CBS Blows it again [Archive]

dave weil

September 30th 04, 11:21 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:12:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
>>>bring back the DRAFT!
>>>
>>>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>>>however
>>>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>>>
>>>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
>>>news channels then.
>>>
>>>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>>
>> I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
>> story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
>> Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
>> Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.
>>
>> I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
>> misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.
>>
>> Oh, ps:
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>
>>
>
Yes?

Is that your final answer?

Michael McKelvy

September 30th 04, 11:23 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
>>bring back the DRAFT!
>>
>>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>>however
>>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>>
>>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
>>news channels then.
>>
>>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>
> I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
> story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
> Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
> Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.
>
> I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
> misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.
>
> Oh, ps:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>
>
I just responded to what I heard on the news. I see there's rumblings from
Hagel but Hollings and Rangel have sponsored legislation. I don' see
anything about Hagel introducing legislation.

The report I heard said that CBS reported that there was a secret campaign
to re-introduce the draft and it was being done by the Administration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646582.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

CBS News' Josh Gross reports that it wouldn't be surprising if some of
today's questions are about the draft.

Trail Byte: It is an issue that has been tackled on television network news,
the Internet and in newspapers, but it still pops up sporadically during
Vice President Cheney's town hall meeting: does the Bush administration have
plan to reinstate the military draft?

Not surprisingly, the question is usually asked by young men between the
ages of 18 and 25 who will preface their question by saying they heard it
from someone else. On Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, the vice president again
tried to clarify his position.

"Senator Kerry has said that you and President Bush have a secret plan to
reinstitute the draft. Is that true?" inquired a young man of draft age.
Unable to resist a shot at Kerry, Cheney quickly shot back, "As far as I
know, he's the only one with secret plans."

"I don't know anybody in a position of responsibility who would advocate
going back to the draft," Cheney continued. "We keep it there, it's on the
books, the statute is there in the eventuality of some totally unforeseen
set of circumstances that nobody can contemplate today."

In part, the vice president has the Internet to thank for the perpetuation
of this line of questioning. While it has revolutionized the way campaigns
raise money and reach voters, political rumors abound in cyberspace.
Recently, emails have been circulating around the country, especially among
males on college campuses, concerning the return of conscription.

While the emails are filled with factual errors, like most Internet rumors,
these stories are somewhat based in reality. They mention actual bills in
the House and Senate (introduced by Democrats) that have wording suggesting
mandatory service for both men and women. Neither presidential candidate
supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill.

But that doesn't stop the topic from being brought up in the vice president's
public forums. In fact, earlier this month, one attendee risked disciplinary
action over the question. On September 17th, at another town hall meeting in
Oregon City, Ore. a student said to the vice president, "Yesterday, a
teacher of mine refused to sign an absence slip to come here. And she said,
'Do you realize once, if, Bush gets reelected, that he'll make a draft.'"

As at the event in Iowa, the vice president shot down the rumor. "The
all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and
women in the service," he said. He continued by adding a personal
observation. "And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a
great believer in it, from having sat there as Secretary of Defense and
watched it operate."

Hoping to put an end to the draft talk, on Monday he finished his answer
with the most definitive answer possible. "The suggestion that somehow there's
a plan out there for a secret draft is, I'd call it, you could call it
either an urban legend or a nasty political rumor, but it's not true."

So I guess it's also partly bull**** from Kerry, since he keeps bringing it
up.

dave weil

September 30th 04, 11:25 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>
>[snip]
>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>
>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

Michael McKelvy

September 30th 04, 11:33 PM

Michael McKelvy

September 30th 04, 11:36 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>
> [snip]
>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>
> Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

Yes, they're Democrats.

dave weil

September 30th 04, 11:39 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:23:34 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
>>>bring back the DRAFT!
>>>
>>>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>>>however
>>>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>>>
>>>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
>>>news channels then.
>>>
>>>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>>
>> I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
>> story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
>> Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
>> Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.
>>
>> I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
>> misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.
>>
>> Oh, ps:
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>
>>
>I just responded to what I heard on the news.

Once again, you really should stop and think before you post nonsense.
If you see below, you'll find a link that shows the video of what you
probably saw. In that very report, they show a clip of the President
saying that he wasn't going to reinstitute the draft.

> I see there's rumblings from
>Hagel but Hollings and Rangel have sponsored legislation. I don' see
>anything about Hagel introducing legislation.

Nor did I say that he did. I just wanted to point out that some
Republicans are advocating as well. But it's not germane to your claim
anyway, which was total bull****. And they say CBS is bad.

>The report I heard said that CBS reported that there was a secret campaign
>to re-introduce the draft and it was being done by the Administration.

What does "Neither presidential candidate
supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill" mean to
you exactly?

>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646582.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
>
> CBS News' Josh Gross reports that it wouldn't be surprising if some of
>today's questions are about the draft.
>
>Trail Byte: It is an issue that has been tackled on television network news,
>the Internet and in newspapers, but it still pops up sporadically during
>Vice President Cheney's town hall meeting: does the Bush administration have
>plan to reinstate the military draft?
>
>Not surprisingly, the question is usually asked by young men between the
>ages of 18 and 25 who will preface their question by saying they heard it
>from someone else. On Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, the vice president again
>tried to clarify his position.
>
>"Senator Kerry has said that you and President Bush have a secret plan to
>reinstitute the draft. Is that true?" inquired a young man of draft age.
>Unable to resist a shot at Kerry, Cheney quickly shot back, "As far as I
>know, he's the only one with secret plans."
>
>"I don't know anybody in a position of responsibility who would advocate
>going back to the draft," Cheney continued. "We keep it there, it's on the
>books, the statute is there in the eventuality of some totally unforeseen
>set of circumstances that nobody can contemplate today."
>
>In part, the vice president has the Internet to thank for the perpetuation
>of this line of questioning. While it has revolutionized the way campaigns
>raise money and reach voters, political rumors abound in cyberspace.
>Recently, emails have been circulating around the country, especially among
>males on college campuses, concerning the return of conscription.
>
>While the emails are filled with factual errors, like most Internet rumors,
>these stories are somewhat based in reality. They mention actual bills in
>the House and Senate (introduced by Democrats) that have wording suggesting
>mandatory service for both men and women. Neither presidential candidate
>supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill.
>
>But that doesn't stop the topic from being brought up in the vice president's
>public forums. In fact, earlier this month, one attendee risked disciplinary
>action over the question. On September 17th, at another town hall meeting in
>Oregon City, Ore. a student said to the vice president, "Yesterday, a
>teacher of mine refused to sign an absence slip to come here. And she said,
>'Do you realize once, if, Bush gets reelected, that he'll make a draft.'"
>
>As at the event in Iowa, the vice president shot down the rumor. "The
>all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and
>women in the service," he said. He continued by adding a personal
>observation. "And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a
>great believer in it, from having sat there as Secretary of Defense and
>watched it operate."
>
>Hoping to put an end to the draft talk, on Monday he finished his answer
>with the most definitive answer possible. "The suggestion that somehow there's
>a plan out there for a secret draft is, I'd call it, you could call it
>either an urban legend or a nasty political rumor, but it's not true."
>
>
>So I guess it's also partly bull**** from Kerry, since he keeps bringing it
>up.

Unbelievable. I think that you owe CBS *and* RAO an apology *and* an
explicit retraction immediately.

PS, you you go here, you can see CBS airing a clip of the President
saying that he is *not* going to reinstitute the draft (probably aired
on Tuesday):

http://tinyurl.com/3rsld

Clyde Slick

October 1st 04, 01:28 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's amazing what you can read on these blogs, and I welcome the free
> exchange of information, but there's a reason why you don't get your
> news over the backyard fence listening to your neighbor.

However, its good to know somebody is looking over CBS'
and Rather's shoulder. For a mainline network journalist, I prefer Sam
Donaldson.
He admits his personal moderately liberal leanings and consciously tries to
park
them and to be fair, and at least look at both sides, and he will ask both
sides
tough questions.

dave weil

October 1st 04, 01:29 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:10:15 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>It's amazing what you can read on these blogs, and I welcome the free
>exchange of information, but there's a reason why you don't get your
>news over the backyard fence listening to your neighbor.

To be fair, I should have added USENET, present company included.

Michael McKelvy

October 1st 04, 04:39 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>
> You are *such* a liar. They said "But Beverly's not buying it. She's a
> Republican, but also a single-issue voter".

That sounds ridiculous, the only single issue republicans I ever heard of
were the anti-abortion crowd.

I wasn't lieing, I was telling what they were saying on the news. Any
inaccuracies were unintentional.

That's hardly an "average
> citizen". Not only that, but are you saying that if someone is
> concerned enough to be a "single-issue voter", that they might not
> naturally work toward that issue?
>
I didn't see the report, I passed on what was being said on the news. I
also posted the entire story so there would a chance for people to have it
all in context. That's hardly disingenous.

> Are you being disingenuous by not identifying her as a Republican?
> <chuckle>
>
> You've been reading too many blog entries like this one:
>
I don't read any blogs.

My biggest problem with the whole deal is why were they running a story
about a non-issue?

Lionel

October 1st 04, 06:04 AM

dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>
>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>
>
> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
> 1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and pay some price?"

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

Michael McKelvy

October 1st 04, 07:58 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>
>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>
>>
>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>> 1972.
>
> You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>
> "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
> in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>
> "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
> pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
worth defending.

>
> NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

Lionel

October 1st 04, 10:35 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>
>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>>1972.
>>
>>You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>
>>"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>>in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>
>>"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
>>pay some price?"
>
>
> Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
> worth defending.

Note that in this particular case USA don't defending but attacking.
It's a big, big, big difference, you know.

>
>
>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>
>
>

dave weil

October 1st 04, 12:05 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:04:14 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>
>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>
>>
>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>> 1972.
>
>You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>
>"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>
>"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
>and pay some price?"
>
>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

Arny Krueger

October 1st 04, 12:05 PM

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
. net

> Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
> isn't worth defending.

And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!

dave weil

October 1st 04, 12:06 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> dave weil wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>
>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>> 1972.
>>
>> You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>
>> "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>> in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>
>> "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
>> pay some price?"
>
>Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
>worth defending.

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

>> NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>

Michael McKelvy

October 1st 04, 04:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> . net
>
>> Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
>> isn't worth defending.
>
> And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!
There were lots of volunteers as well.

I stand by my statement, a country who people aren't willing to defend it
voluntarily is not worth defending.

Michael McKelvy

October 1st 04, 04:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>>> 1972.
>>>
>>> You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>>
>>> "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>>> in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>>
>>> "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
>>> and
>>> pay some price?"
>>
>>Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
>>isn't
>>worth defending.
>
> Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?
>
We didn't lose we quit.

dave weil

October 1st 04, 06:20 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>>>> 1972.
>>>>
>>>> You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>>>
>>>> "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>>>> in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>>>
>>>> "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
>>>> and
>>>> pay some price?"
>>>
>>>Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
>>>isn't
>>>worth defending.
>>
>> Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?
>>
>We didn't lose we quit.

Wow! Now *that's* an admirable American trait to emulate!

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

Bruce J. Richman

October 1st 04, 06:42 PM

The Devil wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>
>>> Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?
>>>
>>We didn't lose we quit.
>
>ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!*
>
>--
>td
>
>* Forgive the apparent excess, but that was exactly my reaction.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Another "gem" from DM. ROFLMAO!!!!

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 1st 04, 07:59 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:04:14 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>
>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>>1972.
>>
>>You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>
>>"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
>>in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>
>>"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
>>and pay some price?"
>>
>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>
>
> I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?

dave weil

October 1st 04, 09:12 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>
>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>Is it better now ?

And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

Lionel

October 1st 04, 09:27 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>>
>>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>>Is it better now ?
>
>
> And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
> 1917?

More deads.

dave weil

October 1st 04, 10:00 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>>>
>>>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>>>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>>>Is it better now ?
>>
>>
>> And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
>> 1917?
>
>More deads.

And you get to speak French because of it.

Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
after you were invaded? Twice?

Lionel

October 1st 04, 10:39 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>>>>
>>>>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>>>>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>>>>Is it better now ?
>>>
>>>
>>>And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
>>>1917?
>>
>>More deads.
>
>
> And you get to speak French because of it.

Why ? Did you have any historic facts to bring to this debate ?
Are you also one of these naive guys who use to think that US entry in
WWI have brought the victory and solve all the problems ?

> Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
> after you were invaded? Twice?

Why are you saying "to your aid" ? Why are you adding "Twice" ?
Sincerely you are sounding exactly like ScottW.
Why the **** you US guys are you always looking for kind of "Disney
tales" or other demagogic explanations.
What the **** are you waiting for ? A "thank you" ?
So you get mine "thank you !". Happy now ? Sorry but if you are asking
for a kind of reward, I haven't enough money for all French people and
you will be deceived.

But don't forget the main purpose, a US deputy is calling for :
"Americans to pay the price for the furture..."

Between you and me I would have prefer that he wrote "to built the
future". Just a question of terminology... :-(

Clyde Slick

October 1st 04, 10:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> . net
>
>> Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
>> isn't worth defending.
>
> And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!
>

In the 40's, the unsophisticated masses were technologically up for shooting
with
"obsolete buggy whips". The weaponry is so sophiticated now, we
need better motivated, more intelligent, and better eductaed troops
than we would get through the draft.

dave weil

October 1st 04, 11:06 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:39:45 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>>>>>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>>>>>Is it better now ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
>>>>1917?
>>>
>>>More deads.
>>
>>
>> And you get to speak French because of it.
>
>Why ? Did you have any historic facts to bring to this debate ?
>Are you also one of these naive guys who use to think that US entry in
>WWI have brought the victory and solve all the problems ?

I'm pretty sure that it was a major factor. It certainly was the
second time around (WWII). The French were almost a non-factor the
second time around, unfortunately.

>> Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
>> after you were invaded? Twice?
>
>Why are you saying "to your aid" ? Why are you adding "Twice" ?

Because of the Second World War as well, a war where we had to
REINSTATE the draft (1940).

>Sincerely you are sounding exactly like ScottW.
>Why the **** you US guys are you always looking for kind of "Disney
>tales" or other demagogic explanations.

Look who's talking, EuroDisneyGuy. I simply posted that there is a
Republican who believes that the draft should be reinstated and you go
off of some weird tangent about 1915. I actually happen to sympathize
with the idea that if your're going to have people defending your
country, it might not be a bad idea to assure that it isn't onlly the
poor and lower middle class bearing the burden. This doesn't mean that
I'm in favor of the draft though. I simply can see the point.

>What the **** are you waiting for ? A "thank you" ?
>So you get mine "thank you !". Happy now ? Sorry but if you are asking
>for a kind of reward, I haven't enough money for all French people and
>you will be deceived.

No, you missed the point. You brought up the draft in the context of
the First World War. I'm pointing out that without that draft and the
US' entry into the war, actually many more dead might have been
suffered *and* the Germans might have won the war. You and the Allies
were facing a deficit of 38 divisions against the Germans. Things
would have been very bloody for a long while without America entering
the fray and you guys were close to a defeat.

>But don't forget the main purpose, a US deputy is calling for :
>"Americans to pay the price for the furture..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>Between you and me I would have prefer that he wrote "to built the
>future". Just a question of terminology... :-(

Once again, no idea...

dave weil

October 1st 04, 11:12 PM

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>>>there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
>>>disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.
>>
>> Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...
>>
>
>
>It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.

I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
Bush) that the international community should drive our security
concerns.

When did you go to the dark side? <chuckle>

Clyde Slick

October 1st 04, 11:39 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
>>>>disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.
>>>
>>> Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...
>>>
>>
>>
>>It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.
>
> I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
> thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
> Bush) that the international community should drive our security
> concerns.
>
> When did you go to the dark side? <chuckle>

where did yo come up with this?

dave weil

October 2nd 04, 12:00 AM

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:39:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
>>>>>disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.
>>>>
>>>> Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.
>>
>> I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
>> thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
>> Bush) that the international community should drive our security
>> concerns.
>>
>> When did you go to the dark side? <chuckle>
>
>where did yo come up with this?

Well, you *were* using the UN as justification for action, right?

ScottW

October 2nd 04, 12:21 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
> LOL, Scott
> "I-need-to-be-banned-from-RAO-to-take-the-time-to-weld-a-cap-on-my-speakers"
> is giving lessons of life to potential draftees' mothers.
> Hey, son of *bitch* I'm ready to pay you the plane ticket in order you
> give your point of view to one of those Mothers.
>
> Wanna buy a plane ?

Poor senseless Lionel. Did you know that the release of recent polls
showing 9 of 10 frenchboys prefer John Kerry essentially dooms the Kerry
campaign to defeat?

ScottW

Michael McKelvy

October 2nd 04, 12:33 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
>>>>>> 1972.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are
>>>>> engaged
>>>>> in today and what the prospects are for the future."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
>>>>> and
>>>>> pay some price?"
>>>>
>>>>Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
>>>>isn't
>>>>worth defending.
>>>
>>> Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?
>>>
>>We didn't lose we quit.
>
> Wow! Now *that's* an admirable American trait to emulate!

It's a trait that was hammered into the conscience of America by all the
anti-war protests.

>
> Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 01:52 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:39:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

>>>
>>> I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
>>> thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
>>> Bush) that the international community should drive our security
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> When did you go to the dark side? <chuckle>
>>
>>where did yo come up with this?
>
> Well, you *were* using the UN as justification for action, right?

I think the UN has some useful purposes. But not
as a world 'government'. Nor should UN inaction
or failure prevent us, or any other nation, from unilaterally
acting to protect vital national interests and defending itself.
Overall, I would say the world is a little safer for
having the UN, despite its obvious shortcomings.
Diplomacy is very important, and it is a ready
vehicle for diplomatic contacts.
But I NEVER said or implied that it should,
as you put it, "drive our security concerns".

dave weil

October 2nd 04, 01:54 AM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:36:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> You're just not willing to admit that you shot your mouth off without
>> doing the research, are you?
>
>I've already stated that it was on the news.

What news? Bet you can't even remember.

> I also posted the story from
>CBS website.
>
>You just can't admit that the story was an example of CBS bias trying to
>bring cast aspersions on the administration.

Well, since it had a clip of the President saying directly, "No, we
don't need a draft", I don't know how that's possible.

Jacob Kramer

October 2nd 04, 02:37 AM

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:52:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>I think the UN has some useful purposes. But not
>as a world 'government'. Nor should UN inaction
>or failure prevent us, or any other nation, from unilaterally
>acting to protect vital national interests and defending itself.
>Overall, I would say the world is a little safer for
>having the UN, despite its obvious shortcomings.
>Diplomacy is very important, and it is a ready
>vehicle for diplomatic contacts.
>But I NEVER said or implied that it should,
>as you put it, "drive our security concerns".

It's an interesting question: do you feel the United States should be
able to invade any country whenever it deems it to be in its own
interest, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? This
seems to be Bush's position. This is currently a violation of U.S.
treaty obligations, as far as I can see. Or maybe he's just saying he
should be able to act to enforce U.N. resolutions unilaterally--and
with any other countries that choose to cooperate--without
authorization from the Security Council.

Michael McKelvy

October 2nd 04, 08:30 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>
> You are *such* a liar.

I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot when
you wrote it?

dave weil

October 2nd 04, 11:31 AM

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:30:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>>
>> You are *such* a liar.
>
>I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot when
>you wrote it?

No more so than when you wrote "CBS Blows it again".

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 12:08 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:39:45 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
>>>>>>discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
>>>>>>Is it better now ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
>>>>>1917?
>>>>
>>>>More deads.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you get to speak French because of it.
>>
>>Why ? Did you have any historic facts to bring to this debate ?
>>Are you also one of these naive guys who use to think that US entry in
>>WWI have brought the victory and solve all the problems ?
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that it was a major factor. It certainly was the
> second time around (WWII). The French were almost a non-factor the
> second time around, unfortunately.

According to one of US greatest general, a famous logistic specialist,
the internal resistance (which excludes North African army and London
brigades and other militaries dissimined on many fronts), so this
general has estimated the French resistance (the terrorists) to the
equivalent of more than 30 divisions.
This general was the chief of the operation Overlord : Dwight D.
Einsenhower.

Anyway you won this one, I grant you an Accordion...

>>>Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
>>>after you were invaded? Twice?
>>
>>Why are you saying "to your aid" ? Why are you adding "Twice" ?
>
>
> Because of the Second World War as well, a war where we had to
> REINSTATE the draft (1940).
>
>
>>Sincerely you are sounding exactly like ScottW.
>>Why the **** you US guys are you always looking for kind of "Disney
>>tales" or other demagogic explanations.
>
>
> Look who's talking, EuroDisneyGuy.

I've never put one foot in this Eurobull**** nor my children.
Note that it seems they are running to banqueroute... Looks like this
"metastase" of US culture doesn't grown on french ground. :-)

> I simply posted that there is a
> Republican who believes that the draft should be reinstated and you go
> off of some weird tangent about 1915. I actually happen to sympathize
> with the idea that if your're going to have people defending your
> country, it might not be a bad idea to assure that it isn't onlly the
> poor and lower middle class bearing the burden. This doesn't mean that
> I'm in favor of the draft though. I simply can see the point.

I fully agree with you on this one Dave. For me the army of a democratic
country is composed of all its citizen. But you perfectly know that in
the fact this never works.
When the survivors of Verdun's horror (...) were on leave in Paris and
in other large town what did they see ? All the wealthy exempted.

>>What the **** are you waiting for ? A "thank you" ?
>>So you get mine "thank you !". Happy now ? Sorry but if you are asking
>>for a kind of reward, I haven't enough money for all French people and
>>you will be deceived.
>
>
> No, you missed the point. You brought up the draft in the context of
> the First World War.

I don't know what you are speaking about, *you* brought the draft in the
conversation.
I just quoted 2 sentences which remember me some sentences pronounced in
France between 1915 and 1917, after massacres of Verdun, Somme and
Chemin des Dames.
My point is that the situation is a little bit different for USA now and
that such sentences seem to be excessive for me.

> I'm pointing out that without that draft and the
> US' entry into the war, actually many more dead might have been
> suffered *and* the Germans might have won the war. You and the Allies
> were facing a deficit of 38 divisions against the Germans. Things
> would have been very bloody for a long while without America entering
> the fray and you guys were close to a defeat.

http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm
http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm

A lot of information for you... Sorry I cannot grant you the accordion
on this one.
Considering that Hitler and Nazism are "borned" from this victory I am
not sure that you are exactly right here.

>>But don't forget the main purpose, a US deputy is calling for :
>>"Americans to pay the price for the furture..."
>
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>
>>Between you and me I would have prefer that he wrote "to built the
>>future". Just a question of terminology... :-(
>
>
> Once again, no idea...

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 12:13 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>LOL, Scott
>>"I-need-to-be-banned-from-RAO-to-take-the-time-to-weld-a-cap-on-my-speakers"
>>is giving lessons of life to potential draftees' mothers.
>>Hey, son of *bitch* I'm ready to pay you the plane ticket in order you
>>give your point of view to one of those Mothers.
>>
>>Wanna buy a plane ?
>
>
> Poor senseless Lionel. Did you know that the release of recent polls
> showing 9 of 10 frenchboys prefer John Kerry essentially dooms the Kerry
> campaign to defeat?

Normal, we cannot stand fascists...
Did you read this recent worlwide pool in which 70% of the world
population would vote against G.W. Bush.

What about your diet, Scott ? ;-)

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 05:45 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Normal, we cannot stand fascists...
> Did you read this recent worlwide pool in which 70% of the world
> population would vote against G.W. Bush.
>
> What about your diet, Scott ? ;-)

They probably would have voted
70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
them too.

Sander deWaal

October 2nd 04, 05:53 PM

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>They probably would have voted
>70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
>If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
>them too.

To be honest, neither Bush or Kerry would have my vote, were I to live
in the US.
You bet that most votes for Kerry are actually anti-Bush votes.

From what I get to see here, I'd say that Kerry isn't ready to be
president. The next 4 years will be a mess, be it Kerry or Bush.
I'm glad I don't live there, really.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 06:56 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Normal, we cannot stand fascists...
>>Did you read this recent worlwide pool in which 70% of the world
>>population would vote against G.W. Bush.
>>
>>What about your diet, Scott ? ;-)
>
>
> They probably would have voted
> 70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
> If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
> them too.

Is this all the consideration that you have for the rest of the world ?
What a cynic and desabused oldster you are.

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 07:00 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>
>>They probably would have voted
>>70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
>>If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
>>them too.
>
>
> To be honest, neither Bush or Kerry would have my vote, were I to live
> in the US.
> You bet that most votes for Kerry are actually anti-Bush votes.

Chirac has had 86% votes because his adversary was the French version of
G.W. Bush.

> From what I get to see here, I'd say that Kerry isn't ready to be
> president. The next 4 years will be a mess, be it Kerry or Bush.
> I'm glad I don't live there, really.

Anyway, I'm afraid that they will insist on more time to share their
mess with us.

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 07:58 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>>They probably would have voted
>>70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
>>If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
>>them too.
>
> To be honest, neither Bush or Kerry would have my vote, were I to live
> in the US.
> You bet that most votes for Kerry are actually anti-Bush votes.
>
> From what I get to see here, I'd say that Kerry isn't ready to be
> president. The next 4 years will be a mess, be it Kerry or Bush.
> I'm glad I don't live there, really.
>

Kerry's problem is the inconsistency of being against the war,
but for winning it. While disparaging the cause, the cost in
fatalities, the financial costs, and disparaging the motives of
our current allies, he claims that he will more effectively
prosecute the war, by somehow bringing in the most recalcitrant
of our former friends to share a major burden of the fatalites
and costs of a war he himself, believes we should't be fighting
in the first place. How he intends to convince them, he hasn't said.

This is all because he has no real beliefs, or at least he is not
willing to share them, He wants the support of the anti-war
crowd, while at the same time retaining the support of
more moderate Democrats who support the war, but otherwise
support the Democratic domestic agenda. More or less, this is
the Liberman/Gephart working class crowd, those that 40 years
ago used to be the core of the Democratic party.

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 08:07 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message

>> I nominate
>> France for our next military action.
>
> I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
> quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
> ...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(

Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 08:11 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>Normal, we cannot stand fascists...
>>>Did you read this recent worlwide pool in which 70% of the world
>>>population would vote against G.W. Bush.
>>>
>>>What about your diet, Scott ? ;-)
>>
>>
>> They probably would have voted
>> 70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
>> If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
>> them too.
>
> Is this all the consideration that you have for the rest of the world ?
> What a cynic and desabused oldster you are.

Most of the rest of the world are poor, pathetic, uneducated
Moslems from the third World, who have been abused and kept
ignorant by their own religious and secular leaders. they would
just as soon swallow up La France as any other modern Western
culture.

Clyde Slick

October 2nd 04, 08:12 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
>> From what I get to see here, I'd say that Kerry isn't ready to be
>> president. The next 4 years will be a mess, be it Kerry or Bush.
>> I'm glad I don't live there, really.
>
> Anyway, I'm afraid that they will insist on more time to share their mess
> with us.

That's kerry's agenda to a tee.

Bruce J. Richman

October 2nd 04, 08:32 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> I nominate
>>> France for our next military action.
>>
>> I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>> quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>> ...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>
>Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He's just waiting for Hamas to put him on their payroll.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 10:38 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>I nominate
>>>France for our next military action.
>>
>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>
>
> Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.

LOL !
If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up
at Lyon airport.

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 10:41 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Normal, we cannot stand fascists...
>>>>Did you read this recent worlwide pool in which 70% of the world
>>>>population would vote against G.W. Bush.
>>>>
>>>>What about your diet, Scott ? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>They probably would have voted
>>>70% for Yassar Arafat and Oasma Bin Laden.
>>>If Stalin and Hitler were alive, they would have voted for
>>>them too.
>>
>>Is this all the consideration that you have for the rest of the world ?
>>What a cynic and desabused oldster you are.
>
>
> Most of the rest of the world are poor, pathetic, uneducated
> Moslems from the third World, who have been abused and kept
> ignorant by their own religious and secular leaders. they would
> just as soon swallow up La France as any other modern Western
> culture.

Ooops I forgot. You're also totally paranoid.

Lionel

October 2nd 04, 10:52 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>I nominate
>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>
>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>
>>Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> He's just waiting for Hamas to put him on their payroll.

On more meeting of the old paranoid Zealots.
Richman is still supporting Sackman's indecent xenophoby and racism, in
the same way he has supported recently Sackman's sordid assertions
concerning Abu Ghraib tortured prisonners.

Richman doesn't know anything about audio. He is haunting RAO only for
flame purpose and character assassination only...
....Since he has spent 1 month cloistered in his basement for storm
purpose our RAO agonizing decrepit psychologist is starving now. :-)

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 01:11 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I nominate
>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>
>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>
>>
>> Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>
> LOL !
> If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
> it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up at
> Lyon airport.
>

You won't have any trouble picking me out of the crowd.
I'll be wearing my yellow yalmake

Bruce J. Richman

October 3rd 04, 01:49 AM

Art wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I nominate
>>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>>
>>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>>
>> LOL !
>> If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
>> it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up at
>> Lyon airport.
>>
>
>You won't have any trouble picking me out of the crowd.
>I'll be wearing my yellow yalmake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

LOL !!!!

Lionel will be getting his suicide bomber's belt ready. (Made in Palestine).

Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 02:31 AM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Art wrote:
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I nominate
>>>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly
>>>> capitulation.
>>>
>>> LOL !
>>> If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
>>> it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up
>>> at
>>> Lyon airport.
>>>
>>
>>You won't have any trouble picking me out of the crowd.
>>I'll be wearing my yellow yalmake
>>

>
> LOL !!!!
>
> Lionel will be getting his suicide bomber's belt ready. (Made in
> Palestine).
>

But the explosives will be French.

Lionel

October 3rd 04, 09:47 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I nominate
>>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>>
>>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>>
>>LOL !
>>If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
>>it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up at
>>Lyon airport.
>>
>
>
> You won't have any trouble picking me out of the crowd.
> I'll be wearing my yellow yalmake.

You don't need, considering your chronic liver problems, it will be easy
to locate your sorry yellow face. :-)

Lionel

October 3rd 04, 09:56 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I nominate
>>>>>>France for our next military action.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure that you have already done a provision of Coca-Cola to watch
>>>>>quietly the spectacle on FoxNews...
>>>>>...Like your ancesters, perhaps it is a kind of malediction. :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like your ancestors, perhaps it will be a kind of cowardly capitulation.
>>>
>>>LOL !
>>>If one day you decide to have the courage to say that instead of writing
>>>it on Usenet, I'm ready to pay for your plane ticket and to pick you up at
>>>Lyon airport.
>>>
>>
>>You won't have any trouble picking me out of the crowd.
>>I'll be wearing my yellow yalmake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> LOL !!!!

Hear the hyena laugh ! This indicates Richman's resurection...
The relic has spent 1 month living like a mole, eating canned goods in
his anti-atomic, anti-muslims, anti-storms basement bunker.

dave weil

October 3rd 04, 01:30 PM

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>coming from the left.

nc

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 02:33 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't need, considering your chronic liver problems, it will be easy
> to locate your sorry yellow face. :-)

No, that's just a misapplication of a spray on tan.

Bruce J. Richman

October 3rd 04, 05:03 PM

Dave Weiul wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
>wrote:
>
>>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>>coming from the left.
>
>nc
>
>
>
>
>
>

The analysis is fallacious. There are significant differences between my
views, politically speaking, and Art's. I would describe myself as a moderate
Democrat, with views re. foreign policy that are relatively conservative, but
holding views on domestic issues such as health care, gun control, a woman's
right to choose, etc. that are definitely liberal. I'm also a registered
Democrat, and generally speaking, have usually, but not always supported
Democratic candidates for president.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy

October 3rd 04, 05:26 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:30:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>>>
>>> You are *such* a liar.
>>
>>I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot
>>when
>>you wrote it?
>
> No more so than when you wrote "CBS Blows it again".

It was more like here they go again.

Lionel

October 3rd 04, 05:28 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>>coming from the left.
>
>
> nc

No comment ? LOL...
Nothing new Dave... Since you haven't commented Sackman, ScottW and
Richman recent deliriums' about France. So I am not surprised of your
today "reserve" (lol).
Oh, I see it is possible to joke about France as you have recently
disgustingly attempted but it is not politically correct to say the true
about a gang of Jewish fascists named the "Neo-conservative".

You are the Disney-Boy Dave and they are mocking you. ;-)

dave weil

October 3rd 04, 05:35 PM

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:26:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:30:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>>>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>>>>
>>>> You are *such* a liar.
>>>
>>>I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot
>>>when
>>>you wrote it?
>>
>> No more so than when you wrote "CBS Blows it again".
>
>It was more like here they go again.

Spin, dreidelboy, spin.

Look at the title of this thread. Look what you wrote in your initial
post. It was full of mischaracterizations.

dave weil

October 3rd 04, 06:01 PM

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:28:03 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>>>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>>>coming from the left.
>>
>>
>> nc
>
>No comment ? LOL...
>Nothing new Dave... Since you haven't commented Sackman, ScottW and
>Richman recent deliriums' about France. So I am not surprised of your
>today "reserve" (lol).
>Oh, I see it is possible to joke about France as you have recently
>disgustingly attempted but it is not politically correct to say the true
>about a gang of Jewish fascists named the "Neo-conservative".
>
>You are the Disney-Boy Dave and they are mocking you. ;-)

Frankly, it didn't seem worthy of comment. To me, it was more of the
old "Jews run the world" stuff.

BTW, Art is a conservative, at least from his postings here. So is
Scott. So they are coming from the Right, not the Left.

And yes, just as possible for me to "joke about France", if that's
what you call it, as it is for you to "joke about the US".

ScottW

October 3rd 04, 06:06 PM

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:30:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
>>>>>failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.
>>>>
>>>> You are *such* a liar.
>>>
>>>I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot
>>>when
>>>you wrote it?
>>
>> No more so than when you wrote "CBS Blows it again".
>
> It was more like here they go again.

I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It was on
the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign is
reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations and
the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then to the
Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to trumpet
from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global test)
followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is gaining
traction none the less".
It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast that
makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV (which I do
very little), CBS has become my last resort.

ScottW

Bruce J. Richman

October 3rd 04, 06:45 PM

Dave Weil wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:28:03 +0200, Lionel >
>wrote:
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>>>>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>>>>coming from the left.
>>>
>>>
>>> nc
>>
>>No comment ? LOL...
>>Nothing new Dave... Since you haven't commented Sackman, ScottW and
>>Richman recent deliriums' about France. So I am not surprised of your
>>today "reserve" (lol).
>>Oh, I see it is possible to joke about France as you have recently
>>disgustingly attempted but it is not politically correct to say the true
>>about a gang of Jewish fascists named the "Neo-conservative".
>>
>>You are the Disney-Boy Dave and they are mocking you. ;-)
>
>Frankly, it didn't seem worthy of comment. To me, it was more of the
>old "Jews run the world" stuff.
>
>BTW, Art is a conservative, at least from his postings here. So is
>Scott. So they are coming from the Right, not the Left.
>
>And yes, just as possible for me to "joke about France", if that's
>what you call it, as it is for you to "joke about the US".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Unlike Lionel, nobody else has idioticallly and disgustingly attempted to
inject religion into discussions about politics. But for known antriSemite and
Hamas supporter, Lionel, bigotry and sociopathic behavior are always present.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 3rd 04, 07:40 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Dave Weil wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:28:03 +0200, Lionel >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:34:19 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Explanation : most of the Neo-Conservatives who (really) manage USA
>>>>>external policy are Jewish. Most of them like Sackman and Richman are
>>>>>coming from the left.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>nc
>>>
>>>No comment ? LOL...
>>>Nothing new Dave... Since you haven't commented Sackman, ScottW and
>>>Richman recent deliriums' about France. So I am not surprised of your
>>>today "reserve" (lol).
>>>Oh, I see it is possible to joke about France as you have recently
>>>disgustingly attempted but it is not politically correct to say the true
>>>about a gang of Jewish fascists named the "Neo-conservative".
>>>
>>>You are the Disney-Boy Dave and they are mocking you. ;-)
>>
>>Frankly, it didn't seem worthy of comment. To me, it was more of the
>>old "Jews run the world" stuff.
>>
>>BTW, Art is a conservative, at least from his postings here. So is
>>Scott. So they are coming from the Right, not the Left.
>>
>>And yes, just as possible for me to "joke about France", if that's
>>what you call it, as it is for you to "joke about the US".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Unlike Lionel, nobody else has idioticallly and disgustingly attempted to
> inject religion into discussions about politics. But for known antriSemite and
> Hamas supporter, Lionel, bigotry and sociopathic behavior are always present.

Dave, if you want to have a precise idea of fascists prefered tactic
just read the above... :-)
Note that this guy never speak directly to me.
The Richman's "antiSemite", "Hamas supporter", "bigotry"... are the
equivalent of WMDs, violation of US resolution... in RAO microcosm.

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 08:09 PM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...

> The analysis is fallacious. There are significant differences between my
> views, politically speaking, and Art's. I would describe myself as a
> moderate
> Democrat, with views re. foreign policy that are relatively conservative,
> but
> holding views on domestic issues such as health care, gun control, a
> woman's
> right to choose, etc. that are definitely liberal. I'm also a registered
> Democrat, and generally speaking, have usually, but not always supported
> Democratic candidates for president.
>

Hmmm, I am a registered Democrat, a moderate Democrat, with views on
foreign policy that are relateively conservative. I am pro choice, pro civil
union,
but anti gay marriage. I am also moderately pro gun control, but with having
respect for the Second Amendment and the basic right to own guns for sport
and self protection. I have a history of supporting independant candidates
for President. Bush was my first ever vote for a Republicn Presidential
Candidate,
and Carter was my most recent vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate.

I support domestic programs that provide opportunities to upward mobility.
I oppose domestic programs that perpetuate the status quo, and only
serve to make poverty more palatable.

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 08:14 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, Art is a conservative, at least from his postings here. So is
> Scott. So they are coming from the Right, not the Left.
>

I think he meant that I used to be on the left, many years ago.
He is right about that. Somewhere around the early to mid
sevenies, the excesses of the left began to disgust me. And, as
time wore on, much of the faulty reasoning of the far left worked
its way into and took over more mainstream liberalism.

MINe 109

October 3rd 04, 08:32 PM

In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It was on
> the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign is
> reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations and
> the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then to the
> Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to trumpet
> from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global test)
> followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is gaining
> traction none the less".
> It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast that
> makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV (which I do
> very little), CBS has become my last resort.

Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?

Stephen

S888Wheel

October 3rd 04, 08:42 PM

>From: "Clyde Slick"
>Date: 10/3/2004 12:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The analysis is fallacious. There are significant differences between my
>> views, politically speaking, and Art's. I would describe myself as a
>> moderate
>> Democrat, with views re. foreign policy that are relatively conservative,
>> but
>> holding views on domestic issues such as health care, gun control, a
>> woman's
>> right to choose, etc. that are definitely liberal. I'm also a registered
>> Democrat, and generally speaking, have usually, but not always supported
>> Democratic candidates for president.
>>
>
>Hmmm, I am a registered Democrat, a moderate Democrat, with views on
>foreign policy that are relateively conservative. I am pro choice, pro civil
>union,
>but anti gay marriage. I am also moderately pro gun control, but with having
>respect for the Second Amendment and the basic right to own guns for sport
>and self protection. I have a history of supporting independant candidates
>for President. Bush was my first ever vote for a Republicn Presidential
>Candidate,
>and Carter was my most recent vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
>I support domestic programs that provide opportunities to upward mobility.
>I oppose domestic programs that perpetuate the status quo, and only
>serve to make poverty more palatable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The second amendment is long obsolete and has been violated by so many
regualtions on domestic owned arms that it's a joke. OTOH I am in favor of
letting people own guns if they want to and it makes them feel better. All we
need is a war on guns to go with our hugely successful economically sound wars
on poverty, drugs and terrorism.

Lionel

October 3rd 04, 08:57 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>The analysis is fallacious. There are significant differences between my
>>views, politically speaking, and Art's. I would describe myself as a
>>moderate

You forgot to say that you was recently supporting Sackman's statement
concerning Abu Ghraib tortured prisonners : they were terrorists... :-(

>>Democrat, with views re. foreign policy that are relatively conservative,
>>but
>>holding views on domestic issues such as health care, gun control, a
>>woman's
>>right to choose, etc. that are definitely liberal. I'm also a registered
>>Democrat, and generally speaking, have usually, but not always supported
>>Democratic candidates for president.
>>

> Hmmm, I am a registered Democrat, a moderate

LOL !

> Democrat, with views on
> foreign policy that are relateively conservative. I am pro choice, pro civil
> union,
> but anti gay marriage. I am also moderately pro gun control, but with having
> respect for the Second Amendment and the basic right to own guns for sport
> and self protection. I have a history of supporting independant candidates
> for President. Bush was my first ever vote for a Republicn Presidential
> Candidate,
> and Carter was my most recent vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
> I support domestic programs that provide opportunities to upward mobility.
> I oppose domestic programs that perpetuate the status quo, and only
> serve to make poverty more palatable.

You just forgot like Richman "I am xenophobe, and racist. I cannot stand
Frenchs and Muslims"...

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 09:21 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>
> The second amendment is long obsolete and has been violated by so many
> regualtions on domestic owned arms that it's a joke. OTOH I am in favor of
> letting people own guns if they want to and it makes them feel better. All
> we
> need is a war on guns to go with our hugely successful economically sound
> wars
> on poverty, drugs and terrorism.
>

Well, a purist would argue that any limitation on individually owned
weapons violates the 2nd Amendment. But we can't be allowed to
carry around our own personal nukes, can we? So, I think that guns
appropriate for hunting and personal self defense are ok, but ones more
appropriate to military assaults are not. Basically, it is what we have,
with an
unfortunate mild tilt too far to the side of limitations (such as gun
locks).

Another good question is whether the war on poverty has been a success.
Poverty is usually measured by the number of those beneath the 50%
of median income. Well,there are still plenty in that state, but, in the
previous forty years, the median income, and more importantly the
purchasing power and lifestyle afforded by the median income, has risen
tremendously. And, as far as statistical measurements go, 50% of the
population
are ALWAYS going to be under the median income, the question
is how many of that 50 % are going to be over/under the 50%
of the median income. So, its a question of how income at the statistical
BOTTOM
half is distributed, and has nothing at all to do with the distribution at
the top.
So class warfare is an absolutely useless and wasteful activity, and does
nothing
at all to help those on the bottom. Raising the entire economy and providing
educational and ownership opportunities for upward mobility seems the answer
to me.

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 09:23 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> You just forgot like Richman "I am xenophobe, and racist. I cannot stand
> Frenchs and Muslims"...

No, just French and radical Islamists.
In the end, they are both out to do us in.
One is just being a little quicker and more direct about it.

ScottW

October 3rd 04, 09:32 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It was
on
> > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign is
> > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
and
> > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then to
the
> > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
trumpet
> > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
test)
> > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is gaining
> > traction none the less".
> > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
that
> > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV (which
I do
> > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
>
> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?

Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
with their obvious bias.

ScottW

S888Wheel

October 3rd 04, 09:57 PM

>From: "Clyde Slick"
>Date: 10/3/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The second amendment is long obsolete and has been violated by so many
>> regualtions on domestic owned arms that it's a joke. OTOH I am in favor of
>> letting people own guns if they want to and it makes them feel better. All
>> we
>> need is a war on guns to go with our hugely successful economically sound
>> wars
>> on poverty, drugs and terrorism.
>>
>
>Well, a purist would argue that any limitation on individually owned
>weapons violates the 2nd Amendment.

When it comes to the constitution aren't we all suposed to be purists?

But we can't be allowed to
>carry around our own personal nukes, can we?

Amoung many other things. That does violate the letter and the spirit of the
second amendment though. Hence, it is an obsolete amendment that is largely
ignored.

So, I think that guns
>appropriate for hunting and personal self defense are ok, but ones more
>appropriate to military assaults are not.

Like I said, I am not in favor of a war on guns. I don't think invoking an
obviously obsolete and selectively enforced amendment is the issue though.

Basically, it is what we have,
>with an
>unfortunate mild tilt too far to the side of limitations (such as gun
>locks).
>
>Another good question is whether the war on poverty has been a success.
>Poverty is usually measured by the number of those beneath the 50%
>of median income. Well,there are still plenty in that state, but, in the
>previous forty years, the median income, and more importantly the
>purchasing power and lifestyle afforded by the median income, has risen
>tremendously. And, as far as statistical measurements go, 50% of the
>population
>are ALWAYS going to be under the median income, the question
>is how many of that 50 % are going to be over/under the 50%
>of the median income. So, its a question of how income at the statistical
>BOTTOM
>half is distributed, and has nothing at all to do with the distribution at
>the top.
>So class warfare is an absolutely useless and wasteful activity, and does
>nothing
>at all to help those on the bottom. Raising the entire economy and providing
>educational and ownership opportunities for upward mobility seems the answer
>to me.

The war on poverty was President Johnson's war. It failed. As has the war on
drugs and is the war on terror so far. Maybe we should consider declaring peace
on the next big issue.

MINe 109

October 3rd 04, 10:21 PM

In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It was
> on
> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign is
> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
> and
> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then to
> the
> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
> trumpet
> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
> test)
> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is gaining
> > > traction none the less".
> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
> that
> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV (which
> I do
> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
> >
> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>
> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
> with their obvious bias.

He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
legitimate reasons."

The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.

The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
Korea.

As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
And Fox is making stuff up on their website.

Stephen

Ob audio: Anyone else hear a Kinks-like ability to steal bits of other
songs in the new Green Day?

Michael McKelvy

October 3rd 04, 11:23 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
>> > > was
>> on
>> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
>> > > is
>> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
>> and
>> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then
>> > > to
>> the
>> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
>> trumpet
>> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
>> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
>> test)
>> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
>> > > gaining
>> > > traction none the less".
>> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
>> that
>> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
>> > > (which
>> I do
>> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
>> >
>> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>
>> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
>> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
>> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
>> with their obvious bias.
>
> He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
>
> "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
> would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
> United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
> do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
> your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
> you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
> legitimate reasons."
>
> The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
> doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
> you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
>
> The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
> Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
> Korea.
>
> As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
> And Fox is making stuff up on their website.
>
Hey, if the left can twist the 2nd Amendment why can't the GOP spin Kerry's
words?

MINe 109

October 3rd 04, 11:33 PM

In article et>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> Hey, if the left can twist the 2nd Amendment why can't the GOP spin Kerry's
> words?

Thanks for admitting the right is spinning Kerry's words.

Ob audio: Was Bush talking to someone he heard on his earpiece when he
said "let me finish" in the middle of his answer?

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 11:36 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>
> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>
What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
After all, he has one consistent position.

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 11:50 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Clyde Slick"
>>Date: 10/3/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> The second amendment is long obsolete and has been violated by so many
>>> regualtions on domestic owned arms that it's a joke. OTOH I am in favor
>>> of
>>> letting people own guns if they want to and it makes them feel better.
>>> All
>>> we
>>> need is a war on guns to go with our hugely successful economically
>>> sound
>>> wars
>>> on poverty, drugs and terrorism.
>>>
>>
>>Well, a purist would argue that any limitation on individually owned
>>weapons violates the 2nd Amendment.
>
> When it comes to the constitution aren't we all suposed to be purists?
>

If it were so simple to figure out what is exactly
prescribed for each possible eventuality, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court

>
> But we can't be allowed to
>>carry around our own personal nukes, can we?
>
> Amoung many other things. That does violate the letter and the spirit of
> the
> second amendment though. Hence, it is an obsolete amendment that is
> largely
> ignored.
>

It is not obsolete, and not largely ignored.
I certainly see an original intent that people be allowed
to keep arms for self protection and hunting. There has been
a lot written about keeping arms as a means of protection
and prevention of government gone radically amok, but that is
just not realistic (that it could be prevented or one can be protected)
in modern society. The point is, if we are to dump it by the
wayside, it should be repealed through the proper process rather than
ignored.

> So, I think that guns
>>appropriate for hunting and personal self defense are ok, but ones more
>>appropriate to military assaults are not.
>
>
> Like I said, I am not in favor of a war on guns. I don't think invoking an
> obviously obsolete and selectively enforced amendment is the issue though.
>

We should concentrate on disarming criminals, not the populace as a whole.

> Basically, it is what we have,
>>with an
>>unfortunate mild tilt too far to the side of limitations (such as gun
>>locks).
>>
>>Another good question is whether the war on poverty has been a success.
>>Poverty is usually measured by the number of those beneath the 50%
>>of median income. Well,there are still plenty in that state, but, in the
>>previous forty years, the median income, and more importantly the
>>purchasing power and lifestyle afforded by the median income, has risen
>>tremendously. And, as far as statistical measurements go, 50% of the
>>population
>>are ALWAYS going to be under the median income, the question
>>is how many of that 50 % are going to be over/under the 50%
>>of the median income. So, its a question of how income at the statistical
>>BOTTOM
>>half is distributed, and has nothing at all to do with the distribution at
>>the top.
>>So class warfare is an absolutely useless and wasteful activity, and does
>>nothing
>>at all to help those on the bottom. Raising the entire economy and
>>providing
>>educational and ownership opportunities for upward mobility seems the
>>answer
>>to me.
>
> The war on poverty was President Johnson's war. It failed. As has the war
> on
> drugs and is the war on terror so far. Maybe we should consider declaring
> peace
> on the next big issue.
>

I don't know that it has failed. There is a lot more upward mobility than
there was
40 years ago. But again, that might not be a result of the War on Poverty.
I credit it to civil rights and a growing economy.

ScottW

October 3rd 04, 11:52 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
was
> > on
> > > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
is
> > > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing
ovations
> > and
> > > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive.
Then to
> > the
> > > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
> > trumpet
> > > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> > > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the
global
> > test)
> > > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
gaining
> > > > traction none the less".
> > > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
> > that
> > > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
(which
> > I do
> > > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
> > >
> > > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> > > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> >
> > Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
> > interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
> > debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
> > with their obvious bias.
>
> He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
>
> "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
> would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
> United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
> do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
> your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
> you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
> legitimate reasons."
>
> The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
> doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
> you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.

Why are your words different than Kerry's?

Kerry says you must "prove to the world". This implies the world agrees,
after all you have proven it. But such is the lala land of the left
believing "the world" has a good heart and will accept reasonable proof.
Why do you continue to ignore the existence of corrupt regimes than can be
bought off and will not accept any proof that contradict their interests,
like France?
>
> The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
> Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
> Korea.
>
> As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.

If they screwed up a good story, they have no one to blame but themselves.

ScottW

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 11:58 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
>> > > was
>> on
>> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
>> > > is
>> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
>> and
>> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then
>> > > to
>> the
>> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
>> trumpet
>> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
>> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
>> test)
>> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
>> > > gaining
>> > > traction none the less".
>> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
>> that
>> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
>> > > (which
>> I do
>> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
>> >
>> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>
>> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
>> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
>> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
>> with their obvious bias.
>
> He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
>
> "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
> would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
> United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
> do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
> your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
> you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
> legitimate reasons."
>
> The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
> doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
> you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
>

It's the same damn thing!
Doublespeak, in a more touchy-feely language.

S888Wheel

October 4th 04, 12:07 AM

>From: "Clyde Slick"
>Date: 10/3/2004 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Clyde Slick"
>>>Date: 10/3/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> The second amendment is long obsolete and has been violated by so many
>>>> regualtions on domestic owned arms that it's a joke. OTOH I am in favor
>>>> of
>>>> letting people own guns if they want to and it makes them feel better.
>>>> All
>>>> we
>>>> need is a war on guns to go with our hugely successful economically
>>>> sound
>>>> wars
>>>> on poverty, drugs and terrorism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, a purist would argue that any limitation on individually owned
>>>weapons violates the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> When it comes to the constitution aren't we all suposed to be purists?
>>
>
>If it were so simple to figure out what is exactly
>prescribed for each possible eventuality, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court

Irrelevant.

>
>>
>> But we can't be allowed to
>>>carry around our own personal nukes, can we?
>>
>> Amoung many other things. That does violate the letter and the spirit of
>> the
>> second amendment though. Hence, it is an obsolete amendment that is
>> largely
>> ignored.
>>
>
>It is not obsolete, and not largely ignored.

Yes it is on both counts.

>I certainly see an original intent that people be allowed
>to keep arms for self protection and hunting.

That was not the original intent.

There has been
>a lot written about keeping arms as a means of protection
>and prevention of government gone radically amok,

That was the original intent. Given the sort of militia one would need to fight
a war against the US armed forces by the people on our own soil the second
amendent is largely ignored. we, as citizens are not allowed to own the kind of
hardware needed to fight an effective fight against our own armed forces. It is
largely ignored. I for one would not want private citizens having such weapons
and I think most people agree, that makes it obsolete. That amendment was never
about allowing people to hunt.

but that is
>just not realistic (that it could be prevented or one can be protected)
>in modern society.

Indeed it isn't realistic. The second amendment is obsolete and largely
ignored.

The point is, if we are to dump it by the
>wayside, it should be repealed through the proper process rather than
>ignored.

I agree. But it is being largely ignored and very few people are upset by this.

>
>
>> So, I think that guns
>>>appropriate for hunting and personal self defense are ok, but ones more
>>>appropriate to military assaults are not.
>>
>>
>> Like I said, I am not in favor of a war on guns. I don't think invoking an
>> obviously obsolete and selectively enforced amendment is the issue though.
>>
>
>We should concentrate on disarming criminals, not the populace as a whole.

Agreed. We already have laws for that. Enforcement is the problem just as it is
with illegal drugs. We all know how well that war has gone.

>
>
>> Basically, it is what we have,
>>>with an
>>>unfortunate mild tilt too far to the side of limitations (such as gun
>>>locks).
>>>
>>>Another good question is whether the war on poverty has been a success.
>>>Poverty is usually measured by the number of those beneath the 50%
>>>of median income. Well,there are still plenty in that state, but, in the
>>>previous forty years, the median income, and more importantly the
>>>purchasing power and lifestyle afforded by the median income, has risen
>>>tremendously. And, as far as statistical measurements go, 50% of the
>>>population
>>>are ALWAYS going to be under the median income, the question
>>>is how many of that 50 % are going to be over/under the 50%
>>>of the median income. So, its a question of how income at the statistical
>>>BOTTOM
>>>half is distributed, and has nothing at all to do with the distribution at
>>>the top.
>>>So class warfare is an absolutely useless and wasteful activity, and does
>>>nothing
>>>at all to help those on the bottom. Raising the entire economy and
>>>providing
>>>educational and ownership opportunities for upward mobility seems the
>>>answer
>>>to me.
>>
>> The war on poverty was President Johnson's war. It failed. As has the war
>> on
>> drugs and is the war on terror so far. Maybe we should consider declaring
>> peace
>> on the next big issue.
>>
>
>I don't know that it has failed. There is a lot more upward mobility than
>there was
>40 years ago. But again, that might not be a result of the War on Poverty.

Johnson's war on poverty ( the policies) was long left behind for the most
part. We lost, poverty is still a major issue.

>I credit it to civil rights and a growing economy.

We did make some progress in the nineties.

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 01:08 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
> >> > > was
> >> on
> >> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
> >> > > is
> >> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
> >> and
> >> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then
> >> > > to
> >> the
> >> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
> >> trumpet
> >> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> >> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
> >> test)
> >> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
> >> > > gaining
> >> > > traction none the less".
> >> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
> >> that
> >> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
> >> > > (which
> >> I do
> >> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
> >> >
> >> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> >> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> >>
> >> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
> >> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
> >> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
> >> with their obvious bias.
> >
> > He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
> >
> > "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
> > would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
> > United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
> > do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
> > your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
> > you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
> > legitimate reasons."
> >
> > The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
> > doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
> > you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
> >
>
> It's the same damn thing!
> Doublespeak, in a more touchy-feely language.

Presenting a case doesn't depend on the case being accepted, something
of which a former prosecutor would be aware.

Ob audio: Fretwork's publicity bio says they performed Elizabethan songs
with Elvis Costello in 1995. Is there a recording?

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 01:16 AM

In article <cp%7d.10425$mS1.5104@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
> was
> > > on
> > > > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
> is
> > > > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing
> ovations
> > > and
> > > > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive.
> Then to
> > > the
> > > > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
> > > trumpet
> > > > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
> > > > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the
> global
> > > test)
> > > > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
> gaining
> > > > > traction none the less".
> > > > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
> > > that
> > > > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
> (which
> > > I do
> > > > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
> > > >
> > > > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> > > > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> > >
> > > Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
> > > interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
> > > debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
> > > with their obvious bias.
> >
> > He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
> >
> > "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
> > would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
> > United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
> > do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
> > your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
> > you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
> > legitimate reasons."
> >
> > The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
> > doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
> > you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
>
> Why are your words different than Kerry's?

I'm paraphrasing, changing the word order to show the meaning more
clearly.

> Kerry says you must "prove to the world". This implies the world agrees,
> after all you have proven it.

No, it doesn't.

> But such is the lala land of the left
> believing "the world" has a good heart and will accept reasonable proof.

Guess what: the world won't take our say-so anymore. Kerry's language
echoes similar talk from Colin Powell.

> Why do you continue to ignore the existence of corrupt regimes than can be
> bought off and will not accept any proof that contradict their interests,
> like France?

Who, me?

Bushies aren't in a good position to argue that to "not accept any proof
that contradict their interests" is a bad thing.

> > The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
> > Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
> > Korea.
> >
> > As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
>
> If they screwed up a good story, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I blame them, too.

Ob audio: anyone catch Fogerty on ACL? Or heard the new recording?

Stephen

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 01:18 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> >
> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> >
> What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
> said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
> his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
> After all, he has one consistent position.

Talking-points Man! I didn't see you come in. The cape's hanging nicely.

Ob audio: anyone see the Space Ghost DVD?

ScottW

October 4th 04, 03:02 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message news:smcatut-

> > Why are your words different than Kerry's?
>
> I'm paraphrasing, changing the word order to show the meaning more
> clearly.

Your words have different meaning to me.
>
> > Kerry says you must "prove to the world". This implies the world
agrees,
> > after all you have proven it.
>
> No, it doesn't.

So can you see the problem with Kerry's words? He hasn't clearly defined
the extent of his global test and who determines what passes and what fails.
In the end, if Kerry feels the US makes the determination in spite of a lack
of world consensus, I can't see a difference between his position and Bush's
beyond Bush admitting the world doesn't have a say in the matter.
>
> > But such is the lala land of the left
> > believing "the world" has a good heart and will accept reasonable proof.
>
> Guess what: the world won't take our say-so anymore.

When did they?

> Kerry's language
> echoes similar talk from Colin Powell.

I respect Powell but don't alway agree with him. He has assumed the role
of diplomat yet retains the mantle of military commander. People need to
forget that past and expect him to advocate diplomacy. It is his role.
>
> > Why do you continue to ignore the existence of corrupt regimes than can
be
> > bought off and will not accept any proof that contradict their
interests,
> > like France?
>
> Who, me?
>
> Bushies aren't in a good position to argue that to "not accept any proof
> that contradict their interests" is a bad thing.

Did Clinton's policy on Kosovo pass "the global test"?
>
> > > The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next
bit.
> > > Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
> > > Korea.
> > >
> > > As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
> >
> > If they screwed up a good story, they have no one to blame but
themselves.
>
> I blame them, too.
>
> Ob audio: anyone catch Fogerty on ACL? Or heard the new recording?

Getting the Spambot complaints too I see.

Ob audio: No, I didn't see it. I did just catch a HD presention of Amazing
Journeys into Caves with a Moody Blues soundtrack that appealed enough that
I had to order it. But I ordered all the Secret Gardens CDs just from
watching a Michelle Kwan skate performance :).

ScottW

Clyde Slick

October 4th 04, 03:09 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...

>
> Ob audio: anyone catch Fogerty on ACL? Or heard the new recording?
>

Just saw one song, my favorite, Down on The Corner.
It was a bit too fast, which made a big difference, and it sucked the feel
right
out of it.

Clyde Slick

October 4th 04, 03:19 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>> >
>> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>> >
>> What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>> said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>> his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>> After all, he has one consistent position.
>
> Talking-points Man! I didn't see you come in. The cape's hanging nicely.
>
It's what I heard, and what I thought about
as I was watching it, and before there was any commentary.
It's all from his own utterings. The debate performance
was glib and facile. I heard no convictions about anything.

His arguments were internally inconsistent. He decried the basis
of the war and its costs, denigrated our allies, yet claimed he can
bring in the major recalcitrants to share the human loss and costs.
Tell me how is going to convince them of the need for sacrifice,
when he tells the American public and the rest of the world
that what we are doing is not worth the cost.
If he is going to be against the war, he
needs to be against it all the way and be consistent
about it.

ScottW

October 4th 04, 03:37 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> >> >
> >> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to
veto
> >> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> >> >
> >> What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
> >> said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
> >> his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
> >> After all, he has one consistent position.
> >
> > Talking-points Man! I didn't see you come in. The cape's hanging nicely.
> >
> It's what I heard, and what I thought about
> as I was watching it, and before there was any commentary.
> It's all from his own utterings. The debate performance
> was glib and facile. I heard no convictions about anything.
>
> His arguments were internally inconsistent. He decried the basis
> of the war and its costs, denigrated our allies, yet claimed he can
> bring in the major recalcitrants to share the human loss and costs.
> Tell me how is going to convince them of the need for sacrifice,
> when he tells the American public and the rest of the world
> that what we are doing is not worth the cost.
> If he is going to be against the war, he
> needs to be against it all the way and be consistent
> about it.

Kerry's better way of diplomacy is already failing.

http://tinyurl.com/4etwd

ScottW
>
>

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 04:14 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
> >> >
> >> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
> >> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
> >> >
> >> What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
> >> said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
> >> his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
> >> After all, he has one consistent position.
> >
> > Talking-points Man! I didn't see you come in. The cape's hanging nicely.
> >
> It's what I heard, and what I thought about
> as I was watching it, and before there was any commentary.
> It's all from his own utterings. The debate performance
> was glib and facile. I heard no convictions about anything.
>
> His arguments were internally inconsistent. He decried the basis
> of the war and its costs, denigrated our allies, yet claimed he can
> bring in the major recalcitrants to share the human loss and costs.
> Tell me how is going to convince them of the need for sacrifice,
> when he tells the American public and the rest of the world
> that what we are doing is not worth the cost.
> If he is going to be against the war, he
> needs to be against it all the way and be consistent
> about it.

Yes, Bush has left quite a mess for whoever wins.

Ob audio: lightning didn't strike my stereo, but a hot-air balloon
crashed nearby.

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 04:17 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Ob audio: anyone catch Fogerty on ACL? Or heard the new recording?
> >
>
> Just saw one song, my favorite, Down on The Corner.
> It was a bit too fast, which made a big difference, and it sucked the feel
> right
> out of it.

I turned away from that very song, but I didn't mind the faster tempo.
One complaint about CCR was that their concert performances were too
much like their records, so maybe someone liked it better.

Stephen

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 04:30 AM

In article <3b28d.10455$mS1.8981@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message news:smcatut-
>
> > > Why are your words different than Kerry's?
> >
> > I'm paraphrasing, changing the word order to show the meaning more
> > clearly.
>
> Your words have different meaning to me.

Sorry if you don't see it.

> > > Kerry says you must "prove to the world". This implies the world
> agrees,
> > > after all you have proven it.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> So can you see the problem with Kerry's words? He hasn't clearly defined
> the extent of his global test and who determines what passes and what fails.
> In the end, if Kerry feels the US makes the determination in spite of a lack
> of world consensus, I can't see a difference between his position and Bush's
> beyond Bush admitting the world doesn't have a say in the matter.

The test ultimately is for the President to justify the action he will
take. If he can't do so, he should think again, as opposed to Bush's
deification of Will and Certainty.

If Bush tells the world to FO, it's hard to go back for the next
request. Kerry might leave that door open while still preserving the US
right to unilateral action he clearly reiterated.

> > > But such is the lala land of the left
> > > believing "the world" has a good heart and will accept reasonable proof.
> >
> > Guess what: the world won't take our say-so anymore.
>
> When did they?

Gulf War.

> > Kerry's language
> > echoes similar talk from Colin Powell.
>
> I respect Powell but don't alway agree with him. He has assumed the role
> of diplomat yet retains the mantle of military commander. People need to
> forget that past and expect him to advocate diplomacy. It is his role.

Powell lost my respect when he went to the UN.

> > > Why do you continue to ignore the existence of corrupt regimes than can
> be
> > > bought off and will not accept any proof that contradict their
> interests,
> > > like France?
> >
> > Who, me?
> >
> > Bushies aren't in a good position to argue that to "not accept any proof
> > that contradict their interests" is a bad thing.
>
> Did Clinton's policy on Kosovo pass "the global test"?

Yes.

> > > > The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next
> bit.
> > > > Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
> > > > Korea.
> > > >
> > > > As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
> > >
> > > If they screwed up a good story, they have no one to blame but
> themselves.
> >
> > I blame them, too.
> >
> > Ob audio: anyone catch Fogerty on ACL? Or heard the new recording?
>
> Getting the Spambot complaints too I see.

For a one-line URL!

> Ob audio: No, I didn't see it. I did just catch a HD presention of Amazing
> Journeys into Caves with a Moody Blues soundtrack that appealed enough that
> I had to order it. But I ordered all the Secret Gardens CDs just from
> watching a Michelle Kwan skate performance :).

High-def! I'm well behind the times video-wise. I will actually watch
those PBS helicopter shots and folk tunes programs.

Clyde Slick

October 4th 04, 04:57 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:oI28d.10461$mS1.6844@fed1read05...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>> >> >
>> >> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to
> veto
>> >> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>> >> >
>> >> What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>> >> said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>> >> his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same
>> >> time.
>> >> After all, he has one consistent position.
>> >
>> > Talking-points Man! I didn't see you come in. The cape's hanging
>> > nicely.
>> >
>> It's what I heard, and what I thought about
>> as I was watching it, and before there was any commentary.
>> It's all from his own utterings. The debate performance
>> was glib and facile. I heard no convictions about anything.
>>
>> His arguments were internally inconsistent. He decried the basis
>> of the war and its costs, denigrated our allies, yet claimed he can
>> bring in the major recalcitrants to share the human loss and costs.
>> Tell me how is going to convince them of the need for sacrifice,
>> when he tells the American public and the rest of the world
>> that what we are doing is not worth the cost.
>> If he is going to be against the war, he
>> needs to be against it all the way and be consistent
>> about it.
>
> Kerry's better way of diplomacy is already failing.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4etwd
>
> ScottW

It could have been even worse if Iran would have accepted it.
Iran would just renege on their end and get their "cake" (sorry, I couldn't
resist!)
and eat it too. What a deal! We give something tangible, in exchange for a
promise
NOT to do something, from a secretive society which we would find
very difficult to monitor.

dave weil

October 4th 04, 06:32 AM

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:23:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
>>> > > was
>>> on
>>> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry campaign
>>> > > is
>>> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing ovations
>>> and
>>> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive. Then
>>> > > to
>>> the
>>> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
>>> trumpet
>>> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
>>> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the global
>>> test)
>>> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
>>> > > gaining
>>> > > traction none the less".
>>> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a newscast
>>> that
>>> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
>>> > > (which
>>> I do
>>> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
>>> >
>>> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>>> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>
>>> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
>>> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
>>> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news segment
>>> with their obvious bias.
>>
>> He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
>>
>> "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
>> would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
>> United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
>> do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
>> your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
>> you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
>> legitimate reasons."
>>
>> The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
>> doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
>> you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
>>
>> The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
>> Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
>> Korea.
>>
>> As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
>> And Fox is making stuff up on their website.
>>
>Hey, if the left can twist the 2nd Amendment why can't the GOP spin Kerry's
>words?

How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?

And yes, that's so pretty awkward rhetoric of my own...

Michael McKelvy

October 4th 04, 07:20 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>> Hey, if the left can twist the 2nd Amendment why can't the GOP spin
>> Kerry's
>> words?
>
> Thanks for admitting the right is spinning Kerry's words.
>

They both do it the left seems to do it more.
Check out spinsanity.com and see what I mean.
As I've been telling you all, I'm not a Republican, I just like Bush for the
war on Terror. I don't like Kerry for anything other than manager of a
waffle house.

> Ob audio: Was Bush talking to someone he heard on his earpiece when he
> said "let me finish" in the middle of his answer?

Michael McKelvy

October 4th 04, 07:21 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:23:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article <YlZ7d.10409$mS1.124@fed1read05>,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > I watched a segment of CBS Evening News last night (Saturday). It
>>>> > > was
>>>> on
>>>> > > the campaigns. First up Kerry with something like the Kerry
>>>> > > campaign
>>>> > > is
>>>> > > reenergized with Kerry supporters at rally's giving standing
>>>> > > ovations
>>>> and
>>>> > > the campaign workers are gidddy etc. Very upbeat and positive.
>>>> > > Then
>>>> > > to
>>>> the
>>>> > > Bush campaign where they talked of Bush also finding something to
>>>> trumpet
>>>> > > from the debate. A flash of Bush saying Kerry would allow foreign
>>>> > > governments to veto US use of military force (reference to the
>>>> > > global
>>>> test)
>>>> > > followed immediately by a CBS comment, "which is not true but is
>>>> > > gaining
>>>> > > traction none the less".
>>>> > > It is this kind of blatant editorializing in the midst of a
>>>> > > newscast
>>>> that
>>>> > > makes CBS news unwatchable. Frankly, if I'm watching network TV
>>>> > > (which
>>>> I do
>>>> > > very little), CBS has become my last resort.
>>>> >
>>>> > Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to
>>>> > veto
>>>> > US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>
>>>> Since Kerry has yet to define "the global test" it is subject to
>>>> interpretation. Therefore the lack of truth to Bush's statement is
>>>> debateable. It isn't for CBS to declare it to be false in a news
>>>> segment
>>>> with their obvious bias.
>>>
>>> He defined it in the sentence in which he said it:
>>>
>>> "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
>>> would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the
>>> United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to
>>> do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
>>> your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
>>> you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for
>>> legitimate reasons."
>>>
>>> The "global test" is if your countrymen/people understand why you're
>>> doing what you're doing and if you can present a case to the world that
>>> you have legitimate reasons. It isn't giving foreign governments a veto.
>>>
>>> The first bit is more important than twisting the words of the next bit.
>>> Otherwise, one would ask why China has a veto on US talks with North
>>> Korea.
>>>
>>> As for bias, CBS axed a good story in the face of Republican pressure.
>>> And Fox is making stuff up on their website.
>>>
>>Hey, if the left can twist the 2nd Amendment why can't the GOP spin
>>Kerry's
>>words?
>
> How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
> well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
> considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?
>
Because the left thinks that it means you have to belong to a militia in
order to keep and bear arms.

> And yes, that's so pretty awkward rhetoric of my own...

Lionel

October 4th 04, 09:55 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>You just forgot like Richman "I am xenophobe, and racist. I cannot stand
>>Frenchs and Muslims"...
>
>
> No, just French and radical Islamists.
> In the end, they are both out to do us in.
> One is just being a little quicker and more direct about it.

:-)

dave weil

October 4th 04, 01:58 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:21:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
>> well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
>> considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?
>>
>Because the left thinks that it means you have to belong to a militia in
>order to keep and bear arms.

No, that's not what the Left "thinks". But thanks for playing anyway.
The Left has actually *read* the darn thing and sees the phrase "not
be infringed" and knows that infringed isn't the same thing as
"banned".

dave weil

October 4th 04, 03:10 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:30:00 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>> I respect Powell but don't alway agree with him. He has assumed the role
>> of diplomat yet retains the mantle of military commander. People need to
>> forget that past and expect him to advocate diplomacy. It is his role.
>
>Powell lost my respect when he went to the UN.

But he regained mine when he actually apologized and said that he was
embarassed for the inaccuracy of the presentation. That's almost
unheard of at his level.

Jacob Kramer

October 4th 04, 03:39 PM

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:52:21 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Kerry says you must "prove to the world". This implies the world agrees,
>after all you have proven it. But such is the lala land of the left
>believing "the world" has a good heart and will accept reasonable proof.
>Why do you continue to ignore the existence of corrupt regimes than can be
>bought off and will not accept any proof that contradict their interests,
>like France?

You must prove to the world if you are a member of the U.N. Article
51 of the UN Charter reads:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of
self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and
shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the
Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such
action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security."

Kerry's "global test" is a restatement of the obligations of every
state under the U.N. Charter.

Do you think the United States should withdraw from the U.N.?

Jacob Kramer

October 4th 04, 03:42 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:10:03 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:30:00 GMT, MINe 109 >
>wrote:
>
>>> I respect Powell but don't alway agree with him. He has assumed the role
>>> of diplomat yet retains the mantle of military commander. People need to
>>> forget that past and expect him to advocate diplomacy. It is his role.
>>
>>Powell lost my respect when he went to the UN.
>
>But he regained mine when he actually apologized and said that he was
>embarassed for the inaccuracy of the presentation. That's almost
>unheard of at his level.

He lost mine again when I read yesterday that he knew about the
improbability of the case for the aluminum tubes but claimed before
the U.N. they were for centrifuges anyway.

Actually at this point given the emphasis and certainty with which he
expressed his conclusions, nothing could restore my respect for him.
I don't care what information he was given. If he's going to claim he
knows something for sure, he better damn well be sure.

Jacob Kramer

October 4th 04, 03:43 PM

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>
>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>
>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>After all, he has one consistent position.

Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.

Jacob Kramer

October 4th 04, 04:18 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:43:59 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:39:37 GMT, Jacob Kramer >
>wrote:
>
>>Do you think the United States should withdraw from the U.N.?
>
>Don't all right-wingers?

Apparently some just feel the U.S. should ignore it.

I think this is ultimately based on a rosy view of U.S. history in
which the U.S. is better than other countries and can uniquely be
trusted to exercise unilateral or, in some formulations, hegemonic
power. In this perspective, foreign countries and international
institutions are inherently less reliable from an ethical point of
view. Hence the U.S. should withdraw from the ICC, Kyoto Protocol,
and ABM treaty, and the many attempts to deny wrongdoing in U.S.
history on this forum.

I'm particularly struck in this election by the blithe use of
xenophobia against the French by the president: "countries like
France." Until very recently I think this kind of bigotry would have
been denounced in the press. Even Reagan caught flak for calling
Russia, which was an enemy, an "Evil empire." Without France we might
have lost the American Revolution, and there would have been no
Lousiana Territory and no Statue of Liberty. France was also our ally
in World War I and the Cold War.

Some of this is indeed an echo of collaboration under Vichy. It's
pretty amazing the continued ideological impact of this decision,
which was clearly a disaster for France's continued standing in the
world, despite de Gaulle's efforts to promote the myth that the
Resistance was France, or at least the new French Republic.

I think American Exceptionalism until recently was tempered for most
Americans by strategic realities. Now that the Cold War is over, and
the U.S. was actually hit by terrorism, alliances are coming to many
to seem an encumbrance rather than an asset. This is a mistaken view
in my opinion, and I think an abandonment of collective security would
be a disaster for the U.S. and the world. I think the U.N. system of
collective security was in fact largely responsible for the "long
peace" in Europe after World War II, at least as much as Mutual
Assured Destruction (which, quite frankly, was never really assured,
and certainly not mutual for everyone in a decision-making capacity.
There were advocates of a U.S. first strike, and there were almost
certainly advocates in the USSR of a first strike. Think about that
for a while.). Dismantling of this system would almost certainly have
unforseen consequences, particularly given the growth of regional
rivalries between new, often nuclear-armed powers such as India and
Pakistan, North Korea and South Korea, and Israel and Iran.

Although American Exceptionalism is intended to be limited to the
U.S., once the U.S. abandons collective security in favor of its own
claims to special privilege, other countries are almost certain to
follow. The only reason the UN collective security regime is even in
place is because of the support given it by the U.S. I think it would
almost certainly portend a return to an unstable balance of power
(like that of 1914 to 1945) if the U.S. were to abandon this system.
Even most realists, who claim the U.N. is only a shell for a balance
of power between the great powers, believe this to be case. If the
U.S. doesn't promote collective security but instead attempts to be a
unilateral hegemon, most think it will fail in the long run, as have
all previous hegemons. The most stable systems over time have been
balances of power between great powers, such as the Congress of Vienna
in 1815, which basically lasted without fundamental changes until
World War I in 1914.

Nor do I accept the analysis that there must be a single hegemon and
that the U.S. is the best country for the job. This is a simplistic
view and greatly distorts the balance-of-power politics practiced by
Great Britain and Bismarck. What upset the balance of power was
precisely an attempt to assert unilateral power by Wilhelm I, and it
still took two world wars to truly accomplish. (And, to take a purely
realist perspective, in fact it seems at least for the moment to have
failed, as Germany is at this point much less influential than Britain
because of the latter's siding with the U.S.)

This is why so many realists--Fareed Zakaria, Richard Betts for
example--do not agree with Bush. Bush is a conservative, but he's not
really a realist. He's more like Napoleon than Metternich. Radical
spreading of liberal capitalist institutions is today conservative,
but at Napoleon's time it was revolutionary. "Conservative" is a
relative term that has had a different meaning since World War II.
Before then it basically meant opposition to liberal revolution,
especially its export overseas. Bush is in some sense a revolutionary
fighting authoritarianism overseas. On the other hand, he does ally
himself with the ancien regime in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Jacob Kramer

October 4th 04, 04:45 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
>bring back the DRAFT!
>
>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is however
>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>
>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
>news channels then.
>
>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I'm sure you're also very angry about this:

"Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_kerry_media

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 05:54 PM

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:37:22 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:30:00 GMT, MINe 109 >
> >> wrote:

> >That Powell Doctrine is looking good in retrospect.
>
> <quack!>

Not that one!

> >Ob audio: do you know anything about the EC/Fretwork collaboration?
>
> Vaguely. He premiered his "rare" song, "Put Away Forbidden Playthings"
> with them at Meltdown '95 (the Purcell thing) I think.
>
> Doing more research, I came up with this:
>
> http://www.astheygo.com/meltdown95.htm

"Meltdown"! That's the one. Looks incredible. Why not let Jeff Buckley
do a Mahler song? Hmm, "it?s ten minutes long... And it?s in German."
Most Mahler songs are shorter than that. Maybe he had an orchestral song
in mind or even a symphony movement. I'm already a June Tabor fan,
especially her collaboration with the Oyster Band.

The Fretwork "Sit Fast" is promising. Maybe I can scare up a copy before
the show.

Stephen

Michael McKelvy

October 4th 04, 05:59 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
>>bring back the DRAFT!
>>
>>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>>however
>>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>>
>>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
>>news channels then.
>>
>>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>
> I'm sure you're also very angry about this:
>
> "Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_kerry_media

It sounds like Carl was fooled, but you do notice how fast they owned up to
it. CBS is still in denial.

Bruce J. Richman

October 4th 04, 06:50 PM

The Devil wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:52:19 GMT, Jacob Kramer >
>wrote:
>
>>Death is not temporary.
>
>Remember that you're talking to Mikey, a man whose brain can barely
>issue a blink command to his eyelids without having a stroke.
>
>--
>td
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'd like to see whether this claim can be verified. I'd be happy to proctor
the experiment.

Bruce J. Richman

MINe 109

October 4th 04, 07:00 PM

In article et>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
> >>bring back the DRAFT!
> >>
> >>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
> >>however
> >>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
> >>
> >>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
> >>news channels then.
> >>
> >>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
> >
> > I'm sure you're also very angry about this:
> >
> > "Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"
> >
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_ker
> > ry_media
>
> It sounds like Carl was fooled, but you do notice how fast they owned up to
> it. CBS is still in denial.

Fooled? He made up an entire story, fabricating quotes. Are you saying
he fooled himself when he wrote down the quotes? How musch trouble could
it have been for him to check with himself if they were accurate? And
what about his editors?

Perhaps you mixed the story up with the "Communists for Kerry" who were
actually smart-ass young Republicans but managed to get quoted anyway.

CBS apologized and owned up its error.

Ob audio: are the DSP settings on my CAVIT the same as those in Yamaha's
receivers? If so, yuck!

Bruce J. Richman

October 4th 04, 07:15 PM

The Devil wrote:

>On 04 Oct 2004 17:50:13 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
>wrote:
>
>>I'd like to see whether this claim can be verified. I'd be happy to proctor
>>the experiment.
>
>I'd like to just poke his eyes out so he doesn't have the trouble any
>more.
>
>--
>td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Works for me! He's well equipped to perform double blind, double deaf tests.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 4th 04, 08:06 PM

ScottW wrote:

LOL ! During this time the business continues...
Something as 150 kg of US military plutonium are in France to be treated.

US Army hasn't the same nightmares than our Limited Moron Psychologist.
Imagine one minute that France could exchange it against Saddam liberation,
or better sells it to Iran or to Hamas... ;-)

Bruce J. Richman

October 4th 04, 10:37 PM

The Devil wrote:

>On 04 Oct 2004 18:15:46 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
>wrote:
>
>>>I'd like to just poke his eyes out so he doesn't have the trouble any
>>>more.
>
>>Works for me! He's well equipped to perform double blind, double deaf
>tests.
>
>I hardly think so. You think he can push a button that isn't his
>navel?
>
>--
>td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You may be right. On RAO, everybody else pushes his buttons.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy

October 4th 04, 11:14 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:21:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>> How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
>>> well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
>>> considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?
>>>
>>Because the left thinks that it means you have to belong to a militia in
>>order to keep and bear arms.
>
> No, that's not what the Left "thinks". But thanks for playing anyway.
> The Left has actually *read* the darn thing and sees the phrase "not
> be infringed" and knows that infringed isn't the same thing as
> "banned".

I've seen several articles where this very argument has been made. That
unless you belong to a militia, you have no right to keep and bear arms.

They keep wanting to abridge the right so much that it's obvious they want
them banned.

They lied about the assault weapons that had been banned and tried to infer
that if it wasn't renewed we'd be legalizing machine guns.

They keep wanting new laws when they should be enforcing the old one, just
like campaign finance reform.

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 12:07 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign
>> >>to
>> >>bring back the DRAFT!
>> >>
>> >>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>> >>however
>> >>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>> >>
>> >>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the
>> >>cable
>> >>news channels then.
>> >>
>> >>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>> >
>> > I'm sure you're also very angry about this:
>> >
>> > "Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"
>> >
>> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_ker
>> > ry_media
>>
>> It sounds like Carl was fooled, but you do notice how fast they owned up
>> to
>> it. CBS is still in denial.
>
> Fooled? He made up an entire story, fabricating quotes.

Having read in more depth, it was a spoof. It was not intended as a news
story.

>
> Perhaps you mixed the story up with the "Communists for Kerry" who were
> actually smart-ass young Republicans but managed to get quoted anyway.
>
> CBS apologized and owned up its error.
>
But Rather kept insisting the facts were right even if the documents are
false.
How about all teh B.S. about it wasn't a Word document?

Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?

> Ob audio: are the DSP settings on my CAVIT the same as those in Yamaha's
> receivers? If so, yuck!

Jacob Kramer

October 5th 04, 12:13 AM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:09:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...

>> Your statement was that there was no downside. This is clearly false.
>
>Not in the big picture. What's clearly false is the idea that John Kerry
>will be a better president than George Bush.

Yes in the big picture. The big picture means on net it was a good
idea, or the benefits outweigh the costs, not that there were no
costs. To say there was no downside means there were no costs,
clearly an untenable position.

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 01:34 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
> LOL ! During this time the business continues...
> Something as 150 kg of US military plutonium are in France to be treated.
>
> US Army hasn't the same nightmares than our Limited Moron Psychologist.
> Imagine one minute that France could exchange it against Saddam
> liberation,
> or better sells it to Iran or to Hamas... ;-)

Any translation bot could do better than that.
But OTOH, maybe your French version makes as little sense

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 01:35 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> And we saved their ass twice in 2 world wars. What have they done for us
>> lately?
>
> Don't play the hero, *you* didn't save any ass around here McKelvy. The
> only thing you have been able to do in your ****ing life is to murder
> peasants in Vietnam and to be proud of that.

a la Kerry.

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 02:19 AM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:hd43m011ugl44ds7nnlbdpl3pt3r0eq1s9@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On 04 Oct 2004 17:50:13 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
> wrote:
>
>>I'd like to see whether this claim can be verified. I'd be happy to
>>proctor
>>the experiment.
>
> I'd like to just poke his eyes out so he doesn't have the trouble any
> more.
>
> --
It's so cute when the peace loving leftists play.

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 02:21 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:09:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Your statement was that there was no downside. This is clearly false.
>>
>>Not in the big picture. What's clearly false is the idea that John Kerry
>>will be a better president than George Bush.
>
> Yes in the big picture. The big picture means on net it was a good
> idea, or the benefits outweigh the costs, not that there were no
> costs. To say there was no downside means there were no costs,
> clearly an untenable position.

No, it means that the good vastly outweighs any negatives.

There would have been much more harm in letting Saddam stay in power.

MINe 109

October 5th 04, 04:32 AM

In article >,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign
> >> >>to
> >> >>bring back the DRAFT!
> >> >>
> >> >>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
> >> >>however
> >> >>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
> >> >>
> >> >>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the
> >> >>cable
> >> >>news channels then.
> >> >>
> >> >>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure you're also very angry about this:
> >> >
> >> > "Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"
> >> >
> >> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_
> >> > ker
> >> > ry_media
> >>
> >> It sounds like Carl was fooled, but you do notice how fast they owned up
> >> to
> >> it. CBS is still in denial.
> >
> > Fooled? He made up an entire story, fabricating quotes.
>
> Having read in more depth, it was a spoof. It was not intended as a news
> story.

Of course it was a joke. The question is how it was posted as news.

> > Perhaps you mixed the story up with the "Communists for Kerry" who were
> > actually smart-ass young Republicans but managed to get quoted anyway.
> >
> > CBS apologized and owned up its error.
> >
> But Rather kept insisting the facts were right even if the documents are
> false.

The facts can be right even if the documents are false. The White House
had a look and didn't dispute the facts.

> How about all teh B.S. about it wasn't a Word document?

Who cares what kind of phony papers they are?

> Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?

It isn't.

> > Ob audio: are the DSP settings on my CAVIT the same as those in Yamaha's
> > receivers? If so, yuck!

I heard these by accident today.

dave weil

October 5th 04, 04:43 AM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:14:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:21:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
>>>> well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
>>>> considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?
>>>>
>>>Because the left thinks that it means you have to belong to a militia in
>>>order to keep and bear arms.
>>
>> No, that's not what the Left "thinks". But thanks for playing anyway.
>> The Left has actually *read* the darn thing and sees the phrase "not
>> be infringed" and knows that infringed isn't the same thing as
>> "banned".

>I've seen several articles where this very argument has been made. That
>unless you belong to a militia, you have no right to keep and bear arms.

So? I read Mein Kampf too. Should I accuse you of wanting to build
concentration camps?

It's funny - you read a couple of articles, you hear a radio report,
you see a vaguely remembered TV series and then we get your ludicrous
statements. It must be a Pavlovian trigger thing.

>They keep wanting to abridge the right so much that it's obvious they want
>them banned.

Oh, just shut up now. You're making yourself look stupid.

>They lied about the assault weapons that had been banned and tried to infer
>that if it wasn't renewed we'd be legalizing machine guns.
>
>They keep wanting new laws when they should be enforcing the old one, just
>like campaign finance reform.

"They". "They". "They".

Did you know that there's a monster under your bed?

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 06:16 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:14:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:21:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How is that? How is assuming that, when the Framers wrote: "A
>>>>> well-regulated Militia" they meant something to do with Militia,
>>>>> considered "twisting the 2nd Amendment?
>>>>>
>>>>Because the left thinks that it means you have to belong to a militia in
>>>>order to keep and bear arms.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what the Left "thinks". But thanks for playing anyway.
>>> The Left has actually *read* the darn thing and sees the phrase "not
>>> be infringed" and knows that infringed isn't the same thing as
>>> "banned".
>
>>I've seen several articles where this very argument has been made. That
>>unless you belong to a militia, you have no right to keep and bear arms.
>
> So? I read Mein Kampf too. Should I accuse you of wanting to build
> concentration camps?
>
Straw man. You could maybe assume the writer of Mein Kampf wanted to build
concentration camps.

> It's funny - you read a couple of articles, you hear a radio report,
> you see a vaguely remembered TV series and then we get your ludicrous
> statements. It must be a Pavlovian trigger thing.
>
The miltia argument is a very popular one.

>>They keep wanting to abridge the right so much that it's obvious they want
>>them banned.
>
> Oh, just shut up now. You're making yourself look stupid.
>
No, it's stupid to deny that this argument is not frequently used.

>>They lied about the assault weapons that had been banned and tried to
>>infer
>>that if it wasn't renewed we'd be legalizing machine guns.
>>
>>They keep wanting new laws when they should be enforcing the old one, just
>>like campaign finance reform.
>
> "They". "They". "They".
>
> Did you know that there's a monster under your bed?

Yes the Democrat party and to a lesser extent the Republican party, but for
different reasons.

>
The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban last week generated some
misleading and inflammatory claims by Democratic presidential nominee John
Kerry and MoveOn PAC, an independent liberal group running ads in support of
the candidate.

A new MoveOn ad falsely implies that the expiration of the assault weapons
ban would legalize machine guns. The ad shows a picture of an assault rifle,
then suggests that such guns are capable of firing "up to 300 rounds per
minute" - a rate which only military machine guns are capable of. As
FactCheck.org pointed out, such weapons have been carefully regulated since
1934, and those regulations were unaffected by the expiration of the assault
weapons ban.

The MoveOn ad also creates a rhetorical connection between the weapons and
terrorism, stating that "In the hands of terrorists, [an AK-47] could kill
hundreds." Kerry himself went even further on September 13 stump speech in
which he attacked Bush for failing to push for renewing the assault weapons
ban (though Bush has stated his support for its renewal). "[F]or the first
time in 10 years," he said, "when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a
terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to
purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to
hear one word: Sure. Today, George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists
easier and make the job of America's police officers harder, and that's just
plain wrong."

This is the sort of technically true slur by implication that has become the
gold standard for political spin. Kerry's charge that Bush "chose to make
the job of terrorists easier" (our emphasis) suggests that Bush intended to
do so. Moreover, the effects of the ban itself are hotly contested, with
many concluding that, as it was written, the ban was largely ineffective. In
particular, the Al Qaeda training manual Kerry referenced in his speech
suggested terrorists could obtain similar weapons legally in the US even
under the now-expired ban, something that would not have changed regardless
of whether or not the legislation was renewed. But by connecting a deeply
emotional concept - terrorism - to a marginally related subject - assault
weapons - Kerry and MoveOn inflame and mislead in their attack on the
President.

Update (9/23): A version of this post was included in our Philadephia
Inquirer column today.

Lionel

October 5th 04, 06:40 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>LOL ! During this time the business continues...
>>Something as 150 kg of US military plutonium are in France to be treated.
>>
>>US Army hasn't the same nightmares than our Limited Moron Psychologist.
>>Imagine one minute that France could exchange it against Saddam
>>liberation,
>>or better sells it to Iran or to Hamas... ;-)
>
>
> Any translation bot could do better than that.
> But OTOH, maybe your French version makes as little sense

My dictionary doesn't propose any good definition for "bot". Anyway
maybe this hasn't any sens. :-)

Lionel

October 5th 04, 07:06 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And we saved their ass twice in 2 world wars. What have they done for us
>>>lately?
>>
>>Don't play the hero, *you* didn't save any ass around here McKelvy. The
>>only thing you have been able to do in your ****ing life is to murder
>>peasants in Vietnam and to be proud of that.
>
>
> a la Kerry.

And once again the Sackman family was in front of its TV set to watch
the spectacle...

Lionel

October 5th 04, 08:40 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>LOL ! During this time the business continues...
>>>Something as 150 kg of US military plutonium are in France to be treated.
>>>
>>>US Army hasn't the same nightmares than our Limited Moron Psychologist.
>>>Imagine one minute that France could exchange it against Saddam
>>>liberation,
>>>or better sells it to Iran or to Hamas... ;-)
>>
>>Any translation bot could do better than that.
>>But OTOH, maybe your French version makes as little sense
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Lionel's idiotic rantings are, as usual, incoherent. This antisemitic
> Hamas-loving cretin suffers from severe brain damage, probably hereditary.

Oh, oh, the RAO's relic is very vexed since he is trying to hurt me via
my heredity.
It's my second victory since he has already killfiled me. :-)

>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 01:27 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>Don't play the hero, *you* didn't save any ass around here McKelvy. The
>>>only thing you have been able to do in your ****ing life is to murder
>>>peasants in Vietnam and to be proud of that.
>>
>>
>> a la Kerry.
>
> And once again the Sackman family was in front of its TV set to watch the
> spectacle...

I'm watching all those history channel reruns of the DDay landings
when we liberated France. Vive La France!

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 01:33 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:k625m0lf83schp91oqs4ffmfl5ebin9ud6@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:19:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>It's so cute when the peace loving leftists play.
>
> What's wrong with loving peace?
>

Nothing, as long as its not at the price of capitulation
to terror and financial connivance with despots.

Lionel

October 5th 04, 02:24 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Vive La France!

Since I read you it's the first time that you write something
intelligent. :-)

Jacob Kramer

October 5th 04, 03:31 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:07:37 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?

I don't see why it's a non-issue. It's on his resume that he served
in the National Guard, so the veracity of that information is
relevant, as is his explanation of why and how he served there.

It's also relevant as a comparison to Kerry, who had a more
distinguished service record. Also, if he avoided combat duty out of
fear and not out of principle, it's worth asking whether he should be
entrusted to send people into combat.

Finally, it raises the issue of class, if in an oblique way. Despite
promises of equal opportunity, America is in some ways more than ever
a class-bound society. Bush is a very clear illustration of the
special opportunities available to the children of the wealthy and
powerful. Kerry hasn't made an issue of this, partly no doubt becuase
he is also from the upper class. For many Bush is a symbol of the
continuing unfairness of American life. For many others, he
represents the real American dream--to be born into success rather
than to earn it.

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 04:36 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:07:37 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?
>
> I don't see why it's a non-issue.

Because there is no plan to restore the draft.

It's on his resume that he served
> in the National Guard, so the veracity of that information is
> relevant, as is his explanation of why and how he served there.
>
> It's also relevant as a comparison to Kerry, who had a more
> distinguished service record. Also, if he avoided combat duty out of
> fear and not out of principle, it's worth asking whether he should be
> entrusted to send people into combat.
>
He didn't avoid combat duty, he volunteered to serve in Viet Nam but was
refused due to lack of flying time.

> Finally, it raises the issue of class, if in an oblique way. Despite
> promises of equal opportunity, America is in some ways more than ever
> a class-bound society. Bush is a very clear illustration of the
> special opportunities available to the children of the wealthy and
> powerful. Kerry hasn't made an issue of this, partly no doubt becuase
> he is also from the upper class.

And because he only enlisted after his 4th deferrment was denied.

For many Bush is a symbol of the
> continuing unfairness of American life. For many others, he
> represents the real American dream--to be born into success rather
> than to earn it.

He may have been born into privilege, but he still had to earn it. Yes he
had some advantages that others didn't but he was well on his way to
obscurity until he met Laura.

Michael McKelvy

October 5th 04, 04:39 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a
>> >> >>campaign
>> >> >>to
>> >> >>bring back the DRAFT!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
>> >> >>however
>> >> >>a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the
>> >> >>cable
>> >> >>news channels then.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm sure you're also very angry about this:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Fox New Channel Admits Reporter Posted Fake Story about Kerry"
>> >> >
>> >> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_
>> >> > ker
>> >> > ry_media
>> >>
>> >> It sounds like Carl was fooled, but you do notice how fast they owned
>> >> up
>> >> to
>> >> it. CBS is still in denial.
>> >
>> > Fooled? He made up an entire story, fabricating quotes.
>>
>> Having read in more depth, it was a spoof. It was not intended as a news
>> story.
>
> Of course it was a joke. The question is how it was posted as news.
>
>> > Perhaps you mixed the story up with the "Communists for Kerry" who were
>> > actually smart-ass young Republicans but managed to get quoted anyway.
>> >
>> > CBS apologized and owned up its error.
>> >
>> But Rather kept insisting the facts were right even if the documents are
>> false.
>
> The facts can be right even if the documents are false. The White House
> had a look and didn't dispute the facts.
>
But you can't know that without real documentation, which so far doesn't
exist.

>> How about all the B.S. about it wasn't a Word document?
>
> Who cares what kind of phony papers they are?
>
Seemed like you did for a while.

>> Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?
>
> It isn't.
>
It's still being talked about and Bush still gets questions on it.

MINe 109

October 5th 04, 06:09 PM

In article et>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message

> >> > CBS apologized and owned up its error.
> >> >
> >> But Rather kept insisting the facts were right even if the documents are
> >> false.
> >
> > The facts can be right even if the documents are false. The White House
> > had a look and didn't dispute the facts.
> >
> But you can't know that without real documentation, which so far doesn't
> exist.

The White House would know if the attitudes expressed in the memos were
wrong. Possible response: "These papers are clearly false because Bush
never disobeyed an order to take a medical exam."

> >> How about all the B.S. about it wasn't a Word document?
> >
> > Who cares what kind of phony papers they are?
> >
> Seemed like you did for a while.

No, I said the questions of fonts, etc, would be obviated by showing
proof of provenance. I was right.

> >> Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> It's still being talked about and Bush still gets questions on it.

To put it another way, if whoever is president doesn't have a draft plan
in place, he is endangering our security.

Ob audio: Forgerty again tonight on ACL. That's me in the corner, with a
metronome...

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 11:51 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> Vive La France!
>
> Since I read you it's the first time that you write something intelligent.
> :-)

Too bad it was in jest!

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 11:55 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>
>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>
>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>
> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.

And he has also has consistently said it is!
Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
UN requirements to get approval before action.

By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 11:56 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:07:37 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Why is the non-issue of a draft still in the news?
>
> I don't see why it's a non-issue. It's on his resume that he served
> in the National Guard, so the veracity of that information is
> relevant, as is his explanation of why and how he served there.
>
> It's also relevant as a comparison to Kerry, who had a more
> distinguished service record. Also, if he avoided combat duty out of
> fear and not out of principle, it's worth asking whether he should be
> entrusted to send people into combat.
>
> Finally, it raises the issue of class, if in an oblique way. Despite
> promises of equal opportunity, America is in some ways more than ever
> a class-bound society. Bush is a very clear illustration of the
> special opportunities available to the children of the wealthy and
> powerful. Kerry hasn't made an issue of this, partly no doubt becuase
> he is also from the upper class. For many Bush is a symbol of the
> continuing unfairness of American life. For many others, he
> represents the real American dream--to be born into success rather
> than to earn it.

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 12:00 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:07:37 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

>
> Finally, it raises the issue of class, if in an oblique way. Despite
> promises of equal opportunity, America is in some ways more than ever
> a class-bound society. Bush is a very clear illustration of the
> special opportunities available to the children of the wealthy and
> powerful. Kerry hasn't made an issue of this, partly no doubt becuase
> he is also from the upper class. For many Bush is a symbol of the
> continuing unfairness of American life. For many others, he
> represents the real American dream--to be born into success rather
> than to earn it.

well, many have risen from little or nothing (Clinton, Schwartzenegger)
and some have fallen from the fortune of being born well off.

I don't hold Kerry's or Bush's background against them.

Jacob Kramer

October 6th 04, 12:09 AM

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>>
>>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>
>>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>>
>> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.
>
>And he has also has consistently said it is!
>Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
>You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
>UN requirements to get approval before action.
>
>By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
>US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.

Article 51 states that self-defense in the case of armed attack is not
subject to veto by the Security Council. However it must be reported
to the Security Council. Preemption is justifiable under this
article, but the reasons for it have to be compelling. This is my
position and is consistent with Kerry's position. Moreover, it has
been the US position since the founding of the U.N. until Bush, whose
own policy of preventive war is a radical departure.

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 02:55 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many times have you heard about it? CBS did a single broadcast.
> Occasionally the draft is mentioned as a side issue. I'll bet that
> it's going to be asked at the Town Hall debates. Other than that, the
> media is being very careful not to PROMOTE the idea that one candidate
> or the other is advocating reinstituting the draft. nd if you don't
> think that the idea of the draft during ACTIVE WARTIME isn't a concern
> of some people, you're just blind.
>

I can't wait until Rangels's bill to reinstitute the draft comes up
for a vote, and Rangel votes against his own proposed legislation!

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 02:56 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ob audio: Forgerty again tonight on ACL. That's me in the corner, with a
> metronome...

I hope it can keep up.

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 03:09 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>>>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>>
>>>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>>>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>>>
>>> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.
>>
>>And he has also has consistently said it is!
>>Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
>>You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
>>UN requirements to get approval before action.
>>
>>By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
>>US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.
>
> Article 51 states that self-defense in the case of armed attack is not
> subject to veto by the Security Council. However it must be reported
> to the Security Council. Preemption is justifiable under this
> article, but the reasons for it have to be compelling. This is my
> position and is consistent with Kerry's position. Moreover, it has
> been the US position since the founding of the U.N. until Bush, whose
> own policy of preventive war is a radical departure.

Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.

MINe 109

October 6th 04, 04:38 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ob audio: Forgerty again tonight on ACL. That's me in the corner, with a
> > metronome...
>
> I hope it can keep up.

Down On The Corner: recording, MM 108; ACL, MM 110.

No problem keeping up.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 05:12 AM

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 05:17 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Ob audio: Forgerty again tonight on ACL. That's me in the corner, with
>> > a
>> > metronome...
>>
>> I hope it can keep up.
>
> Down On The Corner: recording, MM 108; ACL, MM 110.
>
> No problem keeping up.
>
Screw my sticky mouse button!

Well, the beat is close, but the feel is so different.
Now we are talking pace, maybe? How straight or slithery they are playing
(on the beat, behind the beat, holding notes, etc. When its played real
straight it
sounds more like march, when its more slithery (say the drummer a tad
ahead and the bass
a tad behind, its got more feel (a la Rolling Stones)
I am not criticizing CCR or Fogerty for a lack of feel, My God, no!!!
They certainly had it!!!
Just in that one live performance of that one song.

Lionel

October 6th 04, 06:42 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vive La France!
>>
>>Since I read you it's the first time that you write something intelligent.
>>:-)
>
>
> Too bad it was in jest!

So, I am reassured now.

MINe 109

October 6th 04, 01:21 PM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Ob audio: Forgerty again tonight on ACL. That's me in the corner, with
> >> > a
> >> > metronome...
> >>
> >> I hope it can keep up.
> >
> > Down On The Corner: recording, MM 108; ACL, MM 110.
> >
> > No problem keeping up.
> >
> Screw my sticky mouse button!
>
> Well, the beat is close, but the feel is so different.
> Now we are talking pace, maybe? How straight or slithery they are playing
> (on the beat, behind the beat, holding notes, etc. When its played real
> straight it sounds more like march, when its more slithery (say the drummer a tad
> ahead and the bass a tad behind, its got more feel (a la Rolling Stones)
> I am not criticizing CCR or Fogerty for a lack of feel, My God, no!!!
> They certainly had it!!!
> Just in that one live performance of that one song.

Of course. I liked it livelier, although I didn't think it was very much
faster, hence the metronome.

'Twas the drummer, I think, more prominent in the mix compared to the
record and pressing his shuffle a bit, enough to change the feel
somewhat.

It seemed faster still on my little kitchen tv.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 01:46 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'Twas the drummer, I think, more prominent in the mix compared to the
> record and pressing his shuffle a bit, enough to change the feel
> somewhat.
>

Definitely, his playing was very agressive.
It was the drummer, no doubt in my mind.
I noticed that.

I got a big SMILE last night form listening
to Brian Wilson's completed project. It is art..
I just can't describe it.

Jacob Kramer

October 6th 04, 04:34 PM

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:09:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to veto
>>>>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>>>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>>>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same time.
>>>>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>>>>
>>>> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.
>>>
>>>And he has also has consistently said it is!
>>>Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
>>>You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
>>>UN requirements to get approval before action.
>>>
>>>By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
>>>US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.
>>
>> Article 51 states that self-defense in the case of armed attack is not
>> subject to veto by the Security Council. However it must be reported
>> to the Security Council. Preemption is justifiable under this
>> article, but the reasons for it have to be compelling. This is my
>> position and is consistent with Kerry's position. Moreover, it has
>> been the US position since the founding of the U.N. until Bush, whose
>> own policy of preventive war is a radical departure.
>
>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.

No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
before. There is no opportunity for a veto.

Michael McKelvy

October 6th 04, 04:50 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How many times have you heard about it? CBS did a single broadcast.
>> Occasionally the draft is mentioned as a side issue. I'll bet that
>> it's going to be asked at the Town Hall debates. Other than that, the
>> media is being very careful not to PROMOTE the idea that one candidate
>> or the other is advocating reinstituting the draft. nd if you don't
>> think that the idea of the draft during ACTIVE WARTIME isn't a concern
>> of some people, you're just blind.
>>
>
> I can't wait until Rangels's bill to reinstitute the draft comes up
> for a vote, and Rangel votes against his own proposed legislation!
I'll be surprised if it comes up for a vote at all, particularly before the
election.

Michael McKelvy

October 6th 04, 04:53 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:k625m0lf83schp91oqs4ffmfl5ebin9ud6@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:19:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>It's so cute when the peace loving leftists play.
>
> What's wrong with loving peace?
>
> --
Nothing as long as you realize that sometimes the price of peace is war.

MINe 109

October 6th 04, 05:23 PM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 'Twas the drummer, I think, more prominent in the mix compared to the
> > record and pressing his shuffle a bit, enough to change the feel
> > somewhat.
> >
>
> Definitely, his playing was very agressive.
> It was the drummer, no doubt in my mind.
> I noticed that.
>
> I got a big SMILE last night form listening
> to Brian Wilson's completed project. It is art..
> I just can't describe it.
>
>

Where do you think you are, the Hoffman forum? :-)

I've barely caught up to the new Elvis and Green Day, let alone those
Kinks reissues.

Stephen

Lionel

October 6th 04, 06:07 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "The Devil" > wrote in message
> news:k625m0lf83schp91oqs4ffmfl5ebin9ud6@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>
>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:19:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's so cute when the peace loving leftists play.
>>
>>What's wrong with loving peace?
>>
>>--
>
> Nothing as long as you realize that sometimes the price of peace is war.

Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common
practice during the middle-age.
How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
can do a good job in the infidels' countries.

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 11:57 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:09:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to
>>>>>>> veto
>>>>>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>>>>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>>>>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.
>>>>
>>>>And he has also has consistently said it is!
>>>>Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
>>>>You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
>>>>UN requirements to get approval before action.
>>>>
>>>>By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
>>>>US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.
>>>
>>> Article 51 states that self-defense in the case of armed attack is not
>>> subject to veto by the Security Council. However it must be reported
>>> to the Security Council. Preemption is justifiable under this
>>> article, but the reasons for it have to be compelling. This is my
>>> position and is consistent with Kerry's position. Moreover, it has
>>> been the US position since the founding of the U.N. until Bush, whose
>>> own policy of preventive war is a radical departure.
>>
>>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.
>
> No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
> before. There is no opportunity for a veto.

Ok, Bush gave a talk there and told them
what he did and why he did it.

that wasm't waht Kerry was talking about when he mentioned a
Global Test

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 11:58 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > 'Twas the drummer, I think, more prominent in the mix compared to the
>> > record and pressing his shuffle a bit, enough to change the feel
>> > somewhat.
>> >
>>
>> Definitely, his playing was very agressive.
>> It was the drummer, no doubt in my mind.
>> I noticed that.
>>
>> I got a big SMILE last night form listening
>> to Brian Wilson's completed project. It is art..
>> I just can't describe it.
>>
>>
>
> Where do you think you are, the Hoffman forum? :-)
>
Huh?
Sorry, its over my head

Clyde Slick

October 7th 04, 12:01 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
> during the middle-age.
> How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
> can do a good job in the infidels' countries.

Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old boys.

MINe 109

October 7th 04, 12:15 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > 'Twas the drummer, I think, more prominent in the mix compared to the
> >> > record and pressing his shuffle a bit, enough to change the feel
> >> > somewhat.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Definitely, his playing was very agressive.
> >> It was the drummer, no doubt in my mind.
> >> I noticed that.
> >>
> >> I got a big SMILE last night form listening
> >> to Brian Wilson's completed project. It is art..
> >> I just can't describe it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Where do you think you are, the Hoffman forum? :-)
> >
> Huh?
> Sorry, its over my head

stevehoffman.tv

It's owned by the mastering engineer, and Smile is a popular topic,
along with "Who's Next" and how great Hoffman's work is.

Stephen

Bruce J. Richman

October 7th 04, 12:44 AM

Art wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>.
>>
>> Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
>> during the middle-age.
>> How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>> can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>
>Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old boys.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sounds like a Freudian slip.

Bruce J. Richman

Jacob Kramer

October 7th 04, 01:13 AM

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:57:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:09:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:36:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> In article <BkW7d.10392$mS1.7800@fed1read05>,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since it isn't true that Kerry would allow foreign governments to
>>>>>>>> veto
>>>>>>>> US use of military force, what's wrong with CBS saying so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What do you mean since it isn't true. He has repeatedly
>>>>>>>said that is his position. Well, he has also said a few times it isn't
>>>>>>>his position. Obviously, it is both true and not true at the same
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>After all, he has one consistent position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually he has consistently stated that this is not his position.
>>>>>
>>>>>And he has also has consistently said it is!
>>>>>Its the same as the arguments you have been making in the past few days!
>>>>>You yourself pointed to the global test as beiing compliance with
>>>>>UN requirements to get approval before action.
>>>>>
>>>>>By your own standards, France can effectively veto a
>>>>>US action, by vetoing a UN resolution about that action.
>>>>
>>>> Article 51 states that self-defense in the case of armed attack is not
>>>> subject to veto by the Security Council. However it must be reported
>>>> to the Security Council. Preemption is justifiable under this
>>>> article, but the reasons for it have to be compelling. This is my
>>>> position and is consistent with Kerry's position. Moreover, it has
>>>> been the US position since the founding of the U.N. until Bush, whose
>>>> own policy of preventive war is a radical departure.
>>>
>>>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.
>>
>> No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
>> before. There is no opportunity for a veto.
>
>Ok, Bush gave a talk there and told them
>what he did and why he did it.
>
>that wasm't waht Kerry was talking about when he mentioned a
>Global Test

No it wasn't, because he was unable to prove that he did it for
legitimate reasons. I.e. there were no WMD, no cooperation with Al
Qaeda, and no connection to 9/11.

Clyde Slick

October 7th 04, 04:21 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:57:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"

>>>>
>>>>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.
>>>
>>> No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
>>> before. There is no opportunity for a veto.
>>
>>Ok, Bush gave a talk there and told them
>>what he did and why he did it.
>>
>>that wasm't waht Kerry was talking about when he mentioned a
>>Global Test
>
> No it wasn't, because he was unable to prove that he did it for
> legitimate reasons. I.e. there were no WMD, no cooperation with Al
> Qaeda, and no connection to 9/11.

ok, so all your talk about teh reporting requirement was
not the Global Test. So, we are back to this:
Yawn. The Global Test is a veto

Lionel

October 7th 04, 06:50 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> .
>
>>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
>>during the middle-age.
>>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>
>
> Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old boys.

You are confusing me with George M. Middius. ;-)

Sander deWaal

October 7th 04, 02:11 PM

Lionel > said:

>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common
>practice during the middle-age.
>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.

Could we leave out family members please?
Thank you.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 7th 04, 02:19 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common
>>practice during the middle-age.
>>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>
>
> Could we leave out family members please?
> Thank you.

Can you tell that to Richman also ?
Thank you.

Michael McKelvy

October 7th 04, 07:13 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "The Devil" > wrote in message
>> news:k625m0lf83schp91oqs4ffmfl5ebin9ud6@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:19:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's so cute when the peace loving leftists play.
>>>
>>>What's wrong with loving peace?
>>>
>>>--
>>
>> Nothing as long as you realize that sometimes the price of peace is war.
>
> Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
> during the middle-age.
> How old is him ? 12 ?

10.

Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
> can do a good job in the infidels' countries.

With any luck by the time he's 18 there would be no reason for him to need
to fight anyone.

I'm sure you won't believe it, but the main thing I'm teaching him, is to
think for himself.

You should try it.

Michael McKelvy

October 7th 04, 07:14 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> .
>>
>>>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
>>>during the middle-age.
>>>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>>>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>>
>>
>> Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old
>> boys.
>
> You are confusing me with George M. Middius. ;-)

You think Middius is one of the Virgins? :-(

Lionel

October 7th 04, 07:20 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common practice
>>>>during the middle-age.
>>>>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>>>>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>>>
>>>
>>>Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old
>>>boys.
>>
>>You are confusing me with George M. Middius. ;-)
>
>
> You think Middius is one of the Virgins? :-(

I don't share Sackman's fantasy.

Michael McKelvy

October 8th 04, 12:03 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Give your son to the crusade, McKelvy. You know, it was a common
>>>>>practice during the middle-age.
>>>>>How old is him ? 12 ? Good he is virgin and innocent, I am sure that he
>>>>>can do a good job in the infidels' countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Som Lionel thinks that the 72 virgins for the martyrs are 12 year old
>>>>boys.
>>>
>>>You are confusing me with George M. Middius. ;-)
>>
>>
>> You think Middius is one of the Virgins? :-(
>
> I don't share Sackman's fantasy.

I'm sure your fantasy is entirely unique to you.

Clyde Slick

October 8th 04, 01:13 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal wrote:

>>
>>
>> Could we leave out family members please?
>> Thank you.
>
> Can you tell that to Richman also ?
> Thank you.

When was the previous time he mentioned one of your
family members in a negative light?

Lionel

October 8th 04, 06:43 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Could we leave out family members please?
>>>Thank you.
>>
>>Can you tell that to Richman also ?
>>Thank you.
>
>
> When was the previous time he mentioned one of your
> family members in a negative light?

A long time after you, when he spoke about my heredity.

jak163

October 11th 04, 07:09 PM

The reasons you report must be legitimate. WMD and cooperation with Al
Qaeda were not. So they didn't meet the test. In an emergency they
can be reported after the fact, but they must be legitimate at any rate.

[email protected]

October 13th 04, 12:39 AM

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:21:00 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:57:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.
>>>>
>>>> No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
>>>> before. There is no opportunity for a veto.
>>>
>>>Ok, Bush gave a talk there and told them
>>>what he did and why he did it.
>>>
>>>that wasm't waht Kerry was talking about when he mentioned a
>>>Global Test
>>
>> No it wasn't, because he was unable to prove that he did it for
>> legitimate reasons. I.e. there were no WMD, no cooperation with Al
>> Qaeda, and no connection to 9/11.
>
>ok, so all your talk about teh reporting requirement was
>not the Global Test. So, we are back to this:
>Yawn. The Global Test is a veto

The reasons you report must be legitimate. WMD and cooperation with
Al Qaeda were not. So they didn't meet the test. In an emergency
they can be reported after the fact, but they must be legitimate at
any rate.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 01:32 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:21:00 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:57:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yawn. So, the Global Test 'is' a veto.
>>>>>
>>>>> No--the reporting requirement is _after_ the action is taken, not
>>>>> before. There is no opportunity for a veto.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, Bush gave a talk there and told them
>>>>what he did and why he did it.
>>>>
>>>>that wasm't waht Kerry was talking about when he mentioned a
>>>>Global Test
>>>
>>> No it wasn't, because he was unable to prove that he did it for
>>> legitimate reasons. I.e. there were no WMD, no cooperation with Al
>>> Qaeda, and no connection to 9/11.
>>
>>ok, so all your talk about teh reporting requirement was
>>not the Global Test. So, we are back to this:
>>Yawn. The Global Test is a veto
>
> The reasons you report must be legitimate. WMD and cooperation with
> Al Qaeda were not. So they didn't meet the test. In an emergency
> they can be reported after the fact, but they must be legitimate at
> any rate.

I suppose this is from Kramer, it sounds
like him, and the initials fit.

Tell me, who is the 'proctor' of the test?
Who judges whether a reason is legitimate or not?
Who tells the US whether it
'fails' or 'passes'? Like I said, this is
tantamount to a veto from foreign shores.

jak163

October 13th 04, 01:54 AM

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:32:12 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...

>> The reasons you report must be legitimate. WMD and cooperation with
>> Al Qaeda were not. So they didn't meet the test. In an emergency
>> they can be reported after the fact, but they must be legitimate at
>> any rate.
>
>I suppose this is from Kramer, it sounds
>like him, and the initials fit.
>
>Tell me, who is the 'proctor' of the test?
>Who judges whether a reason is legitimate or not?
>Who tells the US whether it
>'fails' or 'passes'? Like I said, this is
>tantamount to a veto from foreign shores.

You judge yourself, but for all countries the test is that you be
_able_ to prove it to your own citizens and to those of other
countries. Ideally you will prove it to your own citizens before
acting, although in the case of, say, a missile attack from an
offshore nuclear submarine, this is impossible (and consistent U.S.
policy--which Bush overturned with his 2002 preventive war
doctrine--called for acting without UN or Congressional approval in
such a case). You don't have to prove it to other countries however,
but you should be able to, and you should do so after the fact.

In this war, Bush had no proof there were WMD because there were no
WMD. Bush had no proof of cooperation with Al Qaeda because there was
no cooperation with Al Qaeda. He did not prove it to his own
citizens, and he could not prove it to the world either before or
after the fact.

Preemption has always been a U.S. right. Bush is claiming a right to
preventive war at the U.S.'s own discretion and on inconclusive
evidence. That's illegal under the U.N. and a foolhardy policy. The
idea that there is less warning of an attack now than there was during
the Cold War is not persuasive, given the possibility during that time
of attack from nuclear submarines.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 02:10 AM

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:32:12 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>
>>> The reasons you report must be legitimate. WMD and cooperation with
>>> Al Qaeda were not. So they didn't meet the test. In an emergency
>>> they can be reported after the fact, but they must be legitimate at
>>> any rate.
>>
>>I suppose this is from Kramer, it sounds
>>like him, and the initials fit.
>>
>>Tell me, who is the 'proctor' of the test?
>>Who judges whether a reason is legitimate or not?
>>Who tells the US whether it
>>'fails' or 'passes'? Like I said, this is
>>tantamount to a veto from foreign shores.
>
> You judge yourself, but for all countries the test is that you be
> _able_ to prove it to your own citizens and to those of other
> countries. Ideally you will prove it to your own citizens before
> acting, although in the case of, say, a missile attack from an
> offshore nuclear submarine, this is impossible (and consistent U.S.
> policy--which Bush overturned with his 2002 preventive war
> doctrine--called for acting without UN or Congressional approval in
> such a case). You don't have to prove it to other countries however,
> but you should be able to, and you should do so after the fact.
>
> In this war, Bush had no proof there were WMD because there were no
> WMD. Bush had no proof of cooperation with Al Qaeda because there was
> no cooperation with Al Qaeda. He did not prove it to his own
> citizens, and he could not prove it to the world either before or
> after the fact.
>
> Preemption has always been a U.S. right. Bush is claiming a right to
> preventive war at the U.S.'s own discretion and on inconclusive
> evidence. That's illegal under the U.N. and a foolhardy policy. The
> idea that there is less warning of an attack now than there was during
> the Cold War is not persuasive, given the possibility during that time
> of attack from nuclear submarines.

In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
If, say, Israel had succumbed to the 'global test', they
would have been driven into the Mediterranean Sea.

MINe 109

October 13th 04, 02:31 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.

No, no, no, no, and, no.

Call it a "sniff test" instead. If your justification stinks, you may be
doing the wrong thing.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 02:38 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
>
> No, no, no, no, and, no.
>
> Call it a "sniff test" instead. If your justification stinks, you may be
> doing the wrong thing.

stinks according to who?

I just ca't get you 'global'l test' proponents to answer this.
No surprise, that you don't want to answer this. It requires your
laying the waffle down on one side or the other.

MINe 109

October 13th 04, 02:46 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
> >
> > No, no, no, no, and, no.
> >
> > Call it a "sniff test" instead. If your justification stinks, you may be
> > doing the wrong thing.
>
> stinks according to who?

He who dealt it.

> I just ca't get you 'global'l test' proponents to answer this.

That's because of your incorrect premise.

> No surprise, that you don't want to answer this. It requires your
> laying the waffle down on one side or the other.

You missed Saletan in Slate. Check him for waffles.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 02:57 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
>> >
>> > No, no, no, no, and, no.
>> >
>> > Call it a "sniff test" instead. If your justification stinks, you may
>> > be
>> > doing the wrong thing.
>>
>> stinks according to who?
>
> He who dealt it.

So, if the Pres thinks its justified, then its ok.
So, there is no 'global test'

>
>> I just ca't get you 'global'l test' proponents to answer this.
>
> That's because of your incorrect premise.
>

Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to call it.
And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
that the proctor is not of the USA. that
places our own national security interests in the deceision making hands of
soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all acceptable.
And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
So stop flipping that waffle.

>> No surprise, that you don't want to answer this. It requires your
>> laying the waffle down on one side or the other.
>
> You missed Saletan in Slate. Check him for waffles.

MINe 109

October 13th 04, 03:30 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
> >> >
> >> > No, no, no, no, and, no.
> >> >
> >> > Call it a "sniff test" instead. If your justification stinks, you may
> >> > be
> >> > doing the wrong thing.
> >>
> >> stinks according to who?
> >
> > He who dealt it.
>
> So, if the Pres thinks its justified, then its ok.
> So, there is no 'global test'

The "global test" is short-hand for "how do I explain this to everyone".
So, no global test in the sense that you are referring to.

> >> I just ca't get you 'global'l test' proponents to answer this.
> >
> > That's because of your incorrect premise.
> >
>
> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to call it.
> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
> that the proctor is not of the USA.

You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up to
reality?".

> that
> places our own national security interests in the deceision making hands of
> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all acceptable.
> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
> So stop flipping that waffle.

There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.

jak163

October 13th 04, 04:00 AM

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:57:24 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
>or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to call it.
>And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
>that the proctor is not of the USA. that
>places our own national security interests in the deceision making hands of
>soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
>world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all acceptable.

It's global in the sense that it applies to everyone. Do you really
not understand this?

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 05:13 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>>
>> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
>> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to call
>> it.
>> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
>> that the proctor is not of the USA.
>
> You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up to
> reality?".
>

According to who?

So, its a self test.
proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.

>> that
>> places our own national security interests in the deceision making hands
>> of
>> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
>> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all acceptable.
>> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
>> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
>> So stop flipping that waffle.
>
> There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.

You still haven't answered the question.
Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?

MINe 109

October 13th 04, 01:41 PM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> >>
> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to call
> >> it.
> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
> >
> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up to
> > reality?".
> >
>
>
> According to who?
>
> So, its a self test.
> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.

At last.

> >> that
> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision making hands
> >> of
> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all acceptable.
> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
> >
> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
>
> You still haven't answered the question.
> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?

I answered the question in text you deleted.

jak163

October 13th 04, 02:24 PM

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:10:22 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
>If, say, Israel had succumbed to the 'global test', they
>would have been driven into the Mediterranean Sea.

Perhaps if you could explain why you think it's a veto, your argument
would be clearer.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 10:27 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> >>
>> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
>> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to
>> >> call
>> >> it.
>> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
>> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
>> >
>> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up to
>> > reality?".
>> >
>>
>>
>> According to who?
>>
>> So, its a self test.
>> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.
>
> At last.
>
>> >> that
>> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision making
>> >> hands
>> >> of
>> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
>> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all
>> >> acceptable.
>> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
>> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
>> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
>> >
>> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
>>
>> You still haven't answered the question.
>> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?
>
> I answered the question in text you deleted.

It was a nonsensical answer
"He who dealt it."
That means that proponent asks himself, the question,
answers it, and then decides if his answer is correct.

Additionally, your nonsenesical answer implies that there
really global test', there is nothing global about answering
one' s own question oneself. I am sure your 'cute' answer is not at all
what Kerry was referring to.

Clyde Slick

October 13th 04, 10:51 PM

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:10:22 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
>>If, say, Israel had succumbed to the 'global test', they
>>would have been driven into the Mediterranean Sea.
>
> Perhaps if you could explain why you think it's a veto, your argument
> would be clearer.

"subject to a global test" implies a test,
with a right vs a wrong answer, and 'global' implies
that some international body or that international
opinon acts as the proctor or scores the test.

Inherent common sense says that subjecting
our actions to a global test implies the
sanction from some global entity.

If you are trying to explain away somehow that a requirement to
pass a global test does not involve an international veto
of some sort, you aren't going to be able to sell it
the American electorate. For the most part,
we understand what it means. The only question
is whether how much of the electorate is willing
to knowingly cede our sovereignty.

jak163

October 13th 04, 11:44 PM

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:10:22 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>In other words, a veto, subject to world public opinion.
>>>If, say, Israel had succumbed to the 'global test', they
>>>would have been driven into the Mediterranean Sea.
>>
>> Perhaps if you could explain why you think it's a veto, your argument
>> would be clearer.
>
>"subject to a global test" implies a test,
>with a right vs a wrong answer, and 'global' implies
>that some international body or that international
>opinon acts as the proctor or scores the test.
>
>Inherent common sense says that subjecting
>our actions to a global test implies the
>sanction from some global entity.
>
>If you are trying to explain away somehow that a requirement to
>pass a global test does not involve an international veto
>of some sort, you aren't going to be able to sell it
>the American electorate. For the most part,
>we understand what it means. The only question
>is whether how much of the electorate is willing
>to knowingly cede our sovereignty.

That's a perfectly legitimate interpretation, but it's not the way I
understand it. I understood it to mean a test that all are subject
to, not that anyone can veto. That interpretation is in keeping with
UN requirements and pre-Bush U.S. policy, and is also how Kerry
explained it.

MINe 109

October 14th 04, 12:16 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> >>
> >> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
> >> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to
> >> >> call
> >> >> it.
> >> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
> >> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
> >> >
> >> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up to
> >> > reality?".
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> According to who?
> >>
> >> So, its a self test.
> >> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.
> >
> > At last.
> >
> >> >> that
> >> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision making
> >> >> hands
> >> >> of
> >> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
> >> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all
> >> >> acceptable.
> >> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
> >> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
> >> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
> >> >
> >> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
> >>
> >> You still haven't answered the question.
> >> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?
> >
> > I answered the question in text you deleted.
>
> It was a nonsensical answer
> "He who dealt it."
> That means that proponent asks himself, the question,
> answers it, and then decides if his answer is correct.

See, not nonsense.

> Additionally, your nonsenesical answer implies that there
> really global test', there is nothing global about answering
> one' s own question oneself. I am sure your 'cute' answer is not at all
> what Kerry was referring to.

I think you've seized upon this phrase while ignoring Kerry's forthright
statement that he would never cede the right to action. Is it too much
for a President to examine his actions? In addition, you've repeated
your charge without really addressing the valid counter-arguments.

Clyde Slick

October 14th 04, 02:53 AM

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>
> That's a perfectly legitimate interpretation, but it's not the way I
> understand it. I understood it to mean a test that all are subject
> to, not that anyone can veto. That interpretation is in keeping with
> UN requirements and pre-Bush U.S. policy, and is also how Kerry
> explained it.

Then what the hell does 'subject to' mean?
What does 'test' mean?
subject to a test certainly implies that some sort
of proctor or grader blesses the answer as being
correct, or decides it is incorrect.

Maybe this is one of those new-fangled touchy-feely tests
one gets to grade himself.

Clyde Slick

October 14th 04, 03:15 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
>> >> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to
>> >> >> call
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
>> >> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
>> >> >
>> >> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up
>> >> > to
>> >> > reality?".
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> According to who?
>> >>
>> >> So, its a self test.
>> >> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.
>> >
>> > At last.
>> >
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision making
>> >> >> hands
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
>> >> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all
>> >> >> acceptable.
>> >> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
>> >> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
>> >> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
>> >> >
>> >> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
>> >>
>> >> You still haven't answered the question.
>> >> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?
>> >
>> > I answered the question in text you deleted.
>>
>> It was a nonsensical answer
>> "He who dealt it."
>> That means that proponent asks himself, the question,
>> answers it, and then decides if his answer is correct.
>
> See, not nonsense.
>
>> Additionally, your nonsenesical answer implies that there
>> really global test', there is nothing global about answering
>> one' s own question oneself. I am sure your 'cute' answer is not at all
>> what Kerry was referring to.
>
> I think you've seized upon this phrase while ignoring Kerry's forthright
> statement that he would never cede the right to action. Is it too much
> for a President to examine his actions? In addition, you've repeated
> your charge without really addressing the valid counter-arguments.

All I can sat at this point is that Kerry is needllesly stupid
for publically calling for a self soul searching that is neither
a test nor global, a "Global Test". Its like he is purposefully
obfuscating his real intentions, or else trying to mollify all sides
on the matter by purposefuly using vague and ill defined terminology.
In plain English, he's waffling again.

whatever, it does not put him in any kind of favorable light.

MINe 109

October 14th 04, 04:19 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
> >> >> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want to
> >> >> >> call
> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
> >> >> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand up
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > reality?".
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> According to who?
> >> >>
> >> >> So, its a self test.
> >> >> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.
> >> >
> >> > At last.
> >> >
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision making
> >> >> >> hands
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring to
> >> >> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all
> >> >> >> acceptable.
> >> >> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
> >> >> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
> >> >> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
> >> >>
> >> >> You still haven't answered the question.
> >> >> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?
> >> >
> >> > I answered the question in text you deleted.
> >>
> >> It was a nonsensical answer
> >> "He who dealt it."
> >> That means that proponent asks himself, the question,
> >> answers it, and then decides if his answer is correct.
> >
> > See, not nonsense.
> >
> >> Additionally, your nonsenesical answer implies that there
> >> really global test', there is nothing global about answering
> >> one' s own question oneself. I am sure your 'cute' answer is not at all
> >> what Kerry was referring to.
> >
> > I think you've seized upon this phrase while ignoring Kerry's forthright
> > statement that he would never cede the right to action. Is it too much
> > for a President to examine his actions? In addition, you've repeated
> > your charge without really addressing the valid counter-arguments.
>
>
> All I can sat at this point is that Kerry is needllesly stupid
> for publically calling for a self soul searching that is neither
> a test nor global, a "Global Test". Its like he is purposefully
> obfuscating his real intentions, or else trying to mollify all sides
> on the matter by purposefuly using vague and ill defined terminology.
> In plain English, he's waffling again.

Talking Points Man! I didn't see you come in.

> whatever, it does not put him in any kind of favorable light.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/

HAMPTON, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry on Monday lambasted as
"pathetic" scaremongering, Republican criticism of his comments during
last Thursday's debate in which he said the president's decision to go
to war should pass a "global test" of legitimacy.

Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant,
the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly
pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to
play a game and scare Americans."

He added, "They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said
in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's
security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto
over our security. No one.

"And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which
America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's
security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president."

Not too waffly.

Clyde Slick

October 14th 04, 01:04 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Look, if you are going to have a 'global test', somebody,
>> >> >> >> or some body, has to be the proctor, judge, or whatever you want
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> call
>> >> >> >> it.
>> >> >> >> And since this is called a 'global test', I asume
>> >> >> >> that the proctor is not of the USA.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You assume wrongly. "Global test" means "does this decision stand
>> >> >> > up
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > reality?".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> According to who?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, its a self test.
>> >> >> proctored by the one that proposes the intiative.
>> >> >
>> >> > At last.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> places our own national security interests in the deceision
>> >> >> >> making
>> >> >> >> hands
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> soem entity or group outside the USA, or maybe youare referring
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> world opinion. either way, it is not acceptable, not at all
>> >> >> >> acceptable.
>> >> >> >> And Keery should have the courage to call it for what it is,
>> >> >> >> subjecting our national sovereignty to international wiill.
>> >> >> >> So stop flipping that waffle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There's no waffle to flip, just your strawman.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You still haven't answered the question.
>> >> >> Who decides if the propose action passes the global test?
>> >> >
>> >> > I answered the question in text you deleted.
>> >>
>> >> It was a nonsensical answer
>> >> "He who dealt it."
>> >> That means that proponent asks himself, the question,
>> >> answers it, and then decides if his answer is correct.
>> >
>> > See, not nonsense.
>> >
>> >> Additionally, your nonsenesical answer implies that there
>> >> really global test', there is nothing global about answering
>> >> one' s own question oneself. I am sure your 'cute' answer is not at
>> >> all
>> >> what Kerry was referring to.
>> >
>> > I think you've seized upon this phrase while ignoring Kerry's
>> > forthright
>> > statement that he would never cede the right to action. Is it too much
>> > for a President to examine his actions? In addition, you've repeated
>> > your charge without really addressing the valid counter-arguments.
>>
>>
>> All I can sat at this point is that Kerry is needllesly stupid
>> for publically calling for a self soul searching that is neither
>> a test nor global, a "Global Test". Its like he is purposefully
>> obfuscating his real intentions, or else trying to mollify all sides
>> on the matter by purposefuly using vague and ill defined terminology.
>> In plain English, he's waffling again.
>
> Talking Points Man! I didn't see you come in.
>
>> whatever, it does not put him in any kind of favorable light.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/
>
> HAMPTON, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry on Monday lambasted as
> "pathetic" scaremongering, Republican criticism of his comments during
> last Thursday's debate in which he said the president's decision to go
> to war should pass a "global test" of legitimacy.
>
> Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant,
> the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly
> pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to
> play a game and scare Americans."
>
> He added, "They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said
> in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's
> security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto
> over our security. No one.
>
> "And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which
> America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's
> security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president."
>
> Not too waffly.

problem is, he siad lots of differen things,
lots of different times.

Very waffly

MINe 109

October 14th 04, 06:30 PM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

Me:
> > Not too waffly.
>
> problem is, he siad lots of differen things,
> lots of different times.
>
> Very waffly

Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the face
of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
"waffle" again.

Bush has been known to change his mind, too, and arguably to worse
effect than Kerry.

Clyde Slick

October 15th 04, 12:13 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the face
> of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
> "waffle" again.

the counter argument is one thing he said. Other things he said are
diametrically opposed.

MINe 109

October 15th 04, 12:37 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the face
> > of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
> > "waffle" again.
>
> the counter argument is one thing he said. Other things he said are
> diametrically opposed.

Only if you twist the definition.

Clyde Slick

October 15th 04, 12:47 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the face
>> > of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
>> > "waffle" again.
>>
>> the counter argument is one thing he said. Other things he said are
>> diametrically opposed.
>
> Only if you twist the definition.

oh yes, the one you offered about the global test being a contemplative
introspection. to most people, Global means world wide and test means
questions,
with right or wrong answers. Comparinig Kerry's nomenclature
'global test' with your definitioin of contemplatie introspection
is IN ITSELF -proof of waffling. Inability of Kerry to call it for
what it really is, noted. (assuming your asinine definitioin is correct,
and assumong its correct, all the time, when talking to all the people. I
have
a strong suspicion you made it up just cause it fot the particular time and
place of arguing with me). That's the problem with you guys., You have no
consisitency.

MINe 109

October 15th 04, 02:48 AM

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the face
> >> > of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
> >> > "waffle" again.
> >>
> >> the counter argument is one thing he said. Other things he said are
> >> diametrically opposed.
> >
> > Only if you twist the definition.
>
> oh yes, the one you offered about the global test being a contemplative
> introspection. to most people, Global means world wide and test means
> questions, with right or wrong answers.

Kerry defined it himself in the very same sentence. Yours isn't the only
definition of global.

> Comparinig Kerry's nomenclature
> 'global test' with your definitioin of contemplatie introspection
> is IN ITSELF -proof of waffling. Inability of Kerry to call it for
> what it really is, noted. (assuming your asinine definitioin is correct,
> and assumong its correct, all the time, when talking to all the people. I
> have a strong suspicion you made it up just cause it fot the particular time and
> place of arguing with me). That's the problem with you guys., You have no
> consisitency.

I guess you didn't read the Saletan piece from which I posted an
excerpt. Here's another blog piece along the lines of what I've been
saying:

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm396048.html

No, I did not make up a definition to mess with you. Are you going to
keep up the name-calling ("asinine" "you guys")?

Clyde Slick

October 15th 04, 04:16 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Going global? You brought up a specific point, repeated it in the
>> >> > face
>> >> > of counter-argument, and now you go out of context so you can say
>> >> > "waffle" again.
>> >>
>> >> the counter argument is one thing he said. Other things he said are
>> >> diametrically opposed.
>> >
>> > Only if you twist the definition.
>>
>> oh yes, the one you offered about the global test being a contemplative
>> introspection. to most people, Global means world wide and test means
>> questions, with right or wrong answers.
>
> Kerry defined it himself in the very same sentence. Yours isn't the only
> definition of global.
>
>> Comparinig Kerry's nomenclature
>> 'global test' with your definitioin of contemplatie introspection
>> is IN ITSELF -proof of waffling. Inability of Kerry to call it for
>> what it really is, noted. (assuming your asinine definitioin is correct,
>> and assumong its correct, all the time, when talking to all the people.
>> I
>> have a strong suspicion you made it up just cause it fot the particular
>> time and
>> place of arguing with me). That's the problem with you guys., You have no
>> consisitency.
>
> I guess you didn't read the Saletan piece from which I posted an
> excerpt. Here's another blog piece along the lines of what I've been
> saying:
>
> http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm396048.html
>
> No, I did not make up a definition to mess with you. Are you going to
> keep up the name-calling ("asinine" "you guys")?

Thats a good laugh!
Its exactly waht Bush did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice definition!!!!