
carrying protest signs when the person right next to them had a pro bush
sign. For no other reason than the president did not like his message

This guy was arrested for not being in the bush assigned "free speech zone".
NOT for barging in, not for shouting anyone down - BUT BECAUSE GWB DOES NOT
LIKE HIS MESSAGE !!!!


Jun 19th 2003 | COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA=20
From The Economist print edition

The Justice Department doesn't seem to know when to stop=20

BRETT BURSEY will be back in court again, fighting the forces of
reaction, on June 24th. The veteran protester was arrested last October
for trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport as he held a sign
("No War for Oil") while waiting for George Bush to arrive.=20

This was not a new experience for him. Thirty-three years earlier, at
almost the same spot, Mr Bursey was tossed in the paddy wagon for holding
a sign that criticised another war (Vietnam) while waiting for another
Republican president (Richard Nixon) to show up.=20

The 1969 case against Mr Bursey was dropped when the South Carolina
Supreme Court ruled that anti-war demonstrators could not be charged with
trespassing if they were on public property. Shortly after his most
recent arrest, the trespassing charge against Mr Bursey was also dropped.
But in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, suddenly
brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known law that
allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is
visiting.

Mr Bursey's trial will take place in the new courthouse in Columbia,
named after the now 100-year-old Strom Thurmond senior (who, as it
happens, helped his son get his current job). If convicted, Mr Bursey,
who is 54, faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Yet a growing
number of liberal sorts seem to think that the real issue is the
intolerance of John Ashcroft's Justice Department=F3and, in particular, its
intention to start using the rare Secret Service law to get rid of
protesters.

Last month, 11 members of Congress, including one Republican and several
members of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, sent a
letter to Mr Ashcroft urging him to drop charges against Mr Bursey. They
insisted that "no plausible argument can be made that Mr Bursey was
threatening the president by holding a sign which the president found
politically offensive."

Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr
Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the
other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several
hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous
(but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president
was to speak.

The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special "free-speech
zone" that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The
pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not
protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the
impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.

Bill Nettles, Mr Bursey's lawyer, claims that the case is being driven
not by the young Mr Thurmond but by higher-ups in Washington, who want a
new way to stifle dissent. "This is the type of small-brained decision
that could only have been made by bureaucrats inside the Beltway," says
the lanky Mr Nettles. Mr Thurmond's office declines to discuss the case.
A spokesman says the office is aware of the letter from the 11
congressmen, but "unless we get a directive from Attorney-General
Ashcroft's office [telling us to drop or settle the case], we shall
proceed."

Mr Bursey's supporters note that Mr Ashcroft's men have decided to test
their anti-protester law in a conservative stronghold, where the armed
forces tend to be viewed more generously than elderly hippies and where
the case will be heard by a judge without a jury. It is easy to see how
Mr Ashcroft might not warm to Mr Bursey, who heads a "progressive
network" of liberal organisations, used to edit an alternative newspaper,
and has organised protests against, among other things, American war
policy, nuclear power, racism and the Confederate flag.

In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr Bursey has been
arrested dozens of times. Three decades ago he spent nearly two years in
prison for spraying anti-war slogans on government property during the
Vietnam war. Whether he deserves to go to prison next week for waving a
sign is another matter entirely.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:49:01 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to
be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'

IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
right to express thier opinion !

Complete lie, and you know it.

I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"ScottW" wrote

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people
going to start taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high efficiency
is also economical.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

wrote in message

IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
right to express thier opinion !

Complete lie, and you know it.

I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see......

John Anderson said:

I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see......

Except Republicans. Oh, wait......

John Anderson wrote:
"Marie A." wrote in message

Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie


One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.

They should be so lucky and get that close.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:41:43 GMT, Ed Foster
wrote:

In article , The Ghost In
The Machine wrote:

In talk.abortion, Ed Foster

wrote
on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
else is a liar too...

It's not.


As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
to be working,...


Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.


...despite its massive deficits and lack
of cost-cutting,


I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.


to restart our economy; we're at the
forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
joblessness is still a problem.

Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
before they commit to taking on more workers.


This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
by midyear.


As Clinton said "it's the economy".

If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.


You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.

Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not raise
taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.

-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email

In article ,
"John Anderson" writes:
wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
wrote:
snipages
Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
speech.......
-JA

Bull****.

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

I think you are confused, John. Protestors have the right
to their free speech, but no a right to be heard. They
also have the right to petition for change, but they's rather
rally and shout. Waste of time, IMO.

The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.

All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
president!

Then petition and send it in! All they *need* is some
reporters anyway. He'll get their message.

'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.

No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
sense, John. Sheez...




rm -rf X's 'n i's 4 repleyes

bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill) wrote in message

In article ,
"John Anderson" writes:
wrote in message

'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.

Point well taken.

No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who
has a pro-bush sign.

I don't believe so.It's not that simple. For a practical eduction in this
matter, try showing up at a picket line in front of an auto plant with an
anti-strike banner. There are a number of legitimate exercises of police
power that restrict free speech in practical ways.

And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

Civil rights and free speech means that at the end of the day, everybody has
a fair say. It does not mean that every public spot can be used for any
purpose at any time.

For safety sake, large groups of people, either protestors
or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
sense, John. Sheez...

Agreed.

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote:

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"ScottW" wrote

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people
going to start taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high efficiency
is also economical.

Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand
wherever it is wont to go. I was just heading off any
sort of claim that we're running out of oil at an alarming
rate and there's no alternatives.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
setting the followups to talk.abortion.

--Ted

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote:

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"ScottW" wrote

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are
people going to start taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high
efficiency is also economical.

Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
(drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
setting the followups to talk.abortion.

The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote in message ...
"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote:

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:

"ScottW" wrote

The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are
people going to start taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high
efficiency is also economical.

Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
(drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
market concerns.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
setting the followups to talk.abortion.

The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

I'm not. Just be aware people often use that
tactic so that any refutation of their argument
will not be seen by the majority of the audience,
hence they get to "win" in those newsgroups.

--Ted

bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill) wrote in message
...

In article ,
..

No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has
a
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
sense, John. Sheez...



But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
or GWB can see you.
That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
say.
- Sheez.....

"John Anderson" wrote in message
. com

But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you
get a front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a
distance". If your sign says something like "no war for oil" You
are assigned a spot 1/2 mile away. Where not only can you not see
the motorcade, neither the media or GWB can see you.
That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have
to say.

Your rights to free speech may be legally restricted, in any number of
different ways. Time to learn to live with it!

"John Anderson" wrote:

But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
or GWB can see you.
That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
say.

I don't think you express your point any better than
that, so if they don't get it now, I wouldn't waste any
more time on 'em.

They also have a habit of arresting hecklers in the friendly
crowd. They usually just take you downtown and realease
you later, but it accomplishes what they want.

--Tedward

"Edward M. Kennedy" wrote in message ...

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote in message ...

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:
[...]
Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
(drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
market concerns.

I don't think I can argue with that.

I do think I can say that such a position doesn't neccessarily refute
(or support) a statement like, "People should drive high efficiency
vehicles," or even, "The government should subsidize high efficiency
vehicles or penalize low efficiency vehicles." It does give a useful
framework for discussing such a statement, though.
[...]
Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
setting the followups to talk.abortion.

The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

I'm not.

nod I usually just add my group to the line when I see a follow-up,
instead of perpetuating a cross-posting cluster****.

Horses for courses, I guess.

Just be aware people often use that
tactic so that any refutation of their argument
will not be seen by the majority of the audience,
hence they get to "win" in those newsgroups.

But that's a *very stupid* tactic.

--
Matt Pillsbury

OD said:

Good thing he's allergic to drunks.

That's what he says to you. He could be telling me the exact opposite!

METHYPHOBIA:

If only it were that simple. Like you. :-)

Hey.. that's nice!!

Thank you.

If only I had multiple complexes. Like you. :-)

Multiple apartment complexes, I expect you mean. Tenants are a bore.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:09:28 +0000, G.S. Nail
wrote:


You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.

Have you got any booze for t' baby?
You can't give a baby booze!!

Unless you're a stewardess, in which case you can at least slip a
Valium in it's OJ :-)

(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)

You should flatten it, cover it in concrete, build a massive
McDonald's on top.

It would still have the same amount of oil - but encased in
French Fries.


Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote in message
m...
"Edward M. Kennedy" wrote in message ...

"Matt Pillsbury" wrote in message ...

"Edward M. Kennedy" writes:
[...]
Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
(drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
market concerns.

I don't think I can argue with that.

I do think I can say that such a position doesn't neccessarily refute
(or support) a statement like, "People should drive high efficiency
vehicles," or even, "The government should subsidize high efficiency
vehicles or penalize low efficiency vehicles." It does give a useful
framework for discussing such a statement, though.

Relative agreement....must resist the urge...to follow up...

The funny part is that they subsidize the production of
oil, fight wars and base foreign policy around oil, and
then tax the hell out of the finished product. Talking
about greasing the economy...

--Ted

In article , Lawrence E.
McKnight wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:41:43 GMT, Ed Foster
wrote:

In article , The Ghost In
The Machine wrote:

In talk.abortion, Ed Foster

wrote
on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

wrote:
I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
else is a liar too...

It's not.


As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
to be working,...


Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.


...despite its massive deficits and lack
of cost-cutting,


I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.


to restart our economy; we're at the
forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
joblessness is still a problem.

Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
before they commit to taking on more workers.


This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
by midyear.


As Clinton said "it's the economy".

If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.


You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.

Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not raise
taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.


You really think the scale of Iraq and Viet Nam are at all close?

Ed Foster wrote in
:

In article , Lawrence
E. McKnight wrote:

Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not
raise taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.


You really think the scale of Iraq and Viet Nam are at all close?

If you're talking about the economics of it, yes, they are close.
Inflation-adjusted average per-month cost of Vietnam was $5.15 billion.
Monthly cost currently in Iraq is $4 billion.

http://poughkeepsiejournal.gannetton...iraq/20031017-
31512.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0908-01.htm

The biggest difference is comparing the costs vs. percentage of GDP.
Vietnam was eating up to 12% of our GDP, Iraq is sitting at 0.5%.

Mike

Dormer nibbled:

Jealous that British hegemony long ago faded, while that of the U. S. of A.
continues unabated and shall do so for the foreseeable future?

Yes, very much so.

Someday, someone, somewhere *may* actually believe this ludicrously
transparent reverse psychology ploy of yours. :-)

You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.

Have you got any booze for t' baby?
You can't give a baby booze!!

That ain't what your mama said when you'd caterwaul for hours on end.

(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)

You should flatten it, cover it in concrete, build a massive McDonald's on top.

Have we exported enough of them over there in merry olde?

What do you make of this British Medical Association report titled "Adolescent Health"?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36035


GeoSynch

wrote:
"John Anderson"

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

The freedom to speak only those positions you deem acceptable.

It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'
and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.

Snicker. Some people are more free than others, it seems.

You really don't understand it at all, do you ?

The United States is not a manarchy.

Free speech
does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
else up'.

Unless you're a Republican president.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.

Well, gee, there's an original neocon approach to debate.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for

How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
Vermont ?

How about Bush doing exactly the same, and for Reagan and his father as
well? How about the Bush administration being the most secretive in
recent history?

--
Ray Fischer

Ed Foster wrote:
wrote:
Ed Foster wrote:
Ray Fischer
wrote:

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
GOP win in 2000 and 2002.

Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?

Oh goodie another whiner. If enough DemocRATs believe they lost in

Are you _still_ whining?

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray sourgraped:

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

First, we fleeced Gore and this year we purloined the
California governership. Easier than taking candy from a baby.


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:
Ray

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray rationalized:

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

And after we've racked up a filibuster-proof Senate, we're going to
install a lot more Anthony Scalias and Clarence Thomases into the
judiciary and goosestep all you loony radical leftists into the secretly
prepared concentration camps for cultural re-education!


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:
Ray rationalized:

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray keeps reliving "Groundhog Day":

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record.
Maybe if we just had one more recount.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

Wrong again dweeb, it's a republic.
Didn't they teach you that in school?


GeoSynch

In article ,
"John Anderson" writes:
bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill) wrote in message
snips
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
sense, John. Sheez...

But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
or GWB can see you.
That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
say.
- Sheez.....

Well, if that's true it would IMO be wrong, but I'd like
some cites to back it up, as I have not heard that. IF
it's true, it is a wrongful thing, but it would not change
my vote to one of the Democrat losers either. ;^))


rm X's 'n i's 4 rpleyes

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:58:41 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:
Ray rationalized:

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

I agree. They *still* act as if the Democrats are the majority party.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount. Can
you explain why he went to the courts instead? I've heard the claim
that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
house and senate were under Democrat control.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

Tom Disque wrote:

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

I agree. They *still* act as if the Democrats are the majority party.

They don't want to see Little Tommy Daschle throw another temper tantrum.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount. Can
you explain why he went to the courts instead? I've heard the claim
that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
house and senate were under Democrat control.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

Poor Ray seems to have gone strangely silent on this point.

Hey Ray, you remember this?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the *republic* for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."

And you may also remember one of this nation's founding fathers
having said to the effect that:
'Democracies are as short in their durations, as they are violent in their demise.'


GeoSynch

Tom Disque wrote:
I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount.

He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.

Can you explain why he went to the courts instead?

Because the Republicans wouldn't count many of the votes even once, as
they knew they'd lose if they did. Therefore, Gore sued to have them
counted. According to Florida law, he could only sue county by
country, not statewide. Having limited resources, he could only do
that in a few counties, and therefore picked the counties he thought
would give the best results.

I've heard the claim
that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
house and senate were under Democrat control.

Gore took it by about 1500, regardless of how the chads were counted.
Overvotes with clear voter intent (punching the hole and writing the
same name) are legal votes under Florida law. If those votes had been
counted, Gore would have won. Bush deliberately stopped them from
being counted. That's election stealing.

Greg Bernath