It's official!

[Trevor Wilson]

The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these sorts
of shenanigans.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
> sorts of shenanigans.
>
> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
This is not about the 1st Amendment.
No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results would
have been the same.
No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate chambers
while State of the Union addresses were being given.

[ScottW]

> wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
> > sorts of shenanigans.
> >
> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
> >
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Wilson
> > www.rageaudio.com.au
> >
> >
> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results would
> have been the same.
> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate chambers
> while State of the Union addresses were being given.

Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
than MTV.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these sorts
> of shenanigans.
>
> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true

What of these sheenanigans?

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html


ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> be
>> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> sorts
>> of shenanigans.
>>
>> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>
> What of these sheenanigans?
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html

**What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> be both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> sorts of shenanigans.
>>
>> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.

**Don't I? Please feel free to point out my error/s.

> This is not about the 1st Amendment.

**Oh really? Why was she taken away in handcuffs? Why was she charged with
an offence?

> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.

**Really? Please cite the part of the US Constitution where it states that
wearing a T-shirt with a specific message on it is illegal.

> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
> would have been the same.

**Wanna bet?

> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
> chambers while State of the Union addresses were being given.

**Yeah, sure. She was removed, placed in handcuffs and charged, because she
was making a statement which the Bush cabal was seriously embarrassed by.
Nothing more.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > wrote:
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> > be
>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>> >
>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Trevor Wilson
>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >
>> >
>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>> would
>> have been the same.
>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>> chambers
>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>
> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
> than MTV.

**OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another source.
I'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
> >> be
> >> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
> >> sorts
> >> of shenanigans.
> >>
> >> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
> >> e
> >
> > What of these sheenanigans?
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>
> **What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?

If Denmark were the USA, the cartoon would be protected speech as well
as an offensive poke at a religious group.

Oh, the capitol cops apologized for removing Sheehan. A congressman's
wife wearing a "Support the Troops" tee was also removed.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> > If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
> > would have been the same.
>
> **Wanna bet?

That's a tough one: a woman wearing a "Support the Troops" tee *was*
removed, but the cops told her her shirt was an anti-war protest. A
push...

And nyob's reference to "unfurl" shows he gets his news exclusively from
Fox, the only organization that can't tell a banner from a tee shirt.

Stephen

[Trevor Wilson]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>> >> should
>> >> be
>> >> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> >> sorts
>> >> of shenanigans.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>> >> e
>> >
>> > What of these sheenanigans?
>> >
>> > http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>>
>> **What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?
>
> If Denmark were the USA, the cartoon would be protected speech as well
> as an offensive poke at a religious group.
>
> Oh, the capitol cops apologized for removing Sheehan. A congressman's
> wife wearing a "Support the Troops" tee was also removed.

**But, significantly, NOT placed in handcuffs, nor charged. The whole thing
stinks. US citizens should be demanding changes. Upholding the First
Amendment, would be a good start. Moreover, Sheehan, of all people, has
every right to make a statement.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> be both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> sorts of shenanigans.
>>
>> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
> would have been the same.
> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
> chambers while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>

That is true. Also, last night, the wife of
a powerful Republican Congressman was removed for
wearing a shirt with the "Support Our Troops" message.
However, she was not arrested.
It was probably wise to get Cindy out of the building
ASAP. our House of Representatives is not
at all an appropriate place for citizen protest. I believe that
iin the 50's there was an event in the same hall, where
Puerto Rican nationalists started shooting at people.
But it might have been in the Senate rather than the House.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> be
>> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> sorts
>> of shenanigans.
>>
>> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>
> What of these sheenanigans?
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>
>
HORRORS!!!!!!!
a Hyundai add and a talking ad for Fisher Investments.
We can't have that in Congress!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> > If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>> > would have been the same.
>>
>> **Wanna bet?
>
> That's a tough one: a woman wearing a "Support the Troops" tee *was*
> removed, but the cops told her her shirt was an anti-war protest. A
> push...
>
> And nyob's reference to "unfurl" shows he gets his news exclusively from
> Fox, the only organization that can't tell a banner from a tee shirt.
>


I, for one, am very thankful Cindy didn't unfurl it.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> >
>>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>> >> should
>>> >> be
>>> >> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>> >> sorts
>>> >> of shenanigans.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>>> >> e
>>> >
>>> > What of these sheenanigans?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>>>
>>> **What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?
>>
>> If Denmark were the USA, the cartoon would be protected speech as well
>> as an offensive poke at a religious group.
>>
>> Oh, the capitol cops apologized for removing Sheehan. A congressman's
>> wife wearing a "Support the Troops" tee was also removed.
>
> **But, significantly, NOT placed in handcuffs, nor charged. The whole
> thing stinks. US citizens should be demanding changes. Upholding the First
> Amendment, would be a good start. Moreover, Sheehan, of all people, has
> every right to make a statement.
>

Not there.
If she did, 280 million other Americans would have the same right, and
business
would never get done.
Does she also have the right to barge into the oval office?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> >> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>> >> should
>>>> >> be
>>>> >> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>> >> these
>>>> >> sorts
>>>> >> of shenanigans.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>>>> >> e
>>>> >
>>>> > What of these sheenanigans?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>>>>
>>>> **What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?
>>>
>>> If Denmark were the USA, the cartoon would be protected speech as well
>>> as an offensive poke at a religious group.
>>>
>>> Oh, the capitol cops apologized for removing Sheehan. A congressman's
>>> wife wearing a "Support the Troops" tee was also removed.
>>
>> **But, significantly, NOT placed in handcuffs, nor charged. The whole
>> thing stinks. US citizens should be demanding changes. Upholding the
>> First Amendment, would be a good start. Moreover, Sheehan, of all people,
>> has every right to make a statement.
>>
>
> Not there.

**Yes, there.

> If she did, 280 million other Americans would have the same right, and
> business
> would never get done.

**She was an invited guest.

> Does she also have the right to barge into the oval office?

**IMO, EVERYONE has the right to arrange a personal appointment with the
President. Why, for instance, does Bill Gates, amongst others, have
relatively easy access to the President, yet people who have made huge
sacrifices (for Bush's oil buddies) have no access?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > wrote:
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>> > be
>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>> >
>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Trevor Wilson
>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >
>> >
>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>> would
>> have been the same.
>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>> chambers
>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>
> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
> than MTV.

**Here are Sheehan's own words about this whole, disgusting abrogation of
the basic rights of US citizens:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> >> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>>> >> should
>>>>> >> be
>>>>> >> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>>> >> these
>>>>> >> sorts
>>>>> >> of shenanigans.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>>>>> >> e
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What of these sheenanigans?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
>>>>>
>>>>> **What does this have to do with the US First Amendment?
>>>>
>>>> If Denmark were the USA, the cartoon would be protected speech as well
>>>> as an offensive poke at a religious group.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the capitol cops apologized for removing Sheehan. A congressman's
>>>> wife wearing a "Support the Troops" tee was also removed.
>>>
>>> **But, significantly, NOT placed in handcuffs, nor charged. The whole
>>> thing stinks. US citizens should be demanding changes. Upholding the
>>> First Amendment, would be a good start. Moreover, Sheehan, of all
>>> people, has every right to make a statement.
>>>
>>
>> Not there.
>
> **Yes, there.

Nope, there is good reason. It would be America's
foremost soapbox if protests were allowed.
you would also have antiabortion
protesters desecrating the business of Congress.


>
>> If she did, 280 million other Americans would have the same right, and
>> business
>> would never get done.
>
> **She was an invited guest.

and she has to abide by the rules all other guest must follow.
She was not invited to protest or to make a statement.


>
>> Does she also have the right to barge into the oval office?
>
> **IMO, EVERYONE has the right to arrange a personal appointment with the
> President. Why, for instance, does Bill Gates, amongst others, have
> relatively easy access to the President, yet people who have made huge
> sacrifices (for Bush's oil buddies) have no access?
>

ok, dedicating 50 hours per week to that task, each American
would have 1/7 of a second with The Chief.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>> > should be
>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>> would
>>> have been the same.
>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>> chambers
>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>
>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>> than MTV.
>
> **OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another source.
> I'll wait.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217

But this is even better.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>> > should be
>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>> would
>>> have been the same.
>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>> chambers
>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>
>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>> than MTV.
>
> **Here are Sheehan's own words about this whole, disgusting abrogation of
> the basic rights of US citizens:
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml
>

I have no doubt that her ultimate intention was to make
a verbal protest during the speech.
There is no place for that, not against Bush, not against Clinton,
or not against any US President, no matter the policies
or behaviors being protested.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> **IMO, EVERYONE has the right to arrange a personal appointment with the
> President.

Take a number.... You're gonna be something over 300 Million... Americans
first you see.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

Trevor.

What are the rules for the visitors gallery of the Australian Parliament?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

Trevor:

Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"

NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE

from:

http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm



"Observing proceedings

If a visitor wishes to observe proceedings in either Chamber the Senate or
the House of Representatives - the visitor will be required to pass through
additional security screening before entering a public gallery.

PSS staff can examine the contents of any handbags before their bearer
enters the Chamber galleries as a condition of entry.

Mobile phones and cameras are not permitted in either Chamber. These must be
cloaked at the cloaking area in the central public gallery on the first
floor. Security staff will issue a receipt for any items cloaked. Cloaked
items may be claimed on production of the receipt.

The rules of conduct for the public galleries are displayed at entrances.
They are designed to allow proceedings to take place without disruption and
no protest activity of any kind may be carried out in the galleries.


Any breaches of the rules results in the person responsible being asked to
either remain silent, to leave or to be forcibly removed.

Certain dress rules also apply to the galleries of both Chambers. PSS staff
may refuse entry to persons whose dress does not comply with these rules. "



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>> > should be
>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>> would
>>>> have been the same.
>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>> been
>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>> chambers
>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>
>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>> than MTV.
>>
>> **Here are Sheehan's own words about this whole, disgusting abrogation of
>> the basic rights of US citizens:
>>
>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml
>>
>
> I have no doubt that her ultimate intention was to make
> a verbal protest during the speech.

**"Intention" is not a crime.

> There is no place for that, not against Bush, not against Clinton,
> or not against any US President, no matter the policies
> or behaviors being protested.

**She was wearing a T-shirt. Nothing more. She did not deserve to be
handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained for several hours.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:2seEf.84358$0G.4621@dukeread10...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>> > should be
>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>> would
>>>> have been the same.
>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>> been
>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>> chambers
>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>
>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>> than MTV.
>>
>> **OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another source.
>> I'll wait.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217


**Nope. Nothing new there. Care to try again?

>
> But this is even better.
>
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

**Nope. MUCH worse. Hardly anything pertaining to Sheehan at all. A useless
resource. Something I've come to expect from you. All **** and wind, no
substance. I note your support of the destruction of the rights of US
citizens.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>>> > should be
>>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>>> would
>>>>> have been the same.
>>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>>> been
>>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>>> chambers
>>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>>
>>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>>> than MTV.
>>>
>>> **Here are Sheehan's own words about this whole, disgusting abrogation
>>> of the basic rights of US citizens:
>>>
>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml
>>>
>>
>> I have no doubt that her ultimate intention was to make
>> a verbal protest during the speech.
>
> **"Intention" is not a crime.
>
>> There is no place for that, not against Bush, not against Clinton,
>> or not against any US President, no matter the policies
>> or behaviors being protested.
>
> **She was wearing a T-shirt. Nothing more. She did not deserve to be
> handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained for several hours.
>

She shouldn't have been detained after removal, as long as she
was led out of the building and instructed not to return.
I think she needed to be removed from the building, that is all.
The removal from the gallery and the detention are two different issues.
As long as she was hustled out of the Capitol building, that
all that was called for. The rest is an overreaction. Basically, she
didn't do anything criminal, it was limited to a violation of House rules.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:2seEf.84358$0G.4621@dukeread10...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>>> > should be
>>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>>> would
>>>>> have been the same.
>>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>>> been
>>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>>> chambers
>>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>>
>>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>>> than MTV.
>>>
>>> **OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another source.
>>> I'll wait.
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217
>
>
> **Nope. Nothing new there. Care to try again?
>
>>
>> But this is even better.
>>
>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
>
> **Nope. MUCH worse. Hardly anything pertaining to Sheehan at all. A
> useless resource. Something I've come to expect from you. All **** and
> wind, no substance. I note your support of the destruction of the rights
> of US citizens.
>
>

yes, our rights have no fallen to the level of those of the Australians.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:2seEf.84358$0G.4621@dukeread10...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>>> > should be
>>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>>> would
>>>>> have been the same.
>>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>>> been
>>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>>> chambers
>>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>>
>>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>>> than MTV.
>>>
>>> **OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another source.
>>> I'll wait.
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217
>
>
> **Nope. Nothing new there. Care to try again?

It does report that Sheehan wasn't the only person removed
from the gallery last night.

>
>>
>> But this is even better.
>>
>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
>
> **Nope. MUCH worse. Hardly anything pertaining to Sheehan at all.

No ****... but it does point out that people have been removed from the
gallery
before under completely different administrations... so your anti-Bush
raging..is just that.


> A useless resource. Something I've come to expect from you. All **** and
> wind,

pointed in your direction... now stop liking it.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

You've got your own problems to worry about.... leave Cindy to us :).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10366456


ScottW

[ScottW]

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:AUeEf.84362$0G.43875@dukeread10...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:2seEf.84358$0G.4621@dukeread10...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys
>>>>>> > should be
>>>>>> > both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in
>>>>>> > these
>>>>>> > sorts of shenanigans.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>>>>>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>>>>>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have been the same.
>>>>>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>>>>>> chambers
>>>>>> while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some other Republican congressmans wife also was asked to leave for
>>>>> wearing and I support the troops T-shirt. Back in the Clinton era
>>>>> people were asked to leave the gallery for provocative T-shirts.
>>>>> Nothing new here. Theres long been a dress code enforced for SotU
>>>>> speeches. Trevor, you might want to find a more in-depth news source
>>>>> than MTV.
>>>>
>>>> **OK, then, Mr genius, supply a more accurate story from another
>>>> source. I'll wait.
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1567217
>>
>>
>> **Nope. Nothing new there. Care to try again?
>
> It does report that Sheehan wasn't the only person removed
> from the gallery last night.

**Was Sheehan the only one arrested, handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained?
Can you see a difference? Do you understand yet? Do you understand why SOME
Americans are treated differently, just because they have something to say,
which some people don't like? Do you understand what the First Amendment is
supposed to guarantee?

>
>>
>>>
>>> But this is even better.
>>>
>>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
>>
>> **Nope. MUCH worse. Hardly anything pertaining to Sheehan at all.
>
> No ****... but it does point out that people have been removed from the
> gallery
> before under completely different administrations... so your anti-Bush
> raging..is just that.

**Again, no relevant.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
> Trevor:
>
> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>
> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>
> from:
>
> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm


**Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:80fEf.84363$0G.67194@dukeread10...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> You've got your own problems to worry about.... leave Cindy to us :).
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10366456
>

**And this relates to the problems of the US First Amendment, how?

BTW: I hope that EVERYONE who is dirty is subject to the full force of the
law. That includes Dubya, of course, since he lied to the US population,
leading to the deaths of more than 2,000 US service people, during his dirty
little war.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It does report that Sheehan wasn't the only person removed
>> from the gallery last night.
>
> **Was Sheehan the only one arrested, handcuffed, fingerprinted and
> detained?

OMG Cindy lost 4 hours... It's a travesty I tell you. But what about the
poor cop who had to mugshot her ugly mug? What about his rights?

> Can you see a difference? Do you understand yet? Do you understand why
> SOME Americans are treated differently, just because they have something
> to say, which some people don't like? Do you understand what the First
> Amendment is supposed to guarantee?

I think it should guarantee my rights... but it shouldn't do squat for you.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But this is even better.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
>>>
>>> **Nope. MUCH worse. Hardly anything pertaining to Sheehan at all.
>>
>> No ****... but it does point out that people have been removed from the
>> gallery
>> before under completely different administrations... so your anti-Bush
>> raging..is just that.
>
> **Again, no relevant.

The Bush myopia is revealed... Clinton can do it... Bush can't.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:80fEf.84363$0G.67194@dukeread10...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> You've got your own problems to worry about.... leave Cindy to us :).
>>
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10366456
>>
>
> **And this relates to the problems of the US First Amendment, how?
>
> BTW: I hope that EVERYONE who is dirty is subject to the full force of the
> law.

Why only the dirty?

>That includes Dubya, of course, since he lied to the US population, leading
>to the deaths of more than 2,000 US service people, during his dirty little
>war.

I think all Australians should be incarcerated for their part in the
corruption of the Grain Board and kickbacks to Saddam.

ScottW
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ayfEf.84370$0G.28969@dukeread10...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:80fEf.84363$0G.67194@dukeread10...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> You've got your own problems to worry about.... leave Cindy to us :).
>>>
>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10366456
>>>
>>
>> **And this relates to the problems of the US First Amendment, how?
>>
>> BTW: I hope that EVERYONE who is dirty is subject to the full force of
>> the law.
>
> Why only the dirty?

**Dirty = guilty.

>
>>That includes Dubya, of course, since he lied to the US population,
>>leading to the deaths of more than 2,000 US service people, during his
>>dirty little war.
>
> I think all Australians should be incarcerated for their part in the
> corruption of the Grain Board and kickbacks to Saddam.

**Why? Only the guilty should be punished. In fact, only those who voted for
Dubya should be required to go fight his disgusting little war. Now that is
a good idea, don't you think? If those who voted for Dubya had to go and
fight, would that have caused them to alter their vote?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I think all Australians should be incarcerated for their part in the
>> corruption of the Grain Board and kickbacks to Saddam.
>
> **Why? Only the guilty should be punished.

Obviously that's all Australians as they all benefit in some way from the
Grain board.

> In fact, only those who voted for Dubya should be required to go fight his
> disgusting little war. Now that is a good idea, don't you think?

Sure... I always wanted an ATL to play with.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1485421.php


> If those who voted for Dubya had to go and fight, would that have caused
> them to alter their vote?

Nah... we'd just push the button.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Trevor:
>>
>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>
>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>
>> from:
>>
>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>
>
> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>

"At least" we have one



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ayfEf.84370$0G.28969@dukeread10...
>
>
> I think all Australians should be incarcerated ,,,,,,,,
>>
>>

The whole damn country?
I mean, maybe that's going just a little bit too far.couldn't some of them
get work release?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

>
> **Why? Only the guilty should be punished. In fact, only those who voted
> for Dubya should be required to go fight his disgusting little war. Now
> that is a good idea, don't you think? If those who voted for Dubya had to
> go and fight, would that have caused them to alter their vote?
>

And we should make terrorists kill those who only voted for Kerry.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Trevor:
>>>
>>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>>
>>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>>
>>> from:
>>>
>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>>
>>
>> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>>
>
> "At least" we have one

**Apparently Ms Sheehan does not.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Trevor:
>>
>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>
>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>
>> from:
>>
>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>
>
> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>
>
It's pertains to all persons regardless of politcal affiliation or the cause
they wish to protest.
It's simply not allowed at the SOU address.

There is certainly no shortage of outlets for protest and she got the
coverage she wanted anyway.

There is a set of rules for behavior in the Senate Gallery, she was not
throuwn out for anything to do with the 1st Ammendment, but for braking the
rules.

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>>> be both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>> sorts of shenanigans.
>>>
>>> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trevor Wilson
>>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry Trevor, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> **Don't I? Please feel free to point out my error/s.
>
>> This is not about the 1st Amendment.
>
> **Oh really? Why was she taken away in handcuffs? Why was she charged with
> an offence?
>
I don't know what she did after being asked to leave and being escorted out.
Perhaps she resisted and/or became abusive.

>> No one is allowed to do anything like what she tried to do.
>
> **Really? Please cite the part of the US Constitution where it states that
> wearing a T-shirt with a specific message on it is illegal.
>
Please cite the part that says people get to express their views at any
place and time.

>> If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>> would have been the same.
>
> **Wanna bet?
>
You've already been apprised of the fact that others have been removed for
similar reasons and for lesser things. She broke the rules.

>> No such behavior is allowed in the Senate, by anybody. People have been
>> removed in the past for chewing gum and reading books in the Senate
>> chambers while State of the Union addresses were being given.
>
> **Yeah, sure. She was removed, placed in handcuffs and charged, because
> she was making a statement which the Bush cabal was seriously embarrassed
> by. Nothing more.
>
Thank you for the paranoid viewpoint.
>

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> > If it had been a pro bush banner she was trying to unfurl the results
>> > would have been the same.
>>
>> **Wanna bet?
>
> That's a tough one: a woman wearing a "Support the Troops" tee *was*
> removed, but the cops told her her shirt was an anti-war protest. A
> push...
>
> And nyob's reference to "unfurl" shows he gets his news exclusively from
> Fox, the only organization that can't tell a banner from a tee shirt.
>
Actually Iheard there were 2 reports, one about the shirt and another saying
that she was gonig to unfurl a banner. Fox News was not even a factor, it
was from local news.

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Trevor:
>>>
>>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>>
>>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>>
>>> from:
>>>
>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>>
>>
>> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>>
>>
> It's pertains to all persons regardless of politcal affiliation or the
> cause they wish to protest.

**Then why was she handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained? Others who were
acting similary were not treated as she was?

> It's simply not allowed at the SOU address.
>
> There is certainly no shortage of outlets for protest and she got the
> coverage she wanted anyway.
>
> There is a set of rules for behavior in the Senate Gallery, she was not
> throuwn out for anything to do with the 1st Ammendment, but for braking
> the rules.

**Then why was she handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ZmfEf.84368$0G.22425@dukeread10...
> http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>
> ScottW
>
Given that KFI was the most highest rated station in the country the last
heard, and Handel one of their top rated hosts, I doubt he'll be going
anywhere.

One of his favorite bit is his annual discussion of why necrophillia should
not be a crime. The guy is out there.

[EddieM]

> Trevor Wilson wrote
>
>

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



> The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
> both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these sorts
> of shenanigans.


This would be about an act of intolerance during a traditionally formal
ceremony.


> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Trevor:
>>>>
>>>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>>>
>>>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>>>
>>>> from:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>>>
>>
>> "At least" we have one
>
> **Apparently Ms Sheehan does not.
>

nor do you. I suggest you protest that fact in your own Parliament.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html

Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
them what to do...

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>
> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
> them what to do...

Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....and government has nothing
to do with this.

ScottW

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
>both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these sorts
>of shenanigans.
>
>http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true

I'm usually against it, but I sure hope she sues someone.
--------------
Alex
-

[dave weil]

On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>>
>> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
>> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
>> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
>> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
>> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
>> them what to do...
>
>Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....

I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
I'm sorry.

>and government has nothing to do with this.

Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
> >>
> >> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
> >> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
> >> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
> >> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
> >> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
> >> them what to do...
> >
> >Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....
>
> I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
> I'm sorry.
>
> >and government has nothing to do with this.
>
> Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?

We're talking about an attack on it... not by the government... and
not to be defended by the government.

Try to follow along... it's really not that difficult.

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> says...
>>
>>
>>The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should be
>>both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>sorts
>>of shenanigans.
>>
>>http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>
> I'm usually against it, but I sure hope she sues someone.

**Along with that poor ******* who got shot three times by a copper. He
dodged bullets in Iraq, only to be shot in the US. BY A POLICE OFFICER!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[dave weil]

On 2 Feb 2006 13:18:09 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>> >>
>> >> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
>> >> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
>> >> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
>> >> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
>> >> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
>> >> them what to do...
>> >
>> >Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....
>>
>> I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
>> I'm sorry.

No response.

>> >and government has nothing to do with this.
>>
>> Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?
>
> We're talking about an attack on it... not by the government...

The only one who can "defend the Constitution" from an attack *is* the
government.

I note that you don't address the issues that you yourself brought to
the table. Is this because if you are right of center, it's OK to kid
about Muslims?

Franly, I'm a bit perturbed about the freedom of speech being dictated
by the marketplace, but, that's what right-wingers and fundamentalist
religious groups espouse. In this case, someone's free speech on the
*public airwaves* is in danger of being truncated by "the
marketplace". Where do you fall on this issue?

>and not to be defended by the government.

Well then, again I ask, "What does this have to do with the 1st
Amendment"? Frankly, the facts seem to show that it has NOTHING to do
with the 1st Amendment. Or are you arguing that the 1st Amendment
applies here? (Here's a little hint, I happen to believe JUST THAT)/

> Try to follow along... it's really not that difficult.

Actually, what's difficult is trying to figure out why you brought it
up in the context of the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that the 1st
Amendment trumps the marketplace? If so, then, believe it or not, we
agree, up to a point.

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>>
>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>The First Amendment is now dead and buried in the USSA. You guys should
>>>be
>>>both afraid and ashamed of allowing the Bush cabal to engage in these
>>>sorts
>>>of shenanigans.
>>>
>>>http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522959/20060201/index.jhtml?headlines=true
>>
>> I'm usually against it, but I sure hope she sues someone.
>
> **Along with that poor ******* who got shot three times by a copper. He
> dodged bullets in Iraq, only to be shot in the US. BY A POLICE OFFICER!
>

In his case, he was only the pasenger, not the driver, and
he was unarmed. In the video, which is not conclusive,
it looks like the cop was out of control.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> **Then why was she handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained?

So she could get meganews coverage and get an apology later.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Feb 2006 13:18:09 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dave weil wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>>> >>
>>> >> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
>>> >> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
>>> >> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
>>> >> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
>>> >> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
>>> >> them what to do...
>>> >
>>> >Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
>>> I'm sorry.
>
> No response.

I need to respond to your apology? I think not.

>
>>> >and government has nothing to do with this.
>>>
>>> Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?
>>
>> We're talking about an attack on it... not by the government...
>
> The only one who can "defend the Constitution" from an attack *is* the
> government.

Good, then the ACLU can closer their doors and go home.

>
> I note that you don't address the issues that you yourself brought to
> the table. Is this because if you are right of center, it's OK to kid
> about Muslims?
>
> Franly, I'm a bit perturbed about the freedom of speech being dictated
> by the marketplace, but, that's what right-wingers and fundamentalist
> religious groups espouse.

BS... I hears calls for boycotts from the left all the time.
Most recently on Ford for pulling ads from gay magazines.

> In this case, someone's free speech on the
> *public airwaves* is in danger of being truncated by "the
> marketplace". Where do you fall on this issue?

I think the people should rise up in support.. no need for government
involvement.

>
>>and not to be defended by the government.
>
> Well then, again I ask, "What does this have to do with the 1st
> Amendment"? Frankly, the facts seem to show that it has NOTHING to do
> with the 1st Amendment. Or are you arguing that the 1st Amendment
> applies here? (Here's a little hint, I happen to believe JUST THAT)/

It does but all the government could do is violate it. Either against KFI
or CAIR.
Its up to the people to defend KFI's rights. The government can't do
anything against CAIR without violationg their rights. The people use
their rights to protect KFI.
>
>> Try to follow along... it's really not that difficult.
>
> Actually, what's difficult is trying to figure out why you brought it
> up in the context of the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that the 1st
> Amendment trumps the marketplace?

Sure.. feel free to say anything you want... but the market doesn't have to
buy.

See government involvement on either side violates someones rights.

>If so, then, believe it or not, we
> agree, up to a point.

How do you feel about Walmart being sued for not offering the morning after
pill?

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:41:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2 Feb 2006 13:18:09 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>> On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >dave weil wrote:
>>>> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
>>>> >> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
>>>> >> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
>>>> >> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
>>>> >> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
>>>> >> them what to do...
>>>> >
>>>> >Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
>>>> I'm sorry.
>>
>> No response.
>
> I need to respond to your apology? I think not.

Well, a nice person would say "Thank you". I'm glad to know that you
don't espouse libertarian ideas though. I'm glad that you think that
the government has SOME responsibilities past common defense.

>>>> >and government has nothing to do with this.
>>>>
>>>> Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?
>>>
>>> We're talking about an attack on it... not by the government...
>>
>> The only one who can "defend the Constitution" from an attack *is* the
>> government.
>
> Good, then the ACLU can closer their doors and go home.

I'm glad that you are a supporter of the ACLU. I personally think that
they are an important organization.

Of course, how do they defend the Constitution? Through the courts, of
course.

>> I note that you don't address the issues that you yourself brought to
>> the table. Is this because if you are right of center, it's OK to kid
>> about Muslims?
>>
>> Franly, I'm a bit perturbed about the freedom of speech being dictated
>> by the marketplace, but, that's what right-wingers and fundamentalist
>> religious groups espouse.
>
> BS... I hears calls for boycotts from the left all the time.
>Most recently on Ford for pulling ads from gay magazines.

Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
coming from the Right. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think it's
"illegal" to organize an economic action, and I think that there are
valid reasons to do it sometimes - but not to stifle free speech
(which really isn't the Ford issue anyway).

>> In this case, someone's free speech on the
>> *public airwaves* is in danger of being truncated by "the
>> marketplace". Where do you fall on this issue?
>
> I think the people should rise up in support.. no need for government
>involvement.

Then it's really not a 1st Amendment issue, which brings me back to
why bring it up in that context?

>>>and not to be defended by the government.
>>
>> Well then, again I ask, "What does this have to do with the 1st
>> Amendment"? Frankly, the facts seem to show that it has NOTHING to do
>> with the 1st Amendment. Or are you arguing that the 1st Amendment
>> applies here? (Here's a little hint, I happen to believe JUST THAT)/
>
> It does but all the government could do is violate it. Either against KFI
>or CAIR.

Then it's really not a 1st Amendment issue. It's only a 1st Amendment
issue if the government can determine that it is. Otherwise, it's just
another cog in the current "social war".

>Its up to the people to defend KFI's rights. The government can't do
>anything against CAIR without violationg their rights. The people use
>their rights to protect KFI.

So, once again, not really a 1st Amendment issue at all.

>>> Try to follow along... it's really not that difficult.
>>
>> Actually, what's difficult is trying to figure out why you brought it
>> up in the context of the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that the 1st
>> Amendment trumps the marketplace?
>
> Sure.. feel free to say anything you want... but the market doesn't have to
>buy.

On this we agree except for the fact that you *can't* say anything you
want. Not only that, it's getting more and more dangerous to espouse
"unpopular" views, and not just from a marketplace standpoint but from
potential governmental intrusion as well.

>See government involvement on either side violates someones rights.

So it's not really a 1st Amendment issue.

>>If so, then, believe it or not, we
>> agree, up to a point.
>
> How do you feel about Walmart being sued for not offering the morning after
>pill?

That's stupid, but under your philosophy, perfectly defendable because
it's a marketplace issue.

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Trevor:
>>>>
>>>> Her are the rules for visitors of the Australian Parlaiment"
>>>>
>>>> NO PROTEST, and a DRESS CODE
>>>>
>>>> from:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/parliamentsecurity.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> **Which is relevant to the US First Amendment, how?
>>>
>>>
>> It's pertains to all persons regardless of politcal affiliation or the
>> cause they wish to protest.
>
> **Then why was she handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained? Others who were
> acting similary were not treated as she was?
>
>> It's simply not allowed at the SOU address.
>>
>> There is certainly no shortage of outlets for protest and she got the
>> coverage she wanted anyway.
>>
>> There is a set of rules for behavior in the Senate Gallery, she was not
>> throuwn out for anything to do with the 1st Ammendment, but for braking
>> the rules.
>
> **Then why was she handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained?
>
>
Apparently because she would not leave when asked.
The woman with the "Support Our Troops" shirt left when asked.

details can be found here: > --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

[George M. Middius]

So, Mickey, you failed to come to terms with the Krooborg's vicious
attacks on Jennifer. No surprise there. The sight of your idol behaving
worse than those who torment you must have been oh so shocking.

Now then. In another thread, we have further evidence of Krooger's
disintegrating connection to reality. I'm speaking of his random and
baseless accusations of misconduct again John Atkinson. We know that you
hate and fear JA, and that you would love to see his magazine censored
or even bankrupted. But does your loyalty to your demented anti-audio
crusade allow you to excuse Krooger's nasty lies about Mr. Atkinson?

Make an effort to answer now. Don't worry about the pool of vomit --
Mommy will clean it up when she gets home.

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> So, Mickey, you failed to come to terms with the Krooborg's vicious
> attacks

Do you *ever* post about audio or is it *just* bashing other ppl that
attracts you to Usenet ?

Graham

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:41:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2 Feb 2006 13:18:09 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>dave weil wrote:
> >>>> On 2 Feb 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >dave weil wrote:
> >>>> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:16 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >>>> >> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> >http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/01/exclusive-interview-with-kfi-los.html
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Isn't this supposed to be pure American capitalism at work? According
> >>>> >> to guys like you and Mike, American business shouldn't be dictated to
> >>>> >> by little things like "The Government". Let them hire and fire
> >>>> >> according to the marketplace. Let them drop pensions and health care
> >>>> >> because business is sacrosanct. Don't you DARE let government tell
> >>>> >> them what to do...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Earth to Dave... Don't group me with Mike....
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sorry - I thought that you had also espoused libertarian ideas.
> >>>> I'm sorry.
> >>
> >> No response.
> >
> > I need to respond to your apology? I think not.
>
> Well, a nice person would say "Thank you". I'm glad to know that you
> don't espouse libertarian ideas though. I'm glad that you think that
> the government has SOME responsibilities past common defense.
>
> >>>> >and government has nothing to do with this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well then, what does this have to do with the 1st Amendment?
> >>>
> >>> We're talking about an attack on it... not by the government...
> >>
> >> The only one who can "defend the Constitution" from an attack *is* the
> >> government.
> >
> > Good, then the ACLU can closer their doors and go home.
>
> I'm glad that you are a supporter of the ACLU. I personally think that
> they are an important organization.

I think they have outlived their usefulness.

>
> Of course, how do they defend the Constitution? Through the courts, of
> course.

So anything brought to a court makes the government a party to the
case...
thanks for that bit of esoteric wielogic.
>
> >> I note that you don't address the issues that you yourself brought to
> >> the table. Is this because if you are right of center, it's OK to kid
> >> about Muslims?
> >>
> >> Franly, I'm a bit perturbed about the freedom of speech being dictated
> >> by the marketplace, but, that's what right-wingers and fundamentalist
> >> religious groups espouse.
> >
> > BS... I hears calls for boycotts from the left all the time.
> >Most recently on Ford for pulling ads from gay magazines.
>
> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
> coming from the Right.

Is Islam on the left or the right?

>Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think it's
> "illegal" to organize an economic action, and I think that there are
> valid reasons to do it sometimes - but not to stifle free speech
> (which really isn't the Ford issue anyway).
>
> >> In this case, someone's free speech on the
> >> *public airwaves* is in danger of being truncated by "the
> >> marketplace". Where do you fall on this issue?
> >
> > I think the people should rise up in support.. no need for government
> >involvement.
>
> Then it's really not a 1st Amendment issue, which brings me back to
> why bring it up in that context?

The 1st Amendment is the icon for free speech.. like it or not.
>
> >>>and not to be defended by the government.
> >>
> >> Well then, again I ask, "What does this have to do with the 1st
> >> Amendment"? Frankly, the facts seem to show that it has NOTHING to do
> >> with the 1st Amendment. Or are you arguing that the 1st Amendment
> >> applies here? (Here's a little hint, I happen to believe JUST THAT)/
> >
> > It does but all the government could do is violate it. Either against KFI
> >or CAIR.
>
> Then it's really not a 1st Amendment issue. It's only a 1st Amendment
> issue if the government can determine that it is.

So you're one of those passive citizens relying on government for
everything... including deciding if you're rights deserve protection.

> Otherwise, it's just
> another cog in the current "social war".

People in social wars don't have rights?

>
> >Its up to the people to defend KFI's rights. The government can't do
> >anything against CAIR without violationg their rights. The people use
> >their rights to protect KFI.
>
> So, once again, not really a 1st Amendment issue at all.
>
> >>> Try to follow along... it's really not that difficult.
> >>
> >> Actually, what's difficult is trying to figure out why you brought it
> >> up in the context of the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that the 1st
> >> Amendment trumps the marketplace?
> >
> > Sure.. feel free to say anything you want... but the market doesn't have to
> >buy.
>
> On this we agree except for the fact that you *can't* say anything you
> want. Not only that, it's getting more and more dangerous to espouse
> "unpopular" views, and not just from a marketplace standpoint but from
> potential governmental intrusion as well.
>
> >See government involvement on either side violates someones rights.
>
> So it's not really a 1st Amendment issue.

It is... but only one in which the people can provide protection.

>
> >>If so, then, believe it or not, we
> >> agree, up to a point.
> >
> > How do you feel about Walmart being sued for not offering the morning after
> >pill?
>
> That's stupid, but under your philosophy, perfectly defendable because
> it's a marketplace issue.

What's stupid? The lawsuit or Walmart policy? I think Walmart can
refuse to offer any product they want and the market has the right to
react without any court or government involvement.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
>> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>> coming from the Right.
>
> Is Islam on the left or the right?

Definitely on the Right.

[dave weil]

On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> That's stupid, but under your philosophy, perfectly defendable because
>> it's a marketplace issue.
>
> What's stupid? The lawsuit or Walmart policy?

The lawsuit.

> I think Walmart can
>refuse to offer any product they want and the market has the right to
>react without any court or government involvement.

And "The People/the market" have the right to take it to court as well
(stupid or not). Or are you saying now that the marketplace only flows
one way now? That the people don't have any rights to determine what a
company does? Or are you saying that a boycott is their only "legal"
recourse?

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> That's stupid, but under your philosophy, perfectly defendable because
> >> it's a marketplace issue.
> >
> > What's stupid? The lawsuit or Walmart policy?
>
> The lawsuit.

Agreed.

>
> > I think Walmart can
> >refuse to offer any product they want and the market has the right to
> >react without any court or government involvement.
>
> And "The People/the market" have the right to take it to court as well
> (stupid or not).

and the court has the right to throw them out without actually hearing
the case... which I fully expect.

>Or are you saying now that the marketplace only flows
> one way now?

Not at all... I don't think two (no-government) parties going to court
really involves the government... its when the government (Justice Dept
etc) takes someone to court they are involved. Otherwise.. the
government in the body of the court is just impartial and facilitating
application of the law.

>That the people don't have any rights to determine what a
> company does? Or are you saying that a boycott is their only "legal"
> recourse?

Not at all.. they have lots of legal recourse and it need not always
involve going to court.... the market will decide if they support them
and make those out of court recourses effective or not. The
government need not be involved unless someones rights are violated and
in the Walmart case...I don' t see that.

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
> >> coming from the Right.
> >
> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>
> Definitely on the Right.

Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
of Islamic resistance in the culture war?

ScottW

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> So, Mickey, you failed to come to terms with the Krooborg's vicious
>> attacks
>
> Do you *ever* post about audio or is it *just* bashing other ppl that
> attracts you to Usenet ?
>
> Graham
>
He might mention something about once a year.
You can easily see that "Geroge" lives to bash.

[dave weil]

On 3 Feb 2006 12:57:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>>Or are you saying now that the marketplace only flows
>> one way now?
>
>Not at all... I don't think two (no-government) parties going to court
>really involves the government... its when the government (Justice Dept
>etc) takes someone to court they are involved.

And that's when something becomes a 1st Amendment issue. The original
link that you provided wasn't a 1st Amendment issue at all - it was
simply a bunch of people wanting to boycott someone. That's why I kept
asking what it had to do with the 1st Amendment.

[dave weil]

On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
>> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>> >> coming from the Right.
>> >
>> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>>
>> Definitely on the Right.
>
> Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
>civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
>of Islamic resistance in the culture war?

Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?

Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
should act and what they should read and see in the media. (BTW, don't
you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?

Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
"culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting? They are just
using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
"allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
Not in any sensible definition of the term.

[George M. Middius]

So, Mickey, you failed to come to terms with the Krooborg's vicious
attacks on Jennifer. No surprise there. The sight of your idol behaving
worse than those who torment you must have been oh so shocking.

Now then. In another thread, we have further evidence of Krooger's
disintegrating connection to reality. I'm speaking of his random and
baseless accusations of misconduct again John Atkinson. We know that you
hate and fear JA, and that you would love to see his magazine censored
or even bankrupted. But does your loyalty to your demented anti-audio
crusade allow you to excuse Krooger's nasty lies about Mr. Atkinson?

Make an effort to answer now. Don't worry about the pool of vomit --
Mommy will clean it up when she gets home.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
> should act and what they should read and see in the media. (BTW, don't
> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
>
> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting? They are just
> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
> "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
> Not in any sensible definition of the term.
>


However, the Left sees the Evangelical Right as a much greater threat
than IslamoFascism. Having to walk by a creche in a park is much
more threatening than Islamic conversion by the sword.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> However, the Left sees the Evangelical Right as a much greater threat
> than IslamoFascism. Having to walk by a creche in a park is much
> more threatening than Islamic conversion by the sword.

Did you get your humor license from Goose Puke, Michigan?

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
> >> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
> >> >> coming from the Right.
> >> >
> >> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
> >>
> >> Definitely on the Right.
> >
> > Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
> >civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
> >of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
>
> Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?

You didn't answer the question. Do you deny the left is supportive
of Islam in it's culture war? (which is somewhat suicidal for many
segments of the left)
>
> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
> should act and what they should read and see in the media.

Sounds a lot like the anti-religous left and ACLU.

>(BTW, don't
> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?

and **** off the rest of us that wants to see what is so
"inflammatory". Sure, they have that right. Just like I have a right
to turn the channel, cancel my subscription, and call for others to do
so.

>
> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?

The left isn't fighting a bit of culture war themselves? Frankly...
I don' t consider Bush and Co. fighting a culture war... they're
fighting an anti violence, anti terrorism war. They have no concern
about Islamic culture as long as it doesn't hurt people.

> They are just
> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
> "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".

You appear to be espousing a tolerant left vs an intolerant right...
but I find the left anything but tolerant and just as or more prone to
violence to impose their views as anyone. Take PITA and Earth
Liberation Front for examples.

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 12:57:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>Or are you saying now that the marketplace only flows
> >> one way now?
> >
> >Not at all... I don't think two (no-government) parties going to court
> >really involves the government... its when the government (Justice Dept
> >etc) takes someone to court they are involved.
>
> And that's when something becomes a 1st Amendment issue.

Nope, can't agree with that at all. Way too limited in scope for me.
This point is really a semantic one so lets agree to disagree.
If you can't tolerate my position it will just be another example of
the intolerant left :)

>The original
> link that you provided wasn't a 1st Amendment issue at all - it was
> simply a bunch of people wanting to boycott someone. That's why I kept
> asking what it had to do with the 1st Amendment.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Uh-oh. Didn't somebody protest recently about being lumped in with
duh-Mikey?

> Do you deny the left is supportive
> of Islam in it's[sic] culture war?

While you're waiting for dave to stop laughing, I'll deny it for him.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> However, the Left sees the Evangelical Right as a much greater threat
>> than IslamoFascism. Having to walk by a creche in a park is much
>> more threatening than Islamic conversion by the sword.
>
> Did you get your humor license from Goose Puke, Michigan?
>

no, from some newspaper in the Netherllands.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[dave weil]

On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
>> >> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>> >> >> coming from the Right.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>> >>
>> >> Definitely on the Right.
>> >
>> > Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
>> >civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
>> >of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
>>
>> Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?
>
> You didn't answer the question. Do you deny the left is supportive
>of Islam in it's culture war? (which is somewhat suicidal for many
>segments of the left)

Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
religion.

>> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
>> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
>> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
>> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
>> should act and what they should read and see in the media.
>
> Sounds a lot like the anti-religous left and ACLU.

You're joking, of course. I really don't know how to respond to this.
Can you expand on how an "anti-religious Left" could possibly believe
that one religion should be the basis of a society and also the basis
of war?

BTW, just so you know, most of the Left isn't against religion, but
the use of religion to oppress and it's also against explicit
religious endorsement by the government.

>>(BTW, don't
>> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
>> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
>> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
>> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
>> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
>
> and **** off the rest of us that wants to see what is so
>"inflammatory".

You can certainly see those cartoons if you want to.

> Sure, they have that right. Just like I have a right
>to turn the channel, cancel my subscription, and call for others to do
>so.

Of course you do. Pretty soon, you'll be left with only a small slice
of "the media", and this is something that you already suffer from.
You are beholden on an increasingly narrow view of the world and it's
apparent from your postings.

>> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
>> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?
>
> The left isn't fighting a bit of culture war themselves?

Because the war is being brought to them by religious fundamentalists.

> Frankly...I don' t consider Bush and Co. fighting a culture war... they're
>fighting an anti violence, anti terrorism war. They have no concern
>about Islamic culture as long as it doesn't hurt people.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html

President George W. Bush, in a rare on-the-record session with
religion editors and writers on Wednesday, said his job as president
is to "change cultures."

<snip>

"At home, the job of a president is to help cultures change. The
culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what
I'm talking about, changing the culture from one that says, "If it
feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else,"
to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the
decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era. … I said
that when I was governor of Texas. As a matter of fact, I've been
saying that ever since I got into politics. This is one of the reasons
I got into politics in the first place. Governments cannot change
culture alone. I want you to know I understand that. But I can be a
voice of cultural change.

Part of the responsibility era is the responsibility that comes with
promoting—taking care of your bodies to the point where we can promote
a culture of life. Father Richard [Neuhaus] helped me craft what is
still the integral part of my position on abortion, which is: Every
child welcomed to life and protected by law. That is the goal of this
administration.

Part of government's role is to foster responsibility and hope by
standing with those who have heard a call to love a neighbor, which is
the second point of the faith-based initiative that I think is one of
the most important domestic initiatives that I have pushed, if not the
most. It recognizes the rightful relationship between hearts and souls
and government. Again, my job is to try to distill things down so that
average people can understand it. Here's the way I put it, "Government
can hand out money, but it cannot put love in people's hearts or a
sense of purpose in people's lives."

Etc., etc...

However, you misunderstood my "cultural war" reference. I was
comparing the idea that US religious fundamentalists have many of the
same goals of radical Islam fundamentalists. They both want to
restrict literature, media, and many other aspects of modern life. You
are fond of making fun of Tennessee and I often do the same thing,
when evangelicals get books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" out of
libraries.

That was the aspect of the "culture war" that I was talking about. I
wasn't talking about a "culture war" against Islam. I was comparing
the current climate in the US with Islamic radicals. They both fall
squarely on the Right.


>> They are just
>> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
>> "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
>
> You appear to be espousing a tolerant left vs an intolerant right...

You would be wrong. I simply stated a fairly obvious truth in response
to your question about where the majority of Islam falls. Even the
more moderate Islamics are right of center.

>but I find the left anything but tolerant and just as or more prone to
>violence to impose their views as anyone. Take PITA and Earth
>Liberation Front for examples.

That's because you see the Left pretty much as these two organizations
and nothing more. Certainly the Left has always had their violent
groups (SNCC, The Black Panthers, Bader-Meinhoff, The Red Brigade,
etc.). But that would be like me saying that the Right is violent and
intolerant because of the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Pinochet, etc.

Let's not forget that the Left has been most successful and effective
when it's followed people like Dr. Martin Luther King. On the Right,
for every intolerant and venal personalities like Dr. James Dobson,
you have reasonable and "tolerant" people like George Will. The Right
isn't a monolith and I have focused my comments on those who seem to
have intolerance toward alternative viewpoints and lifestyles *and*
neo-cons who have thrust the world squarely into a dangerous situation
(and no, I'm not forgetting who gave them the rationale for doing it.
I'm just very worried about the unfettered attack on certain parts of
the Constitution based on fear. Fear has been used to take away
freedoms and enslave populations throughout history. I'd just hate to
see it happen here as well...

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> religion.
>

it only admires the latter.

the left defends them, for free, in court, and
does everything possible to fulfill their
victory over an America the left hates.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> religion.
>>
>
>it only admires the latter.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> >> religion.
> >>
> >
> >it only admires the latter.
>
> Thanks for the laugh.

No kidding.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> >> religion.
>> >>
>> >
>> >it only admires the latter.
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> No kidding.

This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know the
reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
don't graduate high school).

Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf

Go to the slide Support for Suicide Bombing Declines. 57% of Jordanians
support suicide bombing (Isn't that a solid majority in that country
Dave? ), 35% of Lebanonese, 25% of Pakistanis, Turkey... our Nato allie was
still 14%, Morocco numbers showed a huge swing but nowhere is it less than
10%. And remember... this is SUICIDE bombing....numbers would certainly
be worse for all acts of terrorism.

Sorry that a dose of reality dampens your humor.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dave weil wrote:
>>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU
>>> >> >> must
>>> >> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>>> >> >> coming from the Right.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>>> >>
>>> >> Definitely on the Right.
>>> >
>>> > Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
>>> >civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
>>> >of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
>>>
>>> Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. Do you deny the left is supportive
>>of Islam in it's culture war? (which is somewhat suicidal for many
>>segments of the left)
>
> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> religion.

See response to Jenn.

>
>>> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
>>> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
>>> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
>>> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
>>> should act and what they should read and see in the media.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like the anti-religous left and ACLU.
>
> You're joking, of course. I really don't know how to respond to this.
> Can you expand on how an "anti-religious Left" could possibly believe
> that one religion should be the basis of a society

Not one religion... no religion.

>and also the basis
> of war?

Culture war in our own country...no religion vs religion. Maybe if you
paid attention you'd see the Christian Judeo alliance under attack from the
left.

>
> BTW, just so you know, most of the Left isn't against religion, but
> the use of religion to oppress and it's also against explicit
> religious endorsement by the government.

Seems to be quite opposed to public religious expression in many forms.

>
>>>(BTW, don't
>>> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
>>> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
>>> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
>>> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
>>> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
>>
>> and **** off the rest of us that wants to see what is so
>>"inflammatory".
>
> You can certainly see those cartoons if you want to.

I have... I also think its an obligation of the media to show the public
exactly how sensitive to offense and hypocritical the Muslim community is.
>
>> Sure, they have that right. Just like I have a right
>>to turn the channel, cancel my subscription, and call for others to do
>>so.
>
> Of course you do. Pretty soon, you'll be left with only a small slice
> of "the media", and this is something that you already suffer from.
> You are beholden on an increasingly narrow view of the world and it's
> apparent from your postings.

You don't like my views so you spin into personal attacks... thats worldly
of you.

>
>>> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
>>> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?
>>
>> The left isn't fighting a bit of culture war themselves?
>
> Because the war is being brought to them by religious fundamentalists.

Really... thats why they attack icons that have been around for years like
the City of LA symbol or the local veterans memorial. Hard to see how
these new fronts in the culture war were brought about by the right.

>
>> Frankly...I don' t consider Bush and Co. fighting a culture war...
>> they're
>>fighting an anti violence, anti terrorism war. They have no concern
>>about Islamic culture as long as it doesn't hurt people.
>
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html
>
> President George W. Bush, in a rare on-the-record session with
> religion editors and writers on Wednesday, said his job as president
> is to "change cultures."
>
> <snip>
>
> "At home, the job of a president is to help cultures change. The
> culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what
> I'm talking about, changing the culture from one that says, "If it
> feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else,"
> to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the
> decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era. . I said
> that when I was governor of Texas. As a matter of fact, I've been
> saying that ever since I got into politics. This is one of the reasons
> I got into politics in the first place. Governments cannot change
> culture alone. I want you to know I understand that. But I can be a
> voice of cultural change.
>
> Part of the responsibility era is the responsibility that comes with
> promoting-taking care of your bodies to the point where we can promote
> a culture of life. Father Richard [Neuhaus] helped me craft what is
> still the integral part of my position on abortion, which is: Every
> child welcomed to life and protected by law. That is the goal of this
> administration.
>
> Part of government's role is to foster responsibility and hope by
> standing with those who have heard a call to love a neighbor, which is
> the second point of the faith-based initiative that I think is one of
> the most important domestic initiatives that I have pushed, if not the
> most. It recognizes the rightful relationship between hearts and souls
> and government. Again, my job is to try to distill things down so that
> average people can understand it. Here's the way I put it, "Government
> can hand out money, but it cannot put love in people's hearts or a
> sense of purpose in people's lives."
>
> Etc., etc...
>
> However, you misunderstood my "cultural war" reference. I was
> comparing the idea that US religious fundamentalists have many of the
> same goals of radical Islam fundamentalists. They both want to
> restrict literature, media, and many other aspects of modern life. You
> are fond of making fun of Tennessee and I often do the same thing,
> when evangelicals get books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" out of
> libraries.

Sure... there are nut jobs all over the world... but the extremists you
talk of aren't really representative of the mainstream right any more than
the Code Pinkers are mainstream left.
>
> That was the aspect of the "culture war" that I was talking about. I
> wasn't talking about a "culture war" against Islam. I was comparing
> the current climate in the US with Islamic radicals. They both fall
> squarely on the Right.

Most conservatives are far more tolerant than you give them credit for.

>
>
>>> They are just
>>> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
>>> "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
>>
>> You appear to be espousing a tolerant left vs an intolerant right...
>
> You would be wrong. I simply stated a fairly obvious truth in response
> to your question about where the majority of Islam falls. Even the
> more moderate Islamics are right of center.
>
>>but I find the left anything but tolerant and just as or more prone to
>>violence to impose their views as anyone. Take PITA and Earth
>>Liberation Front for examples.
>
> That's because you see the Left pretty much as these two organizations
> and nothing more. Certainly the Left has always had their violent
> groups (SNCC, The Black Panthers, Bader-Meinhoff, The Red Brigade,
> etc.). But that would be like me saying that the Right is violent and
> intolerant because of the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Pinochet, etc.
>
> Let's not forget that the Left has been most successful and effective
> when it's followed people like Dr. Martin Luther King.

You know this revisionist history... the left likes to take credit for the
civil rights movement but in reality it transcended both sides with both
opposition and support coming from both sides.
The left likes to think that any change fostered by public demonstrations
and civil disobedience was sponsered by the left... but Martin Luther King
was in reality.. a religious conservative.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> dave weil > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>>> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>> >> religion.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >it only admires the latter.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> No kidding.
>
> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know the
>reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
>don't graduate high school).
>
>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf
>
>Go to the slide Support for Suicide Bombing Declines. 57% of Jordanians
>support suicide bombing (Isn't that a solid majority in that country
>Dave? ), 35% of Lebanonese, 25% of Pakistanis, Turkey... our Nato allie was
>still 14%, Morocco numbers showed a huge swing but nowhere is it less than
>10%. And remember... this is SUICIDE bombing....numbers would certainly
>be worse for all acts of terrorism.
>
>Sorry that a dose of reality dampens your humor.

Yeah, you're sorry all right. Only a sorry person would convert "use
of terrorism and fascism" into "support for one aspect of terrorism"
and then use 6 countries to define the issue (even though one of them,
one that you didn't even mention specifically, is probably the largest
Muslim country).

How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
represented by the above figures?

Man, are you one bitter person. I really feel sorry for you...even
President Bush says that the vast majority of Islamics are peaceful
people. In fact, it's quite possible that I got my phrase "tiny
minority" from him.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf

Oh, by the way, isn't the Washington Post one of those news
organizations that you detest as liars and left-wing malaprops?

<chuckle>

Glad to see that you'll still use them as a reference, even as you
"cancel your subscription" (metaphorically speaking, of course).

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>>> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>>> >> religion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >it only admires the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>
>>> No kidding.
>>
>> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know the
>>reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
>>don't graduate high school).
>>
>>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf
>>
>>Go to the slide Support for Suicide Bombing Declines. 57% of Jordanians
>>support suicide bombing (Isn't that a solid majority in that country
>>Dave? ), 35% of Lebanonese, 25% of Pakistanis, Turkey... our Nato allie
>>was
>>still 14%, Morocco numbers showed a huge swing but nowhere is it less
>>than
>>10%. And remember... this is SUICIDE bombing....numbers would certainly
>>be worse for all acts of terrorism.
>>
>>Sorry that a dose of reality dampens your humor.
>
> Yeah, you're sorry all right. Only a sorry person would convert "use
> of terrorism and fascism" into "support for one aspect of terrorism"

This one aspect is the most heinous that I can think of. If this aspect
has substantial support... what about less heinous acts?

> and then use 6 countries to define the issue (even though one of them,
> one that you didn't even mention specifically, is probably the largest
> Muslim country).

Find a more comprehensive survey.... you're bitching about Pew Research
Center... find a better survey with more comprehensive data from an equally
renowned and respected organization.

>
> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
> represented by the above figures?

Almost 500 Million. Find a more comprehensive survey instead of bitching
that the facts don't support your blind perceptions.

>
> Man, are you one bitter person. I really feel sorry for you...even
> President Bush says that the vast majority of Islamics are peaceful
> people. In fact, it's quite possible that I got my phrase "tiny
> minority" from him.

Vast majority are... and it is a tiny minority that commits the acts... but
unfortunately they have the support of far far more than that... You can't
claim they're hijacking anything with these levels of popular support.
Bush may be full of political BS but I find it quite hypocritical that you
would turn to him for your facts in this matter.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>> religion.
>>>
>>
>>it only admires the latter.
>
> Thanks for the laugh.

The ACLU is a riot.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Jenn]

ScottW wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> >> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> >> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> >> >> religion.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >it only admires the latter.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the laugh.
> >
> > No kidding.
>
> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know the
> reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
> don't graduate high school).
>
> Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
> Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".

Excuse me; I thought that you were saying that the left (the American
political left) admires those of Islam who "use terrorism and fascism
to further their skewed reading of their religion."

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf
>
> Oh, by the way, isn't the Washington Post one of those news
> organizations that you detest as liars and left-wing malaprops?

OMFG.... You are really desperately spinning now. Its not a Post survey
you incredible buffoon.. they just linked the report... it was Pew Research
who did the work.

Here.. have an "unbiased" link if it matters so much to you......
http://people-press.org/

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > dave weil > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> >> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> >> >> religion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >it only admires the latter.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the laugh.
>> >
>> > No kidding.
>>
>> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know
>> the
>> reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
>> don't graduate high school).
>>
>> Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>> Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>
> Excuse me; I thought that you were saying that the left (the American
> political left) admires those of Islam who "use terrorism and fascism
> to further their skewed reading of their religion."

If you want to express my views try quoting me rather than Dave.

My objection with Daves statement (which you apparently concurred with) was
his "tiny minority" characterization. The data shows support for
terrorism in the Islamic world is not limited in any way to a tiny minority.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article <YQ7Ff.85206$0G.61147@dukeread10>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > dave weil > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> >> >> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> >> >> >> religion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >it only admires the latter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the laugh.
> >> >
> >> > No kidding.
> >>
> >> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know
> >> the
> >> reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our kids
> >> don't graduate high school).
> >>
> >> Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
> >> Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
> >
> > Excuse me; I thought that you were saying that the left (the American
> > political left) admires those of Islam who "use terrorism and fascism
> > to further their skewed reading of their religion."
>
> If you want to express my views try quoting me rather than Dave.

That's why I said, "Excuse me", ya know. IMO, a quoting error.
>
> My objection with Daves statement (which you apparently concurred with) was
> his "tiny minority" characterization. The data shows support for
> terrorism in the Islamic world is not limited in any way to a tiny minority.
>
> ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:01:17 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>>>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf
>>
>> Oh, by the way, isn't the Washington Post one of those news
>> organizations that you detest as liars and left-wing malaprops?
>
>OMFG.... You are really desperately spinning now. Its not a Post survey
>you incredible buffoon.. they just linked the report... it was Pew Research
>who did the work.

Jeez...it was a joke. I can't believe you are using research from
someone who underwrites many NPR programs!

(hint - before you freak out, that too was just a joke)

>Here.. have an "unbiased" link if it matters so much to you......
>http://people-press.org/

It *doesn't* "matter so much to me". Not as much as it apparently
matters to you.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>> represented by the above figures?
>
> Almost 500 Million.

Prove it.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:01:17 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:49:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in the
>>>>Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_slides.pdf
>>>
>>> Oh, by the way, isn't the Washington Post one of those news
>>> organizations that you detest as liars and left-wing malaprops?
>>
>>OMFG.... You are really desperately spinning now. Its not a Post survey
>>you incredible buffoon.. they just linked the report... it was Pew
>>Research
>>who did the work.
>
> Jeez...it was a joke. I can't believe you are using research from
> someone who underwrites many NPR programs!
>
> (hint - before you freak out, that too was just a joke)
>
>>Here.. have an "unbiased" link if it matters so much to you......
>>http://people-press.org/
>
> It *doesn't* "matter so much to me". Not as much as it apparently
> matters to you.

Quit obfuscating.... you can't offer any better research on the subject
than the Pew report I referenced. End of story.

ScottW
>

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YQ7Ff.85206$0G.61147@dukeread10>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > dave weil > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:24:39 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish
>> >> >> >> between
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> >> >> >> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> >> >> >> religion.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >it only admires the latter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for the laugh.
>> >> >
>> >> > No kidding.
>> >>
>> >> This is my frustration with the left.... they don't take time to know
>> >> the
>> >> reality... they turn their hopes into facts (ala Kerrys 53% of our
>> >> kids
>> >> don't graduate high school).
>> >>
>> >> Facts are... while this surveys shows that attitudes are changing in
>> >> the
>> >> Muslim world... support for terrorism is hardly a "tiny minority".
>> >
>> > Excuse me; I thought that you were saying that the left (the American
>> > political left) admires those of Islam who "use terrorism and fascism
>> > to further their skewed reading of their religion."
>>
>> If you want to express my views try quoting me rather than Dave.
>
> That's why I said, "Excuse me", ya know. IMO, a quoting error.

Then the intent of your "no kidding" post is even less apparent..... but
frankly I don't care.

>>
>> My objection with Daves statement (which you apparently concurred with)
>> was
>> his "tiny minority" characterization. The data shows support for
>> terrorism in the Islamic world is not limited in any way to a tiny
>> minority.

This is the point the left and even our politically correct leadership...
won't accept.
This is why Hamas political victory was so shocking to them.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>>> represented by the above figures?
>>
>> Almost 500 Million.
>
> Prove it.

Can't you look up national pops and add?

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:35:55 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>>> represented by the above figures?
>>
>> Almost 500 Million.
>
>Prove it.

Whatever the true figures, Dave, I'm sure you'll agree that a
disturbing number of Muslims, especially young Muslims, appear to
support violence as a political and religious tool. It's not a
question of painting every member of a particular faith black so much
as simply recognising which way the wind is blowing.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> religion.
>

Heres your tiny minority in action

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html

ScottW

[Ruud Broens]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: dave weil wrote:
: > On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >dave weil wrote:
: > >> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
: > >>
: > >> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
: > >> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
: > >> >> coming from the Right.
: > >> >
: > >> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
: > >>
: > >> Definitely on the Right.
: > >
: > > Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
: > >civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
: > >of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
: >
: > Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?
:
: You didn't answer the question. Do you deny the left is supportive
: of Islam in it's culture war? (which is somewhat suicidal for many
: segments of the left)
: >
: > Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
: > fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
: > counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
: > a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
: > should act and what they should read and see in the media.
:
: Sounds a lot like the anti-religous left and ACLU.
:
: >(BTW, don't
: > you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
: > business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
: > doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
: > medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
: > air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
:
: and **** off the rest of us that wants to see what is so
: "inflammatory". Sure, they have that right. Just like I have a right
: to turn the channel, cancel my subscription, and call for others to do
: so.
:
: >
: > Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
: > "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?
:
: The left isn't fighting a bit of culture war themselves? Frankly...
: I don' t consider Bush and Co. fighting a culture war... they're
: fighting an anti violence, anti terrorism war. They have no concern
: about Islamic culture as long as it doesn't hurt people.
:
: > They are just
: > using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
: > "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
:
: You appear to be espousing a tolerant left vs an intolerant right...
: but I find the left anything but tolerant and just as or more prone to
: violence to impose their views as anyone. Take PITA and Earth
: Liberation Front for examples.
:
: ScottW

.................................................. ........................
If we take 'good governance of the world' to be the goal,
economical, political or religious views and ensuing policies
just don't work out very effectively.

With good governance.. i would mean:
using the sum total of natural resources, human intelligence,
inventiveness, organisational talent, entrepeneurial spirit and
artistic abilities efficiently to create a
sustainable and moderately growing world economy
high recycling low pollution production
an opportunity-rich, exiting world to live in
maximizing personal freedom wherever possible
governments being more in the facilitating
than in the penalizing business
;-)

in essence, rightsizing to the only thing that works:
human psychology

Rudy

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:38:27 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>>>Here.. have an "unbiased" link if it matters so much to you......
>>>http://people-press.org/
>>
>> It *doesn't* "matter so much to me". Not as much as it apparently
>> matters to you.
>
> Quit obfuscating.... you can't offer any better research on the subject
>than the Pew report I referenced. End of story.

Who's obsfucating? It was a JOKE. Can't you get it through your head?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:44:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>This is why Hamas political victory was so shocking to them.

I didn't see the Palestinian Territory listed in the Pew Report.

<chuckle>

Hey Scott, THAT'S A JOKE!

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:38:27 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>Here.. have an "unbiased" link if it matters so much to you......
>>>>http://people-press.org/
>>>
>>> It *doesn't* "matter so much to me". Not as much as it apparently
>>> matters to you.
>>
>> Quit obfuscating.... you can't offer any better research on the subject
>>than the Pew report I referenced. End of story.
>
> Who's obsfucating? It was a JOKE. Can't you get it through your head?

I can see why your standup career didn't last.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:45:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>>>> represented by the above figures?
>>>
>>> Almost 500 Million.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Can't you look up national pops and add?
>
>ScottW

Sorry that you misunderstood. I meant how many people believed in
suicide bombing, not how many people were represented in the countries
listed.

My error in not being more specific.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:44:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>This is why Hamas political victory was so shocking to them.
>
> I didn't see the Palestinian Territory listed in the Pew Report.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Hey Scott, THAT'S A JOKE!

[dave weil]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> religion.
>>
>
> Heres your tiny minority in action
>
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>
>ScottW

And here's your right-wing in action:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm

Unlike you, however, I don't extrapolate this into a global
condemnation of the right-wing. Just as Jim Jones didn't represent all
of Christianity.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:45:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>>>>> represented by the above figures?
>>>>
>>>> Almost 500 Million.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Can't you look up national pops and add?
>>
>>ScottW
>
> Sorry that you misunderstood. I meant how many people believed in
> suicide bombing, not how many people were represented in the countries
> listed.
>
> My error in not being more specific.

Lets see if pasting a spreadsheet formattiing make it across usenet.

often rarely Never Pop Never often/som rarely
Lebanon 0.39 0.19 0.33 3.8 1.254 1.482 0.722
Morroco 0.13 0.05 0.79 30.7 24.253 3.991 1.535
Pakistan 0.25 0.19 0.46 162.4 74.704 40.6 30.856
Indonesia 0.15 0.18 0.66 221.9 146.454 33.285 39.942
Turkey 0.14 0.06 0.66 72.9 48.114 10.206 4.374
Jordan 0.57 0.31 0.11 5.8 0.638 3.306 1.798
497.5 295.417 92.87 79.227 172.097


If not... the countries listed total pops are 497.5 million, 92.87 Million
(18.7%) often or sometimes support suicide bombing, 79.2 million (15.9%)
rarely, and 295.4 (59.4%) never.

Combine the nevers and rarely... these are people who under some
circumstance will support suicide bombings against civilian targets in
defence of Islam... 34.6% or 172.1 million people in just those six
countries.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>> religion.
>>>
>>
>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>>
>>ScottW
>
> And here's your right-wing in action:
>
> http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm
>
> Unlike you, however, I don't extrapolate this into a global
> condemnation of the right-wing.

That not my right wing... and trying to tie American right wing
conservatives to random world religous conflicts is just plain demagogic.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:25:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Combine the nevers and rarely... these are people who under some
>circumstance will support suicide bombings against civilian targets in
>defence of Islam... 34.6% or 172.1 million people in just those six
>countries.

I think you misspoke here.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>>> religion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>>>
>>>ScottW
>>
>> And here's your right-wing in action:
>>
>> http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm
>>
>> Unlike you, however, I don't extrapolate this into a global
>> condemnation of the right-wing.
>
> That not my right wing... and trying to tie American right wing
>conservatives to random world religous conflicts is just plain demagogic.

Well, support of rampaging hooligans isn't *my* left-wing either.
Although, I, apparently like the right-wing Vatican, see some
foundation for dissatisfaction, even if I side more on the side of
mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King and less on the side
of fringe "leftists" like Bobby Seale.

You lose.

Again.

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:crrFf.85276$0G.69803@dukeread10...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:45:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:47:47 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How many of the 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide do you think are
>>>>>> represented by the above figures?
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost 500 Million.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Can't you look up national pops and add?
>>>
>>>ScottW
>>
>> Sorry that you misunderstood. I meant how many people believed in
>> suicide bombing, not how many people were represented in the countries
>> listed.
>>
>> My error in not being more specific.
>
> Lets see if pasting a spreadsheet formattiing make it across usenet.
>
> often rarely Never Pop Never often/som rarely
> Lebanon 0.39 0.19 0.33 3.8 1.254 1.482 0.722
> Morroco 0.13 0.05 0.79 30.7 24.253 3.991 1.535
> Pakistan 0.25 0.19 0.46 162.4 74.704 40.6 30.856
> Indonesia 0.15 0.18 0.66 221.9 146.454 33.285 39.942
> Turkey 0.14 0.06 0.66 72.9 48.114 10.206 4.374
> Jordan 0.57 0.31 0.11 5.8 0.638 3.306 1.798
> 497.5 295.417 92.87 79.227 172.097
>
>
> If not... the countries listed total pops are 497.5 million, 92.87
> Million (18.7%) often or sometimes support suicide bombing, 79.2 million
> (15.9%) rarely, and 295.4 (59.4%) never.
>
> Combine the nevers and rarely... these are people who under some
> circumstance will support suicide bombings against civilian targets in
> defence of Islam... 34.6% or 172.1 million people in just those six
> countries.
>

All we need to do is find out which ones they are, and kill them.

BTW, I think that those 12 cartoons are purposely offensive, just as I would
think that burning a cross or painting swastikas in a Jewish cemetary
is offensive. just cause you have the right to free speech
doesn't mean that you don't have any personal responsibility.
A conservative talk radio host here, Michael Graham, got canned for
saying that the religion of Islam is a terrorist organization, and justly
so.
That's just about what a few of those cartoons said.

OTOH, rioters burning down embassies should be shot and killed.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:43:56 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>BTW, I think that those 12 cartoons are purposely offensive, just as I would
>think that burning a cross or painting swastikas in a Jewish cemetary
>is offensive. just cause you have the right to free speech
>doesn't mean that you don't have any personal responsibility.
>A conservative talk radio host here, Michael Graham, got canned for
>saying that the religion of Islam is a terrorist organization, and justly
>so.

Just to freak you out, this is EXACTLY what Sam Donaldson said this
morning on This Week with George Stephanopolis. He talked news
orgaizations having the "right" to air the name of rape victims but
not chosing to do so.

Funny how the religious fundamentalists had a similar reaction to
picturing Jesus in the new, now cancelled series, The Book of Daniel.
Of course, they didn't go around bombing network headquarters (except
for email and phone bombing, of course). Yes, one caricatures holy
symbols under risk. Religion is often the area where people lose their
sense of humor and perspective.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:43:56 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>BTW, I think that those 12 cartoons are purposely offensive, just as I
>>would
>>think that burning a cross or painting swastikas in a Jewish cemetary
>>is offensive. just cause you have the right to free speech
>>doesn't mean that you don't have any personal responsibility.
>>A conservative talk radio host here, Michael Graham, got canned for
>>saying that the religion of Islam is a terrorist organization, and justly
>>so.
>
> Just to freak you out, this is EXACTLY what Sam Donaldson said this
> morning on This Week with George Stephanopolis. He talked news
> orgaizations having the "right" to air the name of rape victims but
> not chosing to do so.
>

I happen to like Sam Donaldson.
He is more of the old style liberal,a dying breed.
Just to freak you out, he had a morning radio talk show here,
but it didn't work out. When he left, he was replaced by the same
Michael Graham I was just telling you about.



> Funny how the religious fundamentalists had a similar reaction to
> picturing Jesus in the new, now cancelled series, The Book of Daniel.
> Of course, they didn't go around bombing network headquarters (except
> for email and phone bombing, of course). Yes, one caricatures holy
> symbols under risk. Religion is often the area where people lose their
> sense of humor and perspective.

That, and audio.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:25:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>Combine the nevers and rarely... these are people who under some
>>circumstance will support suicide bombings against civilian targets in
>>defence of Islam... 34.6% or 172.1 million people in just those six
>>countries.
>
> I think you misspoke here.

You're right... I meant combine the often and sometimes supporters with the
rarely supporters to get these numbers.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:43:56 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>BTW, I think that those 12 cartoons are purposely offensive, just as I
>>would
>>think that burning a cross or painting swastikas in a Jewish cemetary
>>is offensive. just cause you have the right to free speech
>>doesn't mean that you don't have any personal responsibility.
>>A conservative talk radio host here, Michael Graham, got canned for
>>saying that the religion of Islam is a terrorist organization, and justly
>>so.
>
> Just to freak you out, this is EXACTLY what Sam Donaldson said this
> morning on This Week with George Stephanopolis. He talked news
> orgaizations having the "right" to air the name of rape victims but
> not chosing to do so.

Not a good analogy to me...

comparing an exercise in free speech against vs those who would be offended
vs the
rights of a crime victim.
>
> Funny how the religious fundamentalists had a similar reaction to
> picturing Jesus in the new, now cancelled series, The Book of Daniel.

I don't recall them threatening beheadings and burning buildings.

> Of course, they didn't go around bombing network headquarters (except
> for email and phone bombing, of course). Yes, one caricatures holy
> symbols under risk. Religion is often the area where people lose their
> sense of humor and perspective.

But if you allow censorship merely for the right to avoid being offended,
then everyone can invoke that right. Look closely at how Islam caricatures
Jews and know their hypocrisy. If they want the right to not be offended...
then they must grant that right to others. I, for example, would certainly
find a public call to prayer in my town... offensive.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:KVtFf.85296$0G.81453@dukeread10...
>
>
> But if you allow censorship merely for the right to avoid being offended,
> then everyone can invoke that right. Look closely at how Islam
> caricatures
> Jews and know their hypocrisy. If they want the right to not be
> offended...
> then they must grant that right to others. I, for example, would
> certainly
> find a public call to prayer in my town... offensive.
>

Yes, they are so ethnocentric. They get offended when one does it
to them, but they fell free to to do it towards anyon else.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Sparky Spartacus]

ScottW wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> It does report that Sheehan wasn't the only person removed
>>>from the gallery last night.
>>
>>**Was Sheehan the only one arrested, handcuffed, fingerprinted and
>>detained?
>
>
> OMG Cindy lost 4 hours... It's a travesty I tell you. But what about the
> poor cop who had to mugshot her ugly mug? What about his rights?

He was on the clock - no rights apply.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> >>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> >>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> >>>> religion.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Heres your tiny minority in action
> >>>
> >>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
> >>>
> >>>ScottW
> >>
> >> And here's your right-wing in action:
> >>
> >> http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm
> >>
> >> Unlike you, however, I don't extrapolate this into a global
> >> condemnation of the right-wing.
> >
> > That not my right wing... and trying to tie American right wing
> >conservatives to random world religous conflicts is just plain demagogic.
>
> Well, support of rampaging hooligans isn't *my* left-wing either.
> Although, I, apparently like the right-wing Vatican,

You like religious appeasement for everyone but American Christians I
guess.

>see some
> foundation for dissatisfaction, even if I side more on the side of
> mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King and less on the side
> of fringe "leftists" like Bobby Seale.

I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.

>
> You lose.
>
> Again.

You're confused... again.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie dorked:

> > mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King

> I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
> left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.

Politically speaking, leftist is generally used to refer to somebody who
espouses, advocates, or impels changes in society. Perhaps you're
confused again about the subject at hand, which appears to be politics,
not religious mores.

[dave weil]

On 6 Feb 2006 09:43:31 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>>see some
>> foundation for dissatisfaction, even if I side more on the side of
>> mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King and less on the side
>> of fringe "leftists" like Bobby Seale.
>
> I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
>left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.

Thanks for the laugh...

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie dorked:
>
> > > mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King
>
> > I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
> > left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.
>
> Politically speaking, leftist is generally used to refer to somebody who
> espouses, advocates, or impels changes in society. Perhaps you're
> confused again about the subject at hand, which appears to be politics,
> not religious mores.

So what would a righty be in a liberal socialist society? Once again
you can't hold up to any scrutiny.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Terrierdork yapped:

> > > > mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King
> >
> > > I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
> > > left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.
> >
> > Politically speaking, leftist is generally used to refer to somebody who
> > espouses, advocates, or impels changes in society. Perhaps you're
> > confused again about the subject at hand, which appears to be politics,
> > not religious mores.
>
> So what would a righty be in a liberal socialist society? Once again
> you can't hold up to any scrutiny.

I must say, dave has you pretty riled. You're shooting from the hip
before I even start to reduce you to tears and fist-pounding.

To answer your childish question, a "righty" would be, as always,
someone who wants society to return to ways of the past. I suppose this
didacticism may confuse you, inasmuch as you might, in your
simple-minded way, say that any change from the status quo is the same
as any other change. Don't bother reflecting on this point; just try to
put your ridiculous claim that MLK was a conservative under scrutiny.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Terrierdork yapped:
>
> > > > > mainstream "leftists" like Dr. Martin Luther King
> > >
> > > > I find it hilarious that you have to grap an Icon to represent the
> > > > left who was in actuality a Christian conservative.
> > >
> > > Politically speaking, leftist is generally used to refer to somebody who
> > > espouses, advocates, or impels changes in society. Perhaps you're
> > > confused again about the subject at hand, which appears to be politics,
> > > not religious mores.
> >
> > So what would a righty be in a liberal socialist society? Once again
> > you can't hold up to any scrutiny.
>
> I must say, dave has you pretty riled. You're shooting from the hip
> before I even start to reduce you to tears and fist-pounding.

I love it when you preface all your comments with proof of your
delusion.

>
> To answer your childish question, a "righty" would be, as always,
> someone who wants society to return to ways of the past.

and this isn't change?

> I suppose this
> didacticism may confuse you, inasmuch as you might, in your
> simple-minded way, say that any change from the status quo is the same
> as any other change.

So ... if we let the lefties have American society exactly the way
they want it... for a nanosecond.... they will forever cease to be
lefties.

I like that idea. Poof... you're gone.

ScottW

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU must
>>> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>>> >> coming from the Right.
>>> >
>>> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>>>
>>> Definitely on the Right.
>>
>> Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
>>civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
>>of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
>
> Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?
>
> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
> should act and what they should read and see in the media. (BTW, don't
> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
>
> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?

NO. Bush and Co. believe that since theis country was founded by Christians
and that because God is mentioned in our founding documents that we are
essentially, a Christian Nation. This is of course not true, as we are are
nation that allows everyone the choice of what, or what not to believe.

Bush is not after a Christian theocracy, they simply don't want to see all
Christian values ruled unconstitutional. They beleive there is wisdom and
virtue in the Christian faith, but they don't want to legislate all other
religions out of existence.

The Islamic extremists want the whole world to be Muslim and consider anyone
not a Muslim to be an infidel and a target for murder.

They are just
> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
> "allow", which is tragic.

It's way beyond tragic, it's completely the opposite of what Islam teaches.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Feb 2006 14:41:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006 13:01:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dave weil wrote:
>>> >> On 3 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >> Yes, I'm against that sort of thing as well. However, even YOU
>>> >> >> must
>>> >> >> admit that the preponderance of "boycott" as social commentary is
>>> >> >> coming from the Right.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Is Islam on the left or the right?
>>> >>
>>> >> Definitely on the Right.
>>> >
>>> > Not my right. Why does it seem that the left is opposed to Western
>>> >civilization and cultural influence on Islamic nations and supportive
>>> >of Islamic resistance in the culture war?
>>>
>>> Because you see everything through your own prism, maybe?
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. Do you deny the left is supportive
>>of Islam in it's culture war? (which is somewhat suicidal for many
>>segments of the left)
>
> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
> religion.
>
>>> Islamic extremists are just a different form of Right-wing evangelical
>>> fundamentalists. They have no tolerance for religious views that run
>>> counter to their beliefs and they replace the Bible with the Koran as
>>> a way of enforcing what they think people should believe and how they
>>> should act and what they should read and see in the media.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like the anti-religous left and ACLU.
>
> You're joking, of course. I really don't know how to respond to this.
> Can you expand on how an "anti-religious Left" could possibly believe
> that one religion should be the basis of a society and also the basis
> of war?
>
> BTW, just so you know, most of the Left isn't against religion, but
> the use of religion to oppress and it's also against explicit
> religious endorsement by the government.
>
Putting up a nativity scene is not IMO an endorsement of religion.
Unless of course any other sort of religious holiday decoration is
prohibited.



>>>(BTW, don't
>>> you think that a news organization has the same rights as any other
>>> business when it comes to protecting their interests)? If WalMart
>>> doesn't want to offend a portion of their base by not offer a certain
>>> medication, shouldn't a news organization have the discretion not to
>>> air potentially offensive and inflammatory material?
>>
>> and **** off the rest of us that wants to see what is so
>>"inflammatory".
>
> You can certainly see those cartoons if you want to.
>
>> Sure, they have that right. Just like I have a right
>>to turn the channel, cancel my subscription, and call for others to do
>>so.
>
> Of course you do. Pretty soon, you'll be left with only a small slice
> of "the media", and this is something that you already suffer from.
> You are beholden on an increasingly narrow view of the world and it's
> apparent from your postings.
>
>>> Can't you see that Islamic extremists are fighting the same sort of
>>> "culture war" that President Bush and Co. are fighting?
>>
>> The left isn't fighting a bit of culture war themselves?
>
> Because the war is being brought to them by religious fundamentalists.
>
Hardly. The ACLU is taking to any who want to use any goernment facility
for any sort of religious purpose, such as Christian clubs in schools after
school hours.


>> Frankly...I don' t consider Bush and Co. fighting a culture war...
>> they're
>>fighting an anti violence, anti terrorism war. They have no concern
>>about Islamic culture as long as it doesn't hurt people.
>
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html
>
> President George W. Bush, in a rare on-the-record session with
> religion editors and writers on Wednesday, said his job as president
> is to "change cultures."
>
> <snip>
>
> "At home, the job of a president is to help cultures change. The
> culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what
> I'm talking about, changing the culture from one that says, "If it
> feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else,"
> to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the
> decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era. . I said
> that when I was governor of Texas. As a matter of fact, I've been
> saying that ever since I got into politics. This is one of the reasons
> I got into politics in the first place. Governments cannot change
> culture alone. I want you to know I understand that. But I can be a
> voice of cultural change.

I have no problem with that and it is not IMO an endorsement of religion,
but of perswonal responsability.

>
> Part of the responsibility era is the responsibility that comes with
> promoting-taking care of your bodies to the point where we can promote
> a culture of life. Father Richard [Neuhaus] helped me craft what is
> still the integral part of my position on abortion, which is: Every
> child welcomed to life and protected by law. That is the goal of this
> administration.
>
While I am in favor of legal abortion, I'm also in favor of a culture that
recognizes that life is a value and that sex has consequences and should be
treated with some amount of care and respect.

> Part of government's role is to foster responsibility and hope by
> standing with those who have heard a call to love a neighbor, which is
> the second point of the faith-based initiative that I think is one of
> the most important domestic initiatives that I have pushed, if not the
> most. It recognizes the rightful relationship between hearts and souls
> and government. Again, my job is to try to distill things down so that
> average people can understand it. Here's the way I put it, "Government
> can hand out money, but it cannot put love in people's hearts or a
> sense of purpose in people's lives."
>
> Etc., etc...
>
Still hardly a call to arms for the religous right to take over the
government or the culture.


> However, you misunderstood my "cultural war" reference. I was
> comparing the idea that US religious fundamentalists have many of the
> same goals of radical Islam fundamentalists. They both want to
> restrict literature, media, and many other aspects of modern life. You
> are fond of making fun of Tennessee and I often do the same thing,
> when evangelicals get books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" out of
> libraries.
>
> That was the aspect of the "culture war" that I was talking about. I
> wasn't talking about a "culture war" against Islam. I was comparing
> the current climate in the US with Islamic radicals. They both fall
> squarely on the Right.
>
One is on the right and one is in the center of a holy war against all non
muslims and Jews in particular.

>
>>> They are just
>>> using more violent means and they are far more strict in what they
>>> "allow", which is tragic. But they are certainly NOT "left of center".
>>
>> You appear to be espousing a tolerant left vs an intolerant right...
>
> You would be wrong. I simply stated a fairly obvious truth in response
> to your question about where the majority of Islam falls. Even the
> more moderate Islamics are right of center.
>
>>but I find the left anything but tolerant and just as or more prone to
>>violence to impose their views as anyone. Take PITA and Earth
>>Liberation Front for examples.
>
> That's because you see the Left pretty much as these two organizations
> and nothing more. Certainly the Left has always had their violent
> groups (SNCC, The Black Panthers, Bader-Meinhoff, The Red Brigade,
> etc.). But that would be like me saying that the Right is violent and
> intolerant because of the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Pinochet, etc.
>
There seems to be a lot more violent leftists than violent rightists.

Nobody from the right would ever want to be linked to any of the extreme
groups above, but plenty of leftists seems to think that the extemeists have
the rioght idea, just the wrong methods.


> Let's not forget that the Left has been most successful and effective
> when it's followed people like Dr. Martin Luther King. On the Right,
> for every intolerant and venal personalities like Dr. James Dobson,
> you have reasonable and "tolerant" people like George Will. The Right
> isn't a monolith and I have focused my comments on those who seem to
> have intolerance toward alternative viewpoints and lifestyles *and*
> neo-cons who have thrust the world squarely into a dangerous situation
> (and no, I'm not forgetting who gave them the rationale for doing it.

Then they didn't thrust us, they simply acknowledged that we have been
thrust into a war.
That so many are not prepared to stand their ground and fight is truly sad.

> I'm just very worried about the unfettered attack on certain parts of
> the Constitution based on fear. Fear has been used to take away
> freedoms and enslave populations throughout history.

Sure, by guys like FDR.

I'd just hate to
> see it happen here as well...
>
There's been a lot more chipping away at liberty from the left than from the
right.

[dave weil]

On 6 Feb 2006 09:43:31 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between the
>> >>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>> >>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>> >>>> religion.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html

Here's *your* tiny minority in action:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/07/church.fires.ap/index.html

Of course, you probably blame it on "The Leftists", considering that
you've turned Dr. Martin Luther King into a "Christian Conservative".

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:43:31 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yes I do. I don't deny that the Left tries to distinguish between
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> vast majority of islam and the tiny minority of those who use
>>> >>>> terrorism and fascism to further their skewed reading of their
>>> >>>> religion.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>
> Here's *your* tiny minority in action:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/07/church.fires.ap/index.html


More random accusations, Dave? Your comment is as rational as Arny's
sockpuppet accusations.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:01:53 GMT

>> I'm just very worried about the unfettered attack on certain parts of
>> the Constitution based on fear. Fear has been used to take away
>> freedoms and enslave populations throughout history.

>Sure, by guys like FDR.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."-- FDR

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and
independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of
which dictatorships are made."-- FDR

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we
now know that it is bad economics."-- FDR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who
have little."-- FDR

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong
enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong
enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over
the goverment."-- FDR

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their
democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership
of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private
power."-- FDR

"Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the
only real religion."-- FDR

"Self-interest is the enemy of all true affection."-- FDR

"If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human
relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live
together, in the same world at peace."-- FDR

FDR sure sounds evil to me. I can see why you hate him so much, nob.

>There's been a lot more chipping away at liberty from the left than from the
>right.

nob, you really should have your medicine cocktail looked at. I think
it's effecting your mental processes again.

Where did you get your degree again, corporal? The Rush Limbaugh Skool
of Politix, Ekonimicks and Filosofy? LOL!

[dave weil]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:06:35 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>>>> >>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>>
>> Here's *your* tiny minority in action:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/07/church.fires.ap/index.html
>
>
> More random accusations, Dave? Your comment is as rational as Arny's
>sockpuppet accusations.

Just following *your* "randomness", I suppose.

Guess you're too nonplussed to respond appropriately...

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:06:35 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>>>> >>> Heres your tiny minority in action
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/02/04/ap2500417.html
>>>
>>> Here's *your* tiny minority in action:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/07/church.fires.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>> More random accusations, Dave? Your comment is as rational as Arny's
>>sockpuppet accusations.
>
> Just following *your* "randomness", I suppose.

IKYABWAI.... nice one Dave.

>
> Guess you're too nonplussed to respond appropriately...

Actually my nonplussed response was appropriate given the irrationality of
your comment.
You need a new straw... this one slipped through your grasp.

ScottW