Three questions Arny has so far refused to answer

[Clyde Slick]

Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity deny
that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you kiddie porn email?
Yes, or No?


Arny, right here, right now do you directly and explicitly deny
thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing others to send you
kiddie porn email?
Yes, or No?


Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicitly deny
that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a sockpuppet
of John Atkinson, and , in that capacity, of sending you kiddie porn email
Yes, or No?



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...

> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity deny
> that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you kiddie porn email?
> Yes, or No?

Art, here's a news flash for you: History is history.

Whatever I posted on RAO can be found here:

www.google.com.

Art, when you're searching google, just don't pull a John Atkinson and use
stuff written by say Marc Phillips, George Middius or yourself to prove that
I did or said something.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity deny
>> that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you kiddie porn
>> email?
>> Yes, or No?
>
> Art, here's a news flash for you: History is history.
>
> Whatever I posted on RAO can be found here:
>
> www.google.com.
>
> Art, when you're searching google, just don't pull a John Atkinson and use
> stuff written by say Marc Phillips, George Middius or yourself to prove
> that I did or said something.
>
>
>

Just answer the questions,
Right here, right now.
YES, or NO

Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity deny
that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you kiddie porn email?
Yes, or No?


Arny, right here, right now do you directly and explicitly deny
thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing others to send you
kiddie porn email?
Yes, or No?


Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicitly deny
that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a sockpuppet
of John Atkinson, and , in that capacity, of sending you kiddie porn email
Yes, or No?




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

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:

> Clyde Slick requested of Arny Krueger:
>
>>Just answer the questions,
>>Right here, right now.
>>YES, or NO
>
> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)

So, what've you got?

//Walt

[Clyde Slick]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Clyde Slick requested of Arny Krueger:
>>
>>>Just answer the questions,
>>>Right here, right now.
>>>YES, or NO
>>
>> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
>> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
>> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)
>
> So, what've you got?
>

I, for one, am waiting for Arny to answer the question.
But he won't. He can't say that he didn't make the accusations,
and he won't admit that he did make them.



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

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Walt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Clyde Slick requested of Arny Krueger:
>>>
>>>>Just answer the questions,
>>>>Right here, right now.
>>>>YES, or NO
>>>
>>> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
>>> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
>>> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)
>>
>> So, what've you got?
>>
>
> I, for one, am waiting for Arny to answer the question.

Hope you're not holding your breath.... medic!

> But he won't. He can't say that he didn't make the accusations,
> and he won't admit that he did make them.

Google admits that quite well.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Clyde Slick requested of Arny Krueger:
>>
>>>Just answer the questions,
>>>Right here, right now.
>>>YES, or NO
>>
>> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
>> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
>> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)
>
> So, what've you got?

A serious problem with mental masturbation in public, it seems. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> A serious problem with mental masturbation in public, it seems. ;-)

www.pcabx.com




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

[Walt]

Walt wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Clyde Slick requested of Arny Krueger:
>>
>>> Just answer the questions,
>>> Right here, right now.
>>> YES, or NO
>>
>> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
>> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
>> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)
>
> So, what've you got?

Ok, by your silence I'll assume you've got nothing.

Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but a more
careful reading shows only that you say you've been given "the time to
find the relevant postings" not that you've actually found any. Nice
bit of obfuscation.

I don't have a dog in this race. You can change my mind by showing me
the posts. Ball's in your court.

//Walt

[Ruud Broens]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
: Walt wrote:
: > John Atkinson wrote:

: >> At least the delay in Arny Krueger's answering your questions, Art,
: >> has allowed me the time to find the relevant postings of Mr.
: >> Krueger's in the Google Usenet archives. :-)
: >
: > So, what've you got?
:
: Ok, by your silence I'll assume you've got nothing.
:
: Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but a more
: careful reading shows only that you say you've been given "the time to
: find the relevant postings" not that you've actually found any. Nice
: bit of obfuscation.
:
: I don't have a dog in this race. You can change my mind by showing me
: the posts. Ball's in your court.
:
: //Walt

uhmm, Walt, here on RAO we expect posters to be
_at least_ able to do some Googling, themselves ;-)
simple then to solve your burning questions yourself
no court or balls required :-)

Rudy

[John Atkinson]

Walt wrote:
> Ok, by your silence I'll assume you've got nothing.

Why would you assume that? I am first waiting for Arny Krueger
to answer the questions put to him.
>
> Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but
> a more careful reading shows only that you say you've been given
> "the time to find the relevant postings" not that you've actually
> found any. Nice bit of obfuscation.

It wasn't meant as obfuscation, purely as being literally
true. Arny's unwillingness to answer the questions did
allow the necessary time for me to do the Googling,
which I have done. When Arny answers the questions,
I will post the links so Usenet surfers can judge for
themselves whether or not those answers are factually
correct.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
>>Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but
>>a more careful reading shows only that you say you've been given
>>"the time to find the relevant postings" not that you've actually
>>found any. Nice bit of obfuscation.
>
> It wasn't meant as obfuscation, purely as being literally
> true. Arny's unwillingness to answer the questions did
> allow the necessary time for me to do the Googling,
> which I have done. When Arny answers the questions,
> I will post the links so Usenet surfers can judge for
> themselves whether or not those answers are factually
> correct.

Again, you've posted a message that strongly implies that you've got
something without actually coming out and saying so. Along with a lame
excuse for withholding it: Arny's not going to answer the questions,
and you and I both know that.

I know a bluff when I see it. You can prove me wrong by posting the
links.

//Walt

[ScottW]

Walt wrote:
>
> I know a bluff when I see it. You can prove me wrong by posting the
> links.
>

Took me less than a minutue to find this one.
Message ID:




Key paragraph

"Not at all, Leon. The origin of the lies that were reflected in that
filthy
email were earlier posts on RAO by sockpuppets Middius and Graham. I
suspect
that they are co-conspirators with Gindi and Atkinson."

Your welcome,

ScottW

[John Atkinson]

Walt wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> >>Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but
> >>a more careful reading shows only that you say you've been given
> >>"the time to find the relevant postings" not that you've actually
> >>found any. Nice bit of obfuscation.
> >
> > It wasn't meant as obfuscation, purely as being literally
> > true. Arny's unwillingness to answer the questions did
> > allow the necessary time for me to do the Googling,
> > which I have done. When Arny answers the questions,
> > I will post the links so Usenet surfers can judge for
> > themselves whether or not those answers are factually
> > correct.
>
> Again, you've posted a message that strongly implies that
> you've got something without actually coming out and saying so.
> Along with a lame excuse for withholding it: Arny's not going to
> answer the questions, and you and I both know that.

Why would you say that? I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
person to make.

Regarding your "put up or shut up" comment, I note that ScottW
has already provided you with a link.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Walt]

John Atkinson wrote:

> ...I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
> the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
> things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
> must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
> answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
> person to make.

Well, the most reasonable response from a reasonable person would be to
ignore the obvious attempts to troll him.

> Regarding your "put up or shut up" comment, I note that ScottW
> has already provided you with a link.

Read it. Apparently Arny has accused others of being sockpuppets, and
*suspects* that you have something to do with it. So I've now seen one
three year old post, which is not exactly incompatible with a "NO"
answer to all three questions posed by Art. (although it would be
stretching things a bit for question 3.)

Anyway, I'm moving on. Suggest you do the same.

//Walt

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
> explicity deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you
> kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?

I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged the people who did
that.

> Arny, right here, right now do you directly and
> explicitly deny thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing
> others to send you kiddie porn email?
> Yes, or No?

I'll stick with "encourage".

> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
> explicitly deny that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a
> sockpuppet of John Atkinson, and , in that capacity, of sending you
> kiddie porn email Yes, or No?

I think there's a good chance that Atkinson at the very least encourages
others who run some pretty sick sockpuppets.

I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman and George
Middius as they made vile personal attacks of various kinds on me.

I also think that John Atkinson is the editor of a magazine that makes
blatant false claims about audio products.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
>> explicity deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending you
>> kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>
> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged the people who did
> that.
>

You did not answer the question, which is specifically
directed toward your previous pronouncements.


>> Arny, right here, right now do you directly and
>> explicitly deny thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing
>> others to send you kiddie porn email?
>> Yes, or No?
>
> I'll stick with "encourage".

You did not answer the question, which is specifically
directed toward your previous pronouncements.


>
>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
>> explicitly deny that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a
>> sockpuppet of John Atkinson, and , in that capacity, of sending you
>> kiddie porn email Yes, or No?
>
> I think there's a good chance that Atkinson at the very least encourages
> others who run some pretty sick sockpuppets.
>
> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman and George
> Middius as they made vile personal attacks of various kinds on me.
>
> I also think that John Atkinson is the editor of a magazine that makes
> blatant false claims about audio products.

You did not answer the question, which is specifically
directed toward your previous pronouncements.

BTW, JA has never communicated with me. All
I have heard rorm him is from his public posts on RAO.




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

[Clyde Slick]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>>
>>>Your post implies that you've found some relevant postings, but
>>>a more careful reading shows only that you say you've been given
>>>"the time to find the relevant postings" not that you've actually
>>>found any. Nice bit of obfuscation.
>>
>> It wasn't meant as obfuscation, purely as being literally
>> true. Arny's unwillingness to answer the questions did
>> allow the necessary time for me to do the Googling,
>> which I have done. When Arny answers the questions,
>> I will post the links so Usenet surfers can judge for
>> themselves whether or not those answers are factually
>> correct.
>
> Again, you've posted a message that strongly implies that you've got
> something without actually coming out and saying so. Along with a lame
> excuse for withholding it: Arny's not going to answer the questions, and
> you and I both know that.
>
> I know a bluff when I see it. You can prove me wrong by posting the
> links.
>

No, the whole point of this is asking Arny three questions.
When we get his yes or no answers
(we won't) we will compare them to the evidence.
We are waiting to see whether Arny has the courage to lie,
knowing he will be called on it, or whether
he has the courage to admit the truth.
or, that he lacks the courage to do either.



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

[paul packer]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:46:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman and George
>Middius as they made vile personal attacks of various kinds on me.

So you think that George Middius needs the encouragement of a third
party to make vile personal attacks on you?

Interesting. :-)

[paul packer]

On 7 Feb 2006 11:23:12 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:
> I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
>things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
>must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
>answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>person to make.

John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
down?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman and George
> >Middius as they made vile personal attacks of various kinds on me.
>
> So you think that George Middius needs the encouragement of a third
> party to make vile personal attacks on you?

> Interesting. :-)

Although I have a great deal of respect and affection for John Atkinson,
I tend to ignore his remonstrations about abusing Mr. ****. It's my
right and my duty to help propel the Beast toward an ugly demise. Social
niceties be damned.

:-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
> >the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
> >things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
> >must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
> >answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
> >person to make.
>
> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
> down?

Stop that, paulie. You might have some deviant dislike for the high end,
but JA is much more the Krooborg's victim than the reverse.

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Feb 2006 11:23:12 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>> I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>>the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
>>things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
>>must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
>>answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>>person to make.
>
> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
> down?

You must be referring to the fact that Arny is not a reasonable person



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

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> > I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>> >the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
>> >things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
>> >must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
>> >answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>> >person to make.
>>
>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
>> down?
>
> Stop that, paulie. You might have some deviant dislike for the high end,
> but JA is much more the Krooborg's victim than the reverse.

He is a victim... but some of his pain is self inflicted.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:24:48 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>in message ...
>>
>>
>> paul packer said:
>>
>>> > I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>>> >the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
>>> >things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
>>> >must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
>>> >answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>>> >person to make.
>>>
>>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
>>> down?
>>
>> Stop that, paulie. You might have some deviant dislike for the high end,
>> but JA is much more the Krooborg's victim than the reverse.
>
> He is a victim... but some of his pain is self inflicted.

Exactly.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:01:48 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> > I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>> >the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he didn't say those
>> >things, then all he needs to do is answer "no." If he did, then he
>> >must have believed he was correct to do so, so why would he not
>> >answer "yes"? Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>> >person to make.
>>
>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall with your head
>> down?
>
>Stop that, paulie. You might have some deviant dislike for the high end,

Is all dislike of the high end deviant in your book, George?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Stop that, paulie. You might have some deviant dislike for the high end,

> Is all dislike of the high end deviant in your book, George?

You're confused, paulie. I said "some", not "all".

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > trolled in
message >:
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity
>> deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending
>> you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>
> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged the
> people who did that.

I fail to see why you find it so hard to actually answer the
question, Mr. Krueger. But in response to this new claim of
yours, I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
to send you kiddie porn email, not explicitly and not "in some
sense." Not on Usenet, not in private email, not by telephone,
not in person. Never. I shall also point out that despite your
claims otherwise, you have no evidence that I have done what
you claim. Quite the opposite, as the messages from me
concerning this subject that can be retrieved from
groups.google.com clearly show me _condemning_ this
behavior.

>> Arny, right here, right now do you directly and explicitly
>> deny thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing
>> others to send you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>
> I'll stick with "encourage".

As well as noting that again you dodge the question, Mr. Krueger,
again I I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
to send you kiddie porn email. Never.

>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicitly
>> deny that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a
>> sockpuppet of John Atkinson, and, in that capacity, of sending
>> you kiddie porn email Yes, or No?
>
> I think there's a good chance that Atkinson at the very least
> encourages others who run some pretty sick sockpuppets.

Again, Mr. Krueger, I give you my word that I have never
encouraged anyone to send you kiddie porn email, nor have
I encouraged anyone to mock the tragic death of your son Nate.
Again, I have condemned those who did this on the newsgroups.

> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman
> and George Middius as they made vile personal attacks of
> various kinds on me.

I give you my word, Mr. Krueger, that not only have I never
encouraged Art Sackman to make "vile personal attacks of
various kinds" on you, I have never had any personal
communications of any kind with Art Sackman. While I have
had a small number of email exchanges with George Middius,
I have never encourage him to make "vile personal attacks of
various kinds" on you, particularly regarding the sending
of child porn email to you or the mocking of your son's death.
Yes, back in early 1999, I did compliment George on a witty
parody of a conversation you could have had with Tom
Nousaine, as you have repeatedly mentioned over the
intervening 7 years. However, this was hardly a "vile personal
attack," and again, had nothign to do with either the sending
you of pornography or the mocking of your son's death.

My last word on this subject: I regard both the sending of
pornographic email and the mocking of your son's death
abhorrent. I have publicly and repeatedly condemned those
who did these things and I emphasize that I personally
had nothing to do with these actions. I did not do them
myself and I did not encourage or support anyone else
doing these things, either publicly or privately. Period. I
hope that is clear enough for you.

So without you having evidence, and with you having my
word on this matter, I request that you stop associating my
name with these actions.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message


> On 7 Feb 2006 11:23:12 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:

>> I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>> the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he
>> didn't say those things, then all he needs to do is
>> answer "no." If he did, then he must have believed he
>> was correct to do so, so why would he not answer "yes"?
>> Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable
>> person to make.

> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
> with your head down?

Good insight.

For a change.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7 Feb 2006 11:23:12 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>> I feel it appropriate to allow Arny Krueger
>>> the opportunity to respond to Art's questions. If he
>>> didn't say those things, then all he needs to do is
>>> answer "no." If he did, then he must have believed he
>>> was correct to do so, so why would he not answer "yes"?
>>> Either are reasonable answers for a reasonable person to make.
>>
>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>> with your head down?
>
> You must be referring to the fact that Arny is not a
> reasonable person

As if you're any sort of a paragon of intelligent thought, Art.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
>>> explicity deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson
>>> of sending you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>
>> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged
>> the people who did that.
>>
>
> You did not answer the question, which is specifically
> directed toward your previous pronouncements.

Whine, whine whine.

Instead of humoring your desire to live in the past Art, I gave you a fresh
set of statements to work with.

That's about as good as it is going to get for you.

Live with it!

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>> with your head down?
>
> Good insight.
>
> For a change.
>


That's about as nice as Arny gets.



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

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:46:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art
>> Sackman and George Middius as they made vile personal
>> attacks of various kinds on me.
>
> So you think that George Middius needs the encouragement
> of a third party to make vile personal attacks on you?

If you can't figure out the difference between that and what I just said
Paul, then you are really too stupid to bother with at all.

It seems like you have this pathological need to cancel out any small
insight you may develop by quickly posting something even more stupid than
anything you posted before.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and
>>>> explicity deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson
>>>> of sending you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>>
>>> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged
>>> the people who did that.
>>>
>>
>> You did not answer the question, which is specifically
>> directed toward your previous pronouncements.
>
> Whine, whine whine.
>
> Instead of humoring your desire to live in the past Art, I gave you a
> fresh set of statements to work with.
>
> That's about as good as it is going to get for you.
>
> Live with it!
>

You coward!!!
Look at the little Arny, hiding behind the curtain.

Talk about refusing to take responsibility for one's reprehensible actions!

Talk about living in the past, you are the one who kept
bringing up the past with Jenn.
Once nyob tipped off at center court, you had to run with it.
Too bad you blew your dunk!
If you want to stop talking about the past, why did you
recently reiterate your old
charges against JA?



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>>> with your head down?
>>
>> Good insight.
>>
>> For a change.

> That's about as nice as Arny gets.

This is about as sensible as Art gets. Don't worry - for both of these
subjectivist trolls, moments of reason pass quite quickly.

[ScottW]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Arny Krueger" > trolled in
> message >:
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity
>>> deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending
>>> you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>
>> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged the
>> people who did that.
>
> I fail to see why you find it so hard to actually answer the
> question, Mr. Krueger. But in response to this new claim of
> yours, I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
> to send you kiddie porn email, not explicitly and not "in some
> sense." Not on Usenet, not in private email, not by telephone,
> not in person. Never. I shall also point out that despite your
> claims otherwise, you have no evidence that I have done what
> you claim. Quite the opposite, as the messages from me
> concerning this subject that can be retrieved from
> groups.google.com clearly show me _condemning_ this
> behavior.
>
>>> Arny, right here, right now do you directly and explicitly
>>> deny thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing
>>> others to send you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>
>> I'll stick with "encourage".
>
> As well as noting that again you dodge the question, Mr. Krueger,
> again I I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
> to send you kiddie porn email. Never.
>
>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicitly
>>> deny that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a
>>> sockpuppet of John Atkinson, and, in that capacity, of sending
>>> you kiddie porn email Yes, or No?
>>
>> I think there's a good chance that Atkinson at the very least
>> encourages others who run some pretty sick sockpuppets.
>
> Again, Mr. Krueger, I give you my word that I have never
> encouraged anyone to send you kiddie porn email, nor have
> I encouraged anyone to mock the tragic death of your son Nate.
> Again, I have condemned those who did this on the newsgroups.
>
>> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman
>> and George Middius as they made vile personal attacks of
>> various kinds on me.
>
> I give you my word, Mr. Krueger, that not only have I never
> encouraged Art Sackman to make "vile personal attacks of
> various kinds" on you, I have never had any personal
> communications of any kind with Art Sackman. While I have
> had a small number of email exchanges with George Middius,
> I have never encourage him to make "vile personal attacks of
> various kinds" on you, particularly regarding the sending
> of child porn email to you or the mocking of your son's death.
> Yes, back in early 1999, I did compliment George on a witty
> parody of a conversation you could have had with Tom
> Nousaine, as you have repeatedly mentioned over the
> intervening 7 years. However, this was hardly a "vile personal
> attack," and again, had nothign to do with either the sending
> you of pornography or the mocking of your son's death.
>
> My last word on this subject: I regard both the sending of
> pornographic email and the mocking of your son's death
> abhorrent. I have publicly and repeatedly condemned those
> who did these things and I emphasize that I personally
> had nothing to do with these actions. I did not do them
> myself and I did not encourage or support anyone else
> doing these things, either publicly or privately. Period. I
> hope that is clear enough for you.
>
> So without you having evidence, and with you having my
> word on this matter, I request that you stop associating my
> name with these actions.

But John, can't you see that one of your actions somewhere may have
unintentionally inspired someone to do something stupid?
Or maybe it was something you didn't do that you should have which resulted
in their inspiration.

Don't move... don't even breath...but don't be still and don't suffocate or
something bad may happen to Arny.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:oKtGf.96873$0G.88705@dukeread10...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> "Arny Krueger" > trolled in
>> message >:
>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicity
>>>> deny that you have ever accused John Atkinson of sending
>>>> you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>>
>>> I think that Atkinson may have in some sense encouraged the
>>> people who did that.
>>
>> I fail to see why you find it so hard to actually answer the
>> question, Mr. Krueger. But in response to this new claim of
>> yours, I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
>> to send you kiddie porn email, not explicitly and not "in some
>> sense." Not on Usenet, not in private email, not by telephone,
>> not in person. Never. I shall also point out that despite your
>> claims otherwise, you have no evidence that I have done what
>> you claim. Quite the opposite, as the messages from me
>> concerning this subject that can be retrieved from
>> groups.google.com clearly show me _condemning_ this
>> behavior.
>>
>>>> Arny, right here, right now do you directly and explicitly
>>>> deny thay you have ever accused John Atkinson of directing
>>>> others to send you kiddie porn email? Yes, or No?
>>>
>>> I'll stick with "encourage".
>>
>> As well as noting that again you dodge the question, Mr. Krueger,
>> again I I give you my word that I have never encouraged anyone
>> to send you kiddie porn email. Never.
>>
>>>> Arny, right here, right now, do you directly and explicitly
>>>> deny that you have ever accused any RAO poster of being a
>>>> sockpuppet of John Atkinson, and, in that capacity, of sending
>>>> you kiddie porn email Yes, or No?
>>>
>>> I think there's a good chance that Atkinson at the very least
>>> encourages others who run some pretty sick sockpuppets.
>>
>> Again, Mr. Krueger, I give you my word that I have never
>> encouraged anyone to send you kiddie porn email, nor have
>> I encouraged anyone to mock the tragic death of your son Nate.
>> Again, I have condemned those who did this on the newsgroups.
>>
>>> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art Sackman
>>> and George Middius as they made vile personal attacks of
>>> various kinds on me.
>>
>> I give you my word, Mr. Krueger, that not only have I never
>> encouraged Art Sackman to make "vile personal attacks of
>> various kinds" on you, I have never had any personal
>> communications of any kind with Art Sackman. While I have
>> had a small number of email exchanges with George Middius,
>> I have never encourage him to make "vile personal attacks of
>> various kinds" on you, particularly regarding the sending
>> of child porn email to you or the mocking of your son's death.
>> Yes, back in early 1999, I did compliment George on a witty
>> parody of a conversation you could have had with Tom
>> Nousaine, as you have repeatedly mentioned over the
>> intervening 7 years. However, this was hardly a "vile personal
>> attack," and again, had nothign to do with either the sending
>> you of pornography or the mocking of your son's death.
>>
>> My last word on this subject: I regard both the sending of
>> pornographic email and the mocking of your son's death
>> abhorrent. I have publicly and repeatedly condemned those
>> who did these things and I emphasize that I personally
>> had nothing to do with these actions. I did not do them
>> myself and I did not encourage or support anyone else
>> doing these things, either publicly or privately. Period. I
>> hope that is clear enough for you.
>>
>> So without you having evidence, and with you having my
>> word on this matter, I request that you stop associating my
>> name with these actions.
>
> But John, can't you see that one of your actions somewhere may have
> unintentionally inspired someone to do something stupid?
> Or maybe it was something you didn't do that you should have which
> resulted in their inspiration.
>

If Arny is gong to make such accusations, its
up to him to offer the evidence.

And, your argument holds no water, because any action by
any person could potentially 'inspire" an unexpected and unwarranted
action by another.



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

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> And, your argument holds no water, because any action by
> any person could potentially 'inspire" an unexpected and unwarranted
> action by another.

Turn on your sarcasm detector :)

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:0KuGf.96882$0G.225@dukeread10...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And, your argument holds no water, because any action by
>> any person could potentially 'inspire" an unexpected and unwarranted
>> action by another.
>
> Turn on your sarcasm detector :)
>
> ScottW
>
Sorry, it was adjusted for Shhh!



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Clyde Slick" >
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:05:45 -0500

>> Turn on your sarcasm detector :)

>Sorry, it was adjusted for Shhh!

Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*?

Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: "Clyde Slick" >
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:05:45 -0500
>
>>> Turn on your sarcasm detector :)
>
>>Sorry, it was adjusted for Shhh!
>
> Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*?
>
> Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously.
>

Its a detector, moron.
I had to set it to detect as little as .00001
microns to find any humor from you.
Its still scanning.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Clyde Slick" >
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:27:47 -0500

> Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*?
> Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously.

>Its a detector, moron.
>I had to set it to detect as little as .00001
>microns to find any humor from you.
>Its still scanning.

How can you possibly joke around at a time like this?

We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: "Clyde Slick" >
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:27:47 -0500
>
>> Oh, you mean all that right-wing drivel was *sarcasm*?
>> Lo siento. I was actually taking you guys seriously.
>
>>Its a detector, moron.
>>I had to set it to detect as little as .00001
>>microns to find any humor from you.
>>Its still scanning.
>
> How can you possibly joke around at a time like this?
>
> We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL!
>

Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight.



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

[paul packer]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>> with your head down?
>
>Good insight.
>
>For a change.

You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your part that no
matter how reasonable and logical Mr. Atkinson is, he's never going to
get anywhere with you, that you're never going to admit error or even
clarify the assertions he demands you clarify. Is this correct,
because that's how your post reads?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:32:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:46:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think that Atkinson may have encouraged both Art
>>> Sackman and George Middius as they made vile personal
>>> attacks of various kinds on me.
>>
>> So you think that George Middius needs the encouragement
>> of a third party to make vile personal attacks on you?
>
>If you can't figure out the difference between that and what I just said
>Paul, then you are really too stupid to bother with at all.

I see your sense of humour is as sharp as ever, Arnie.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>>> with your head down?
>>
>> Good insight.
>>
>> For a change.

> You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your
> part that no matter how reasonable and logical Mr.
> Atkinson is, he's never going to get anywhere with you,
> that you're never going to admit error or even clarify
> the assertions he demands you clarify.

Atkinson's biggest problem is Atkinson, not me.

> Is this correct, because that's how your post reads?

It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. I guess you've pre-qualified
yourself.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:47:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:28:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> John, doesn't it hurt to keep running at a brick wall
>>>> with your head down?
>>>
>>> Good insight.
>>>
>>> For a change.
>
>> You know, Arnie, I believe this is an admission on your
>> part that no matter how reasonable and logical Mr.
>> Atkinson is, he's never going to get anywhere with you,
>> that you're never going to admit error or even clarify
>> the assertions he demands you clarify.
>
>Atkinson's biggest problem is Atkinson, not me.

Er........no.

>> Is this correct, because that's how your post reads?
>
>It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul. I guess you've pre-qualified
>yourself.

A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how
intelligent I am. :-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul.

> A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how
> intelligent I am. :-)

Sounds entertaining. Be a natty bloke and cross-post some of that
exchange.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:20:13 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >It takes a real twit to read it that way, Paul.
>
>> A "twit" now, Arny? And over on aus.hi-fi you're telling me how
>> intelligent I am. :-)
>
>Sounds entertaining. Be a natty bloke and cross-post some of that
>exchange.

You don't know where aus.hi-fi is, George?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Wed, Feb 8 2006 7:05 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>> How can you possibly joke around at a time like this?

>> We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL!

>Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight.

Typical conservative. Stifling dissent at any cost, including death.

I, for example, do not hope that you die. I'm just hoping that you grow
some brains.

Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
likely though.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Wed, Feb 8 2006 7:05 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> How can you possibly joke around at a time like this?
>
>>> We're at war. I'm going to go build my shelter now. LOL!
>
>>Be sure that it is COMPLETELY air tight.
>
> Typical conservative. Stifling dissent at any cost, including death.
>
> I, for example, do not hope that you die. I'm just hoping that you grow
> some brains.
>
> Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
> likely though.
>

Huh?
I'm in favor of it.



--
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:

> > Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
> > likely though.

> Huh?
> I'm in favor of it.

Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given
for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given
> > for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages.

> Huh?

Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given
for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages.

> It wasn't an issue when he was running.

Really?!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/04/MNG3A9LLVI1.DTL

Enough facts for you?

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've
>> > given
>> > for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages.
>
>> Huh?
>
> Based on what you've told us on this forum, the only reason you've given
> for voting for Dubya was to forestall gay marriages.
>
>> It wasn't an issue when he was running.
>
> Really?!
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html


one spech 9 months before the election, ho hum

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

irrelevant to the subject

> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/04/MNG3A9LLVI1.DTL
>

opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.




> Enough facts for you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

[paul packer]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:


>opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.

What does this mean when it's correctly spelt?

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.
>
> What does this mean when it's correctly spelt?



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

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.
>
> What does this mean when it's correctly spelt?

One of your balls has just been cut off.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 6:25 pm
Email: (paul packer)

>>opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.

> What does this mean when it's correctly spelt?

It means the text converter was broken again during Rush's radio
broadcast so that slick couldn't see how it was spelled.

You can always tell someone who is brainlessly quoting what they heard
Rush say because they used tired old phrases like 'feminazi,'
'tree-hugging environmentalist whacko,' 'eco-terrorist,' and so on.

Don't you have brainless neocon fascist radio broadcasts in Oz?

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: paul packer
> Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 6:25 pm
> Email: (paul packer)
>
>>>opinions of a wself possessed San Francico Feminazi.
>
>> What does this mean when it's correctly spelt?
>
> It means the text converter was broken again during Rush's radio
> broadcast so that slick couldn't see how it was spelled.
>
> You can always tell someone who is brainlessly quoting what they heard
> Rush say because they used tired old phrases like 'feminazi,'
> 'tree-hugging environmentalist whacko,' 'eco-terrorist,' and so on.
>
> Don't you have brainless neocon fascist radio broadcasts in Oz?
>

Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:22 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately.

It's OK. Once you're brainwashed, you only need freshening up once in a
while.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:22 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Sorry, I wasn't listening th 'the vast right wing consipiricy' lately.
>
> It's OK. Once you're brainwashed, you only need freshening up once in a
> while.
>

You deprogramming efforts are in a sorry state.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 11:38 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>You deprogramming efforts are in a sorry state.

But I like you just as you are. I'd never dream of deprogramming you.

You're kind of like the court jester. You make an ass of yourself and
we all get to laugh at you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:02 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>> Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
>> likely though.

>Huh?
>I'm in favor of it.

You're not if you voted for bushie.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:02 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
>>> likely though.
>
>>Huh?
>>I'm in favor of it.
>
> You're not if you voted for bushie.
>

That is complete bull****, and you know it.
You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's
positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate
does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions.

You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about
the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting
Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests
..



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>>>> Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
>>>> likely though.

>>>Huh?
>>>I'm in favor of it.

>> You're not if you voted for bushie.

>That is complete bull****, and you know it.

Sorry, it's reality and not bull****.

>You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's
>positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate
>does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions.

Go back and read what I wrote a couple of days ago. Even nob agreed
with it. It is logical. It is true. You cannot argue your way around
it, no matter how hard you huff and puff.

If you supported bushie, you supported banning stem cell research
whether or not you personally agree with that ban. Apparently it wasn't
important enough to you for you to vote otherwise.

>You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about
>the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting
>Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests

I alluded to no such thing. You've missed the point again, Mr. One
Dimension. Go back and reread what I wrote (not that I think you'll get
it this time either...).

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>> Given that you guys are opposed to stem cell research, that isn't
>>>>> likely though.
>
>>>>Huh?
>>>>I'm in favor of it.
>
>>> You're not if you voted for bushie.
>
>>That is complete bull****, and you know it.
>
> Sorry, it's reality and not bull****.
>
>>You don't have to back 100% of a candidate's
>>positions to vote for him. Voting for a candidate
>>does not at all signify agreement with every one of his positions.
>
> Go back and read what I wrote a couple of days ago. Even nob agreed
> with it. It is logical. It is true. You cannot argue your way around
> it, no matter how hard you huff and puff.
>
> If you supported bushie, you supported banning stem cell research
> whether or not you personally agree with that ban. Apparently it wasn't
> important enough to you for you to vote otherwise.
>
>>You alluded to that yourself 2 days ago, talking about
>>the allegedly increasing numbers of poor people voting
>>Republican, supposedly against their own economic interests
>
> I alluded to no such thing. You've missed the point again, Mr. One
> Dimension. Go back and reread what I wrote (not that I think you'll get
> it this time either...).
>

you are the one making one dimensional claims.
Voting for a candidate is NOT the same
as supporting all og his positions.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 7:28 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>you are the one making one dimensional claims.

Nope. Take a course in logic sometime. It will (perhaps) make you
appear less stupid.

>Voting for a candidate is NOT the same
>as supporting all og his positions.

When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
his positions on..."

It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
you to alter your voting behavior.

By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
research, whether you meant to or not.

(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 7:28 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>you are the one making one dimensional claims.
>
> Nope. Take a course in logic sometime. It will (perhaps) make you
> appear less stupid.
>
>>Voting for a candidate is NOT the same
>>as supporting all og his positions.
>
> When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
> their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
> his positions on..."
>

I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign.
The ballot says NOTHING about positions

> It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
> prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
> accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
> you to alter your voting behavior.
>

I don't support anything I do not agree with.




> By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
> research, whether you meant to or not.
>

By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten
paychecks for doing that, you
supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)

I love it when I'm right.

>> When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
>> their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
>> his positions on..."

>I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign.
>The ballot says NOTHING about positions

God, but you're a dumb one.

>> It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
>> prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
>> accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
>> you to alter your voting behavior.

>I don't support anything I do not agree with.

Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.

>> By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
>> research, whether you meant to or not.

>By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten
>paychecks for doing that, you
>supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not.

LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary.

Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really
stupid right now.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)
>
> I love it when I'm right.
>
>>> When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
>>> their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
>>> his positions on..."
>
>>I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign.
>>The ballot says NOTHING about positions
>
> God, but you're a dumb one.
>
>>> It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
>>> prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
>>> accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
>>> you to alter your voting behavior.
>
>>I don't support anything I do not agree with.
>
> Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
> bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.
>
>>> By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
>>> research, whether you meant to or not.
>
>>By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten
>>paychecks for doing that, you
>>supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not.
>
> LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary.
>
> Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really
> stupid right now.

You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO.

So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like
I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which
are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell
research.

ScottW
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)
>
> I love it when I'm right.
>

So jerking off is your thing, I'm not
one to criticize you for it.

>>> When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
>>> their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
>>> his positions on..."
>
>>I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign.
>>The ballot says NOTHING about positions
>
> God, but you're a dumb one.
>
>>> It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
>>> prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
>>> accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
>>> you to alter your voting behavior.
>
>>I don't support anything I do not agree with.
>
> Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
> bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.
>

no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you.


>>> By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
>>> research, whether you meant to or not.
>
>>By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten
>>paychecks for doing that, you
>>supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not.
>
> LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary.
>

No, I don't live in Baltimore, where the Dems pay for votes.

> Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really
> stupid right now.
>



--
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:ioxIf.119888$0G.98455@dukeread10...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> >(My prediction: slick will be too stupid to get it.)
>>
>> I love it when I'm right.
>>
>>>> When you support a candidate it is indeed the same as supporting all of
>>>> their positions. The ballot does not say "I vote for bushie except for
>>>> his positions on..."
>>
>>>I vote for the candidate, not for all of his positions in the campaign.
>>>The ballot says NOTHING about positions
>>
>> God, but you're a dumb one.
>>
>>>> It is *not* the same as agreeing with all of them. You presumably
>>>> prioritized those issues which were important to you and voted
>>>> accordingly. Stem cell research was apparently not important enough to
>>>> you to alter your voting behavior.
>>
>>>I don't support anything I do not agree with.
>>
>> Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
>> bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.
>>
>>>> By voting for bushie, however, you *did* support a ban on stem cell
>>>> research, whether you meant to or not.
>>
>>>By having serving 21 years in the military, and having gotten
>>>paychecks for doing that, you
>>>supported all of the military's activities, whether you meant to, or not.
>>
>> LOL! Do you get paid to vote where you are? Here it's voluntary.
>>
>> Your best bet is to quietly go to bed. You're looking really, really
>> stupid right now.
>
> You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
> It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO.
>
> So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like
> I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which
> are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell
> research.
>
> ScottW


you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out
after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a
peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush
supports all his positions. He claims to
have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not
"support" it.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
>It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO.

It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like
a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it
benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after
all, cater to his pro-life base.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

>So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like
>I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which
>are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell
>research.

It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate.
You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support.
By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of
their positions. You do not have to agree with all of their positions,
but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions.

In voting for bushie, someone may think, "stronger military, less
taxes, pro-business, conservative Supreme Court" and agree with AND
support those positions.

You also get drilling in the ANRW, pro-life, support of ID in public
schools, banned stem cell research, lowered seperation of church-state
separation, and everything else that bushie stands for. In supporting
the candidate, you have supported those positions, even though you may
disagree with them.

When you vote for a candidate, for example, Arny, you are not just
voting for Arny. You are also voting for what he stands for. All of it.
That does not mean that you agree with all of it. But you cannot
separate them out.

Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 10:14 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out
>after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a
>peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush
>supports all his positions. He claims to
>have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not
>"support" it.

I don't really care if you believe that I spent 21 years in the
military or not. I have the 20-year letter, and I am in the Retired
Reserve.

I have not paraded as a "peacenik" but given your limited understanding
of the English language it does not surprise me that you might think
so.

I have been deployed as a part of the 'war' on terror. I support
rooting out terrorists. I do not support illegal activities in its
name. That puts us on a lower level, a hypocritical level, that we are
better than. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
in fighting terrorists.

Simply because you're too obtuse to get a point does not mean that the
point isn't valid.

Now go to bed, junior. You're looking pretty stupid again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
>> bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.

>no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you.

Support: To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in
her election campaign.

You supported bushie. Therefore, you supported his policies. All of
them.

Agree: To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on
that. Our views on the election agree.

You *supported* bushie and therefore his policies. You don't *agree*
with all of bushie's policies.

Are you really this stupid? It's not a hard concept.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
>>It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO.
>
> It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like
> a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it
> benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after
> all, cater to his pro-life base.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html
>
>>So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like
>>I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which
>>are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell
>>research.
>
> It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate.

Yes, one votes for a candidate, but not necessarily supoorts all of his
positions.
I voted for Bush, I also voted for Sen. Mikulski.
Many of their positions are as diffrerent as night and day.

Which ones did I support or not support?
You tell me. Mikulski if for stem cell research, Bush is against it.
Looks like YOU are the one dimensional man.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 10:14 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>you're arguing with a guy who says he recently got out
>>after spending 21 years in the military, while he parades as a
>>peacenik, and claims that one who merely voted for Bush
>>supports all his positions. He claims to
>>have fought in the War on Terror, yet he does not
>>"support" it.
>
> I don't really care if you believe that I spent 21 years in the
> military or not. I have the 20-year letter, and I am in the Retired
> Reserve.
>
> I have not paraded as a "peacenik" but given your limited understanding
> of the English language it does not surprise me that you might think
> so.
>
> I have been deployed as a part of the 'war' on terror. I support
> rooting out terrorists.

hehe, not if you voted for Kerry.




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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> Well, if you disagree with a stem cell research ban, and you voted for
>>> bushie, then you are now lying. You supported it.
>
>>no, I don't support it. That's for me to decide, not you.
>
> Support: To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in
> her election campaign.
>
> You supported bushie. Therefore, you supported his policies. All of
> them.
>
> Agree: To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on
> that. Our views on the election agree.
>
> You *supported* bushie and therefore his policies. You don't *agree*
> with all of bushie's policies.
>

I didn't support him, I voted for him. I also voted for other candidates
with vastly
different positions.
Its not that simple and one dimensional as your thinking.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 10:56 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>I didn't support him, I voted for him.

LOL!

>I also voted for other candidates with vastly different positions.

Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them?

Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter than you.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >You need to research Bush's position on stem cell research.
> >It takes a very biased viewpoint to describe it as a ban IMO.
>
> It is, in essence, a ban. As we know now, the '60 lines' are more like
> a dozen. I would presume that if it had a military use, or if it
> benefited big business, bushie might support it. But he has to, after
> all, cater to his pro-life base.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

You're only talking about restricting federal funding. Still not a
ban.
Private funded research can do what it wants.

>
> >So one could support Bush and not support a ban... just like
> >I could support Arny and not support Ca tax dollars (which
> >are now being sucked up in court cases) going to stem cell
> >research.
>
> It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate.
> You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support.

Sure I do, and I tell them often when I don't agree with their
positions.


> By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of
> their positions.

Thats silly... thats like claiming if I buy an album then I must like
all the songs.

>You do not have to agree with all of their positions,
> but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions.

Not at all... I can lobby against their positions... I can petition
against
their positions.
>
> In voting for bushie, someone may think, "stronger military, less
> taxes, pro-business, conservative Supreme Court" and agree with AND
> support those positions.
>
> You also get drilling in the ANRW, pro-life, support of ID in public
> schools, banned stem cell research, lowered seperation of church-state
> separation, and everything else that bushie stands for. In supporting
> the candidate, you have supported those positions, even though you may
> disagree with them.
>
> When you vote for a candidate, for example, Arny, you are not just
> voting for Arny. You are also voting for what he stands for. All of it.
> That does not mean that you agree with all of it. But you cannot
> separate them out.
>
> Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true.

Its unrealistic, simplistic, myopic and absurd. Therefore it's false.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick - view profile
> Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 10:56 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>I didn't support him, I voted for him.
>
> LOL!
>
>>I also voted for other candidates with vastly different positions.
>
> Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them?
>

I guess I just voted for 54 billion
before I voted against it!



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com

> Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter
> than you.

You lose points for taking this long to figure this out. Strip away the
neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 6:41 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of
>> their positions.

>> It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate.
>> You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support.

>Sure I do, and I tell them often when I don't agree with their
>positions.

And here we go again. You need to look up 'support' and 'agree.' I am
not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that you agree with all of a
candidates positions.

Candidates (and their party) propose an agenda during an election. You
decide which candidate's agenda most closely matches yours and
presumably vote accordingly. You get some stuff in there that you don't
agree with. But you voted for that candidate's agenda, or election
promises. You do not get to vote in two candidates (#1 for the Supreme
Court, taxes, and military spending, #2 for opposition to ID, budget
priorities, and funding stem cell research). You voted in an agenda.
All of it.

Try this: vote for Dianne Feinstein and then tell her you want tax cuts
for upper income people, more defense spending, a reduction of civil
liberties, ID taught as science in schools, and so on. In other words,
take the gop platform and agenda and try to impose it on a Dem. How do
you think that you'd do?

>Thats silly... thats like claiming if I buy an album then I must like
>all the songs.

Not at all. What I've said is that by buying the album, you've
supported the artist and that entire album. You haven't supported the
artist (except for tracks 3, 8, and 11). You've supported the artist
and the album. Period. You may not agree with or like tracks 3, 8, and
11. You may think that those tracks are garbage. You may think that
they're the stupidest tracks that you've ever heard. But you've
supported the artist and the entire album nonetheless.

You can even write the artist and tell them that you think tracks 3, 8,
and 11 are stupid. But you still supported those tracks by buying the
album.

>>You do not have to agree with all of their positions,
>> but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions.

>Not at all... I can lobby against their positions... I can petition against
>their positions.

I never said that you couldn't. But you voted them in knowing their
agenda and their slant, including the parts that you disagree with.
Let's say for a moment that you aren't religious. Write bushie and tell
him that you disagree with his decidedly fundamentalist Christian slant
on life and how it effects his policy decisions like support of ID
being taught in public schools and public vouchers for religious
academies. Presume that you do not agree with those views (you may
agree with them, but for argument say that you don't). Think that will
do any good? But you supported him and these views by voting for him.

>> Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true.

>Its unrealistic, simplistic, myopic and absurd. Therefore it's false.

You're trying to argue against a tautology and trying to make a logical
argument.

Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
candidate." Show your work.

I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
but absolutely absurd.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
> candidate." Show your work.

Prove this false: If you say stupid things, you're an idiot.

>
> I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
> the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
> person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
> but absolutely absurd.

One doesn't have to just vote and go home and sleep it off. You can make
an effort to further your agenda even when your candidate doesn't support
all of it.
Again... voting is always choosing the lesser of evils.

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, but for the sake of moving
forward... whats next?
We gonna debate the policies I felt were worthy of support vs those that I
had to surrender in choosing my guy? Of course there is always the
opponent, maybe I just don't like traitors.

ScottW
>

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Kc9Jf.83483$QW2.68084@dukeread08...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
>> candidate." Show your work.
>
> Prove this false: If you say stupid things, you're an idiot.
>
>>
>> I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
>> the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
>> person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
>> but absolutely absurd.
>
> One doesn't have to just vote and go home and sleep it off. You can make
> an effort to further your agenda even when your candidate doesn't support
> all of it.
> Again... voting is always choosing the lesser of evils.
>
> Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, but for the sake of moving
> forward... whats next?
> We gonna debate the policies I felt were worthy of support vs those that I
> had to surrender in choosing my guy? Of course there is always the
> opponent, maybe I just don't like traitors.
>

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office. You are not voting for or against any
particular positions, nor for or against that candidates positions, in toto.
You are simply voting for a particular person to hold a particular office.
The reasons for one's vote are private, and varied, and may, or may not
be primarily because of his positions, as individual positions or in tot.
One might vote for a candidate because he is thought to be a more competent
administrator, or better at constituent services, or because
the voter has some personal nefarious gain at stake, such as securing a
government contract.




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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...


>. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
> in fighting terrorists.
>


who do you recommend, the ACLU?



--
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:

> When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
> to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
> > in fighting terrorists.

> who do you recommend, the ACLU?

I nominate Mossad.

[ScottW]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
> to hold a specific public office. You are not voting for or against any
> particular positions, nor for or against that candidates positions, in toto.
> You are simply voting for a particular person to hold a particular office.
> The reasons for one's vote are private, and varied, and may, or may not
> be primarily because of his positions, as individual positions or in tot.
> One might vote for a candidate because he is thought to be a more competent
> administrator, or better at constituent services, or because
> the voter has some personal nefarious gain at stake, such as securing a
> government contract.
>

Thats good, otherwise Dave would be sufferring with the great
conservative democrats of Tennessee. I need one in Ca.

http://metropulse.com/articles/2006/16_07/frank_talk.shtml

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
>> to hold a specific public office.
>
> The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
> Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
> crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.
>

low unemployment, an expanding economy, low interest rates,
African Americans expanding inot the upper middle class,
a growth in successful African American businesses,
lack of terrorist attacks on home soil, oh, you mean those disasters.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> >And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
>> > in fighting terrorists.
>
>> who do you recommend, the ACLU?
>
> I nominate Mossad.
>

We could never have one, The Democrats, ultra libs,
and the ACLU will see to that!



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

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
> > to hold a specific public office.
>
> The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
> Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
> crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
positions.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >Clyde Slick said:
>
> >> When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
> >> to hold a specific public office.
>
> >The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
> >Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
> >crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.
>
> No, I've learned my lesson. I was wrong.
>
> Scott and slick didn't vote for any of bushie's positions. They just
> voted for him to occupy the White House.

I voted against the traitor.
>
> If you ask them why they voted for bushie, they probably cannot tell
> you why.

I just did... and have repeatedly... lesser of evils you know.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 8:55 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
>me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
>positions.

What do bushie's positions matter? You (and slick) apparently vote only
for the man, not the positions on issues.

His crappy domestic (and I might add, foriegn) policy are not your
concern.

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>You're a democrat... you voted in democratic primaries.... by your own
>logic the whole situation is your fault.

Well, if I hadn't been deployed fighting the Global 'War' on Terror I
might have voted in the primary. With the somewhat sketchy news that I
got, I might have voted for Wesley Clark.

During the 2000 Presidential election, I was a republican.

But I do understand that when I vote for candidates I am supporting
them, and that by supporting them I am supporting even those positions
that I disagree with.

>Now you claim I have to accept responsibility for supporting Bush's
>immigration policy because I voted for him. No... I don't... there
>was no viable alternative.

I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
agree with them or not.

Or did you not understand his positions and religiosity prior to
voting?

You bought the album bushie recorded. You don't like some of the
tracks. Too bad. You supported the artist and his LP.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >Clyde Slick said:
>
>>> When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
>>> to hold a specific public office.
>
>>The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
>>Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
>>crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.
>
> No, I've learned my lesson. I was wrong.
>
> Scott and slick didn't vote for any of bushie's positions. They just
> voted for him to occupy the White House.
>

Yes I supported some of his positions, and opposed others.
But, I didn't vote for or against any particular positions.
I don't remember seeing any such refferenda on the ballot.



> If you ask them why they voted for bushie, they probably cannot tell
> you why. That would entail understanding his philosophy and his
> positions. You don't vote for that. It must have been just that they
> thought that he would look good in the Rose Garden.
>

One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror. Another reason was to
curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare state,
entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
millions of people who could otherwise do better. And another, to
allow for greater educational opportunities for poor minority students in
our
inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs. I also
voted for Bush to provide greater opportunities for
all Americans, and in particular African Americans to have a better
and more economically secure retirement, through voluntary options
of individual investments as an alternative to part of the social security
plan.
The current system is blatantly racist and severly penalizes African
Americans,
who collect much fewer proportional benefits than white people, due to
life expectancy, and the inability of social
security to return the retirees investment and profit to the next
generation.
Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.




--
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
ups.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Clyde Slick said:
>>
>> > When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
>> > to hold a specific public office.
>>
>> The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
>> Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
>> crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.
>
> Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
> me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
> positions.
>


I voted more 'against' Kerry than 'for' Bush



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 8:55 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
>>me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
>>positions.
>
> What do bushie's positions matter? You (and slick) apparently vote only
> for the man, not the positions on issues.
>
> His crappy domestic (and I might add, foriegn) policy are not your
> concern.
>
> Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
> that you agree with?
>
> Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.
>

I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
I put him in office to better protect our national security.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>> Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
>> that you agree with?

>> Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

>I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
>I put him in office to better protect our national security.

So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
support, illegal roving wiretaps, huge deficits, two wars, rolling back
of civil liberties, and a whole lot more.

Thanks for your support!

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
> their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
> immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
> that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
> policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
> agree with them or not.

What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
me) inaction, Kerry wins.

Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
us.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
>>> that you agree with?
>
>>> Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.
>
>>I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
>>I put him in office to better protect our national security.
>
> So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
> support,

I don't see Bush actually doing anything on that front beyond a few silly
comments.
That whole thing is a non-issue afaiac.

>illegal roving wiretaps,

roving? anyway...I'm all for them.

> huge deficits,

mildly annoying but not near so as the taxes.
I'd prefer some fiscal restraint but I don't want to raise taxes to
solve the deficit problem.
I think I read the feds had a record revenue year so clearly
low taxes aren't the problem.
Anyway, the deficit is nothing compared to entitlement debt.
Ask those Tennesse dems, Ford Jr.

> two wars,

All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

>rolling back
> of civil liberties,

Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
But I have seen a lot of people being seditious.
We're a bit too tolerant for my taste.

You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
Next time ask me, I can help you out.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:08 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
>didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
>me) inaction, Kerry wins.

>Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
>us.

Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
didn't vote.

And with their support for Kerry, they, too, would have probably
supported policies that they did not agree with.

There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
>Next time ask me, I can help you out.

They're virtually all deplorable.

>> two wars,

>All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
>might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
>was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.

republican propaganda.

>Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare state,
>entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
>millions of people who could otherwise do better.

How does this hold people down, I wonder? Who are these millions? The
same millions shouldering the brunt of the tax decreases? How could
they otherwise do better?

>And another, to allow for greater educational opportunities for poor minority students in
>our inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs.

The new busing program, in other words. That was a Democratic idea and
didn't really work, by the way.

>Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.

To take advantage of bushie's 'reform' you'd still need to make money.
One wonders why African-Americans are held down now through lower wages
and less opportunity, and how bushie is working to change that. By
removing Affirmative Action, perhaps?

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:08 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
>>didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just
>>like
>>me) inaction, Kerry wins.
>
>>Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because
>>of
>>us.
>
> Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
> end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

Now I am confused. We can't bitch if we don't vote and we can't
bitch about the guy we voted for if he wins... so we only get to
bitch if we're like you, LOSERS :)
>
> Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
> because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
> didn't vote.

I think the margin of defeat was way less than the nonvoting block.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
>>> that you agree with?
>
>>> Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.
>
>>I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
>>I put him in office to better protect our national security.
>
> So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
> support, illegal roving wiretaps, huge deficits, two wars, rolling back
> of civil liberties, and a whole lot more.
>
> Thanks for your support!
>

No problem, Mr ex military man, haha,
well, the first war toppled the
Taliban and closed down a host of terrorist training camps
The second got rid of Saddam, who baltantly disobeyed
the surrender terms of his first war, and gae Iraqi's at least a chance
for self governance. The econmy is doing well, unemployment
is down, housing rpices are up, homeowners have built up
wealth through equity, the phone intercepts of forign
terrorists talking to people in the US is a GREAT thing,
yes, I'm very pleased, overall.

BTW, I don't really believe
your story about having been 21 years in the military
It doesn't fit with your general antiwar attitude, particulary
comments inferred about Afghanistan, furthermore, your
continuing cowardly anonimity lends zero
credence towards your unbelievable claims.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>

> There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.
>

Yeah, that's why we don't support all of their positions.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
>>Next time ask me, I can help you out.
>
> They're virtually all deplorable.
>
>>> two wars,
>
>>All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
>>might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.
>
> I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
> looking forward to it.
>

you ought to throw your medal over the White House
fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!



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

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
>>Next time ask me, I can help you out.
>
> They're virtually all deplorable.
>
>>> two wars,
>
>>All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
>>might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.
>
> I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
> looking forward to it.

That was a little flippant... got it from Dave.... but at some point
we will be going after Iraq if they don't change path.
I don't see there being much we can do about it besides
waste them. They already started the propaganda machine
funding resistance movements and talking about our
beef is not with the Iranian people.

This is a little more unnerving.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060216-112450-8637r

I think they want to be in a position to take Taiwan without fear of the US
military.
I also think they want to be able to face down Japan over territorial
disputes that cover some undersea gas fields.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>>One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
>>was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.
>
> republican propaganda.
>
>>Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare
>>state,
>>entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
>>millions of people who could otherwise do better.
>
> How does this hold people down, I wonder?

Welfare is debilitating and addictive.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
>> end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

>Now I am confused. We can't bitch if we don't vote and we can't
>bitch about the guy we voted for if he wins... so we only get to
>bitch if we're like you, LOSERS :)

No, you can bitch if you vote, even if your guy loses. If you don't
vote, you get whatever happens. That's obviously IMO. If someone
bitches about politics, my first question is, "Did you vote?" If they
say no, then I have no time to listen to their bitching, just as they
apparently did not have the time to vote.

You can bitch about the guy you voted for if he wins. I sure would be
if I were you.

>> Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
>> because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
>> didn't vote.

>I think the margin of defeat was way less than the nonvoting block.

Oh, by far. But it wasn't non-votes that would have made him win. It
would have been the votes, of course.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:48 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>> I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
>> looking forward to it.

>you ought to throw your medal over the White House
>fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!

Because I don't look forward to opening up another war?

Hm. I was wrong about you. You're abso-****ing-lutely brilliant.

Why aren't you in the military right now, like the good little
chickenhawk that you are? You're so brave and ****.

While you're there, ask around and see how many soldiers who've seen it
really look forward to combat.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>>One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
>>was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.
>
> republican propaganda.

Democratic policy -
Remember the "Global Test"?


>
>>Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare
>>state,
>>entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
>>millions of people who could otherwise do better.
>
> How does this hold people down, I wonder? Who are these millions? The
> same millions shouldering the brunt of the tax decreases? How could
> they otherwise do better?
>

They hold peole down via creating a pyschological
dependancy on government assistance vs individual effort.
AFDC has destroyed poor families and
created dependent communities in the inner cities.
Tax decreases don't have a "brunt".
Tax increases have a brunt. They have a
cost to income earners.


>>And another, to allow for greater educational opportunities for poor
>>minority students in
>>our inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs.
>
> The new busing program, in other words. That was a Democratic idea and
> didn't really work, by the way.
>

IT wasn't tried. Democrats on the whole
vociferoulsy oppose them.


>>Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.
>
> To take advantage of bushie's 'reform' you'd still need to make money.
> One wonders why African-Americans are held down now through lower wages
> and less opportunity, and how bushie is working to change that. By
> removing Affirmative Action, perhaps?
>

No, Social Security is for wage earners. IT has a lousy
returm on the dollar. Even savings account
investment beats it by a country mile.


Your entire agenda is in the mold of
the ultra-lib.
You are not the kind of person who spends 21 yars in the military.
Come clean.





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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:47 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.
>
>>Yeah, that's why we don't support all of their positions.
>
> That clinches it: nob is smarter than you are.
>
> I didn't think it was possible for nob to be smarter than anyone.
>
> Your parents must be very proud.
>

You're the idiot.
Basically, your just making a silly little
semantic argument over the meaning of support.
Dave likes those kinds of arguments, go
bother him.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:48 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
>>> looking forward to it.
>
>>you ought to throw your medal over the White House
>>fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!
>
> Because I don't look forward to opening up another war?
>

Because your entire agenda is only slightly
to the right of Cindy Sheehan.

The story of your military career is a charade.
A man of your strong antiwar feelings would have resigned, rather than
participated in the machinary of war.

Why are you hiding behind a veil of anonymity?



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

[dave weil]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:08:42 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
>> their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
>> immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
>> that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
>> policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
>> agree with them or not.
>
> What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
>didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
>me) inaction, Kerry wins.
>
>Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
>us.

Well, that's how President Bush got elected, just in reverse.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> > Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
>
> That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
> know until it's too late.

Brilliant Dave.... thanks for proving that all this squealing about
impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
known until its too late.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:27 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Your entire agenda is in the mold of
>the ultra-lib.
>You are not the kind of person who spends 21 yars in the military.
>Come clean.

Oh. You're one of those. If you served in the military, but don't
follow the conservative line, you must not have served honorably. Will
I be getting a call from the swift boat group now?

As I said, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else regarding my
military service.

Your 'logic,' however, and your inability to understand the English
language, tell me that you're not very smart. Come clean: you don't
have any higher education at all do you. And really I need no proof:
your posts serve that purpose.

[dave weil]

On 17 Feb 2006 10:28:08 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
>>
>> That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
>> know until it's too late.
>
> Brilliant Dave....

Why, thank you.

>thanks for proving that all this squealing about
>impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
>known until its too late.

So, I guess your solution is just to ignore it. That's cool...for you.
For many people though, preventing a foregone conclusion is a far
better approach.

You sound sort of like Lord Chamberlain. After all, Hitler hadn't
invaded *anyone* when he made his famous "Peace in Our Time" speech.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2006 10:28:08 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
> >>
> >> That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
> >> know until it's too late.
> >
> > Brilliant Dave....
>
> Why, thank you.
>
> >thanks for proving that all this squealing about
> >impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
> >known until its too late.
>
> So, I guess your solution is just to ignore it.

Do you want to analyze your paranoia or dissect your
fractured logic?

> That's cool...for you.

Ok, your paranoia it is.
Yup, since I'm not a terrorist and don't talk to terrorists and really
don't care if some NSA computer scans my phone calls,
its cool for me.

> For many people though, preventing a foregone conclusion is a far
> better approach.

I agree.... so doing what it takes to keep 'em from blowing
us up is a good idea.

>
> You sound sort of like Lord Chamberlain. After all, Hitler hadn't
> invaded *anyone* when he made his famous "Peace in Our Time" speech.

Must be a Weilthing.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 1:16 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
> >Ok, your paranoia it is.
> >Yup, since I'm not a terrorist and don't talk to terrorists and really
> >don't care if some NSA computer scans my phone calls,
> >its cool for me.
>
> Vould you mind signing a loyalty oath?

No problem.

>
> And could you please show me your papers?

I'm also for a national ID card.

>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin

Keyword... essential. Phone calls to foreign enemies
essential to you?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
>> deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin

>Keyword... essential. Phone calls to foreign enemies
>essential to you?

Man, you are too stupid for words.

For me, it is essential to have freedom from warrantless searches or
seizure of property. That's kind of in that Constitution thing.

Using your logic, since I do not have a meth lab in my home, it is OK
for the government to search my home in a warrantless drug sweep. What
do I have to fear?

The phone calls are not to 'enemies.' They are sweeps in any region, or
from any region, that they suspect there might be terrorists.

Given the explosive growth of meth production in the US, it is likely
that meth in being produced in the region around me. I think meth is a
danger to our society, possibly even a greater one than terrorists,
with more casualties.

Since I don't produce meth, should I be upset if the police decided to
search my home in a sweep?

So are you willing to face a little danger in the name of liberty, or
are you more on the 'keep me safe at any cost' front?

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:

>Tell you what: you mail me your brain in a jar of formaldehyde. Then,
>once I have proof that you actually do have a brain, I'll send you
>copies of my DD214, retirement orders, photos of my medal rack, etc.


That's not fair.
He should send you a photocopy of his brain.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
> >> deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin
>
> >Keyword... essential. Phone calls to foreign enemies
> >essential to you?
>
> Man, you are too stupid for words.

All these comments do is show everyone that you know your argument is
weak,
it can't stand up to scrutiny so you try to deflect it with personal
attacks.

>
> For me, it is essential to have freedom from warrantless searches or
> seizure of property. That's kind of in that Constitution thing.

And, AFAICT, the courts say you have it.

> g your logic, since I do not have a meth lab in my home, it is OK
> for the government to search my home in a warrantless drug sweep. What
> do I have to fear?

Bogus analogy.

>
> The phone calls are not to 'enemies.' They are sweeps in any region, or
> from any region, that they suspect there might be terrorists.

Such is the nature of the technology... they won't know what they've
got until they've got it... If congress doesn't like it, they can
rescind the AUMF and declare the conflict over.
We won, terrorist threat ended.

>
> Given the explosive growth of meth production in the US, it is likely
> that meth in being produced in the region around me. I think meth is a
> danger to our society, possibly even a greater one than terrorists,
> with more casualties.

You call me stupid yet you can't differentiate domestic criminal
activity from international terrorism. Sigh, I thought you were
venturing out of the muck and mire into the light of discussion.

>
> Since I don't produce meth, should I be upset if the police decided to
> search my home in a sweep?

When it happens... we'll discuss it.

>
> So are you willing to face a little danger in the name of liberty, or
> are you more on the 'keep me safe at any cost' front?

How simplistic... do you really think those are the only choices
available?
The complexity of the real world seems to be causing you some stress.

Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
undeclared. Get used to it.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> All these comments do is show everyone that you know your argument is
> weak,
> it can't stand up to scrutiny so you try to deflect it with personal
> attacks.

Careful!

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 1:16 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>Ok, your paranoia it is.
>>Yup, since I'm not a terrorist and don't talk to terrorists and really
>>don't care if some NSA computer scans my phone calls,
>>its cool for me.

How would you feel if you were a reporter talking to your translator in
Iraq, and that translator had a cousin who was a close friend to a
terriorist (or at least the NSA thought he was). And your library records
and online searches were searched and they found you had visited middle
eastern web sites and taken out three books on the middle east. So you had
a knock on the door and were spirited away for questioning for, say, six
weeks. How would you feel then?

You don't think this thing has a chilling effect on ANYBODY who has a
legitimate reason for talking overseas and even mentioning IRAQ or Al Quaeda
or IRAN, etc. If so, then you haven't been paying attention.

This is the real cost in freedom!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Sander deWaal
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 3:48 pm
Email: Sander deWaal >

>That's not fair.
>He should send you a photocopy of his brain.

I think that you're right. That's fair. I'll agree to that.

But it has to be signed by a doctor and notarized. Otherwise, all slick
would have to do is sit on the copy machine, and how would I know that
it wasn't his brain?

(BTW, I'm an honorary member of one of your Royal Netherlands Army
veldartillerie units. The poor psychotic *******s didn't know that I
wasn't in the military when I wasn't deployed with them. I am still in
contact with a few of them, who hallucinate that they know me...):-)

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
>
> That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
> know until it's too late

I have noticed the loss.
I am no longer allowed to privately talk to my Al-Queda
buddies in Pakistan.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:27 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Your entire agenda is in the mold of
>>the ultra-lib.
>>You are not the kind of person who spends 21 yars in the military.
>>Come clean.
>
> Oh. You're one of those. If you served in the military, but don't
> follow the conservative line, you must not have served honorably. Will
> I be getting a call from the swift boat group now?
>
> As I said, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else regarding my
> military service.
>
> Your 'logic,' however, and your inability to understand the English
> language, tell me that you're not very smart. Come clean: you don't
> have any higher education at all do you. And really I need no proof:
> your posts serve that purpose.
>

My higher education lasted longer than your imaginary military service.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>>BTW, I don't really believe
>>your story about having been 21 years in the military
>>It doesn't fit with your general antiwar attitude, particulary
>>comments inferred about Afghanistan, furthermore, your
>>continuing cowardly anonimity lends zero
>>credence towards your unbelievable claims.
>
> While I do not believe that you have a functioning brain.
>
> Tell you what: you mail me your brain in a jar of formaldehyde. Then,
> once I have proof that you actually do have a brain, I'll send you
> copies of my DD214, retirement orders, photos of my medal rack, etc.
>
> You can claim that you have a brain, but your posts prove otherwise.
>
> BTW, if you're inferring what I think about something (and are probably
> getting it wrong) why not just ask me what I think?
>
> Oh yeah. It's that brain thing... LOL!
>

who did you say you were?



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
>>> deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin
>
>>Keyword... essential. Phone calls to foreign enemies
>>essential to you?
>
> Man, you are too stupid for words.
>
> For me, it is essential to have freedom from warrantless searches or
> seizure of property. That's kind of in that Constitution thing.
>
> Using your logic, since I do not have a meth lab in my home, it is OK
> for the government to search my home in a warrantless drug sweep. What
> do I have to fear?
>
> The phone calls are not to 'enemies.' They are sweeps in any region, or
> from any region, that they suspect there might be terrorists.
>
> Given the explosive growth of meth production in the US, it is likely
> that meth in being produced in the region around me. I think meth is a
> danger to our society, possibly even a greater one than terrorists,
> with more casualties.
>
> Since I don't produce meth, should I be upset if the police decided to
> search my home in a sweep?
>
> So are you willing to face a little danger in the name of liberty, or
> are you more on the 'keep me safe at any cost' front?
>



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
>>> deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin
>
>>Keyword... essential. Phone calls to foreign enemies
>>essential to you?
>
> Man, you are too stupid for words.
>
> For me, it is essential to have freedom from warrantless searches or
> seizure of property. That's kind of in that Constitution thing.
>
> Using your logic, since I do not have a meth lab in my home, it is OK
> for the government to search my home in a warrantless drug sweep. What
> do I have to fear?
>
> The phone calls are not to 'enemies.' They are sweeps in any region, or
> from any region, that they suspect there might be terrorists.
>
> Given the explosive growth of meth production in the US, it is likely
> that meth in being produced in the region around me. I think meth is a
> danger to our society, possibly even a greater one than terrorists,
> with more casualties.
>
> Since I don't produce meth, should I be upset if the police decided to
> search my home in a sweep?
>
> So are you willing to face a little danger in the name of liberty, or
> are you more on the 'keep me safe at any cost' front?
>

you ought to move to a nicer neighborhood.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:15 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>My higher education lasted longer than your imaginary military service.

LOL! That would probably give you several doctorates.

Or did you go for over two decades and not earn a degree? That *does*
seem possible, or even perhaps more plausible...

LOL! What an idiot!

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> From: ScottW
>> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 1:16 pm
>> Email: "ScottW" >
>>
>>>Ok, your paranoia it is.
>>>Yup, since I'm not a terrorist and don't talk to terrorists and really
>>>don't care if some NSA computer scans my phone calls,
>>>its cool for me.
>
> How would you feel if you were a reporter talking to your translator in
> Iraq, and that translator had a cousin who was a close friend to a
> terriorist (or at least the NSA thought he was). And your library records
> and online searches were searched and they found you had visited middle
> eastern web sites and taken out three books on the middle east. So you
> had a knock on the door and were spirited away for questioning for, say,
> six weeks. How would you feel then?
>
> You don't think this thing has a chilling effect on ANYBODY who has a
> legitimate reason for talking overseas and even mentioning IRAQ or Al
> Quaeda or IRAN, etc. If so, then you haven't been paying attention.
>
> This is the real cost in freedom!

How many lives is that worth?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 7:25 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>How many lives is that worth?

Scott's answer: **** liberty. Protect me at all costs.

As Ben said, you deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I thought conservatives were so ****ing brave. They want to send the
military in all the time.

Dollars spent per terrorist thus far: $1,200,000 each. (Just Iraq, not
DHS, Afghanistan, or other related costs)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:18 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>who did you say you were?

You scare me. I think that you want to stalk me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>>. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
>> in fighting terrorists.

>who do you recommend, the ACLU?

I thought you served. If you had, you'd know what the military is
designed to do, and what it trains for.

Since you obviously haven't served, or if you did, probably not
honorably, there's no point in discussing this with you.

Penetrating terrorist cells is not even OOTW.

Idiot.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 7:25 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>How many lives is that worth?
>
> Scott's answer: **** liberty. Protect me at all costs.
>
> As Ben said, you deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>

The ultimate goal of the terrorists is
to have a nuke blow up NYC, Washington, LA (Well, maybe
not a bad idea). Ceding that eventuality does
not advance the cause of liberty.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 8:50 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>We could never have one, The Democrats, ultra libs,
>and the ACLU will see to that!

We aren't in the majority until the mid term elections, remember?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>The ultimate goal of the terrorists is
>to have a nuke blow up NYC, Washington, LA (Well, maybe
>not a bad idea). Ceding that eventuality does
>not advance the cause of liberty.

Assuming this to be true, you (as a former military man) would
recognize that the correct counteraction would be to bear down on our
ports and borders (read the 9/11 commission's statements on this a
couple of months ago...) and perhaps even place operatives in foreign
ports.

It is pretty unlikely that a nuke is coming in on a commercial
airplane, yes?

And it also makes sense to monitor those (e.g. Iran, North Korea) that
may want to export the necessary materials.

So there is no real need to have random roving wiretaps, or to give up
civil liberties in the name of fear. That puts on on their level.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
>>> in fighting terrorists.
>
>>who do you recommend, the ACLU?
>
> I thought you served. If you had, you'd know what the military is
> designed to do, and what it trains for.
>
> Since you obviously haven't served, or if you did, probably not
> honorably, there's no point in discussing this with you.
>
> Penetrating terrorist cells is not even OOTW.
>
> Idiot.
>

Answer the question.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:13 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>I have noticed the loss.
>I am no longer allowed to privately talk to my Al-Queda
>buddies in Pakistan.

This is why you clearly need to be led by liberals.

To insure that even you have access to the things you don't
understand.;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>>The ultimate goal of the terrorists is
>>to have a nuke blow up NYC, Washington, LA (Well, maybe
>>not a bad idea). Ceding that eventuality does
>>not advance the cause of liberty.
>
> Assuming this to be true, you (as a former military man) would
> recognize that the correct counteraction would be to bear down on our
> ports and borders (read the 9/11 commission's statements on this a
> couple of months ago...) and perhaps even place operatives in foreign
> ports.
>
> It is pretty unlikely that a nuke is coming in on a commercial
> airplane, yes?
>
> And it also makes sense to monitor those (e.g. Iran, North Korea) that
> may want to export the necessary materials.
>
> So there is no real need to have random roving wiretaps, or to give up
> civil liberties in the name of fear. That puts on on their level.
>

So, you would have let them run free in their Afghani
training camps, setting the whole ting up. Nice.
So, you would put all your eggs in one basket, just trying to
stop them from getting the nuke into the country. Nice
So, you would give up the ability to secure information
about the identity of the people who were planning the attack, and
give up the ability to find out details of the plan, Nice.
So you would emasculate our intelligence gathering capabilities. Nice.

I don't think you spent 21 years in the Army, but
if you ever were in the Amy, you were no more than a Sergeant.
And, if you were in the Army, I really would worry about
the kind of people they are accepting for military service.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 8:37 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>>>who did you say you were?

>> You scare me. I think that you want to stalk me.

>More bull****.

Why else would you care?

Or are you going to postulate next that, in addition to never serving,
I really don't exist? LOL!

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 7:25 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
> >How many lives is that worth?
>
> Scott's answer: **** liberty. Protect me at all costs.

Some defender you turn out to be.

Let them die... I need my privacy.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:50 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>I think they want to be in a position to take Taiwan without fear of the >US military.

If they want to, right now they could. We don't have the manpower to
stop it. We'd have to rely on the navy and air force.

>I also think they want to be able to face down Japan over territorial
>disputes that cover some undersea gas fields.

Didin't they do that to the Phillipines a couple of years ago?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Scott's answer: **** liberty. Protect me at all costs.

>Some defender you turn out to be.

>Let them die... I need my privacy.

Losing civil liberties does not mean that you won't die. Guess what?
You will anyway.

Keeping them does not mean that you'll die either. But guess what? You
will anyway.

Being free means accepting risk. Read about Vlad the Impaler. He left a
golden cup in a town square overnight. It was still there the next day.
Very safe.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> Scott's answer: **** liberty. Protect me at all costs.
>
> >Some defender you turn out to be.
>
> >Let them die... I need my privacy.
>
> Losing civil liberties does not mean that you won't die. Guess what?
> You will anyway.
>
> Keeping them does not mean that you'll die either. But guess what? You
> will anyway.
>
> Being free means accepting risk. Read about Vlad the Impaler. He left a
> golden cup in a town square overnight. It was still there the next day.
> Very safe.

None of you acknowledged that this is in Congress hands. Rescind the
AUMF and the patriot Act and all liberties are restored.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:13 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>I have noticed the loss.
>>I am no longer allowed to privately talk to my Al-Queda
>>buddies in Pakistan.
>
> This is why you clearly need to be led by liberals.
>
> To insure that even you have access to the things you don't
> understand.;-)
>

you actually WANT us to be talking with them. Nice!



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> Or are you going to postulate next that, in addition to never serving,
> I really don't exist? LOL!


I'll leave that to Arny. He is our resident sockpuppet eggspurt.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> Being free means accepting risk. Read about Vlad the Impaler. He left a
> golden cup in a town square overnight. It was still there the next day.
> Very safe.
>

Remainig free means accepting risk.
You're the one averse to it.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:59 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>None of you acknowledged that this is in Congress hands. Rescind the
>AUMF

Pulling out now would be irresponsible. We're there for the next 10-15
years, anyway.

>and the patriot Act and all liberties are restored.

There's too much fear for that. The republicans and their propaganda
machine have seen to that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 10:34 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Remainig free means accepting risk.
>You're the one averse to it.

(Well, here's a new form of twisted logic. OK, I'll bite.)

How do you figure?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 10:24 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>>>I have noticed the loss.
>>>I am no longer allowed to privately talk to my Al-Queda
>>>buddies in Pakistan.

>> This is why you clearly need to be led by liberals.

>> To insure that even you have access to the things you don't
>> understand.;-)

>you actually WANT us to be talking with them. Nice!

Oh, I thought you were trying to be funny. You know, sarcastic.

I didn't realize that you were serious.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>> Or are you going to postulate next that, in addition to
>> never serving, I really don't exist? LOL!
>
>
> I'll leave that to Arny. He is our resident sockpuppet
> eggspurt.

Actually, the resident sockpuppet eggspurt is whoever animates George and
his siblings.

[dave weil]

On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>undeclared.

Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:59 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>None of you acknowledged that this is in Congress hands. Rescind the
>>AUMF
>
> Pulling out now would be irresponsible. We're there for the next 10-15
> years, anyway.
>
>>and the patriot Act and all liberties are restored.
>
> There's too much fear for that. The republicans and their propaganda
> machine have seen to that.


Spoken like a true military career man.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 10:34 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Remainig free means accepting risk.
>>You're the one averse to it.
>
> (Well, here's a new form of twisted logic. OK, I'll bite.)
>
> How do you figure?
>

You're right, is just handed to you on a silver platter, for eternity.



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

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:59 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>None of you acknowledged that this is in Congress hands. Rescind the
>>AUMF
>
> Pulling out now would be irresponsible. We're there for the next 10-15
> years, anyway.

As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?
>
>>and the patriot Act and all liberties are restored.
>
> There's too much fear for that.

Thanks for that bit of paranoia.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <QcIJf.1815$2c4.1374@dukeread11>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?

Test-run to show how many troops would be needed for nation-building in
Iraq...

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > There's too much fear for that. The republicans and their propaganda
> > machine have seen to that.

> Spoken like a true military career man.

Sounds like your point is that "a true military career man" would never
dare to criticize the President in his entire life. Is that what you meant?

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>undeclared.
>
> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.

Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
Japanese-American internment is really insulting
to those Japanese-Americans.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <QcIJf.1815$2c4.1374@dukeread11>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?
>
> Test-run to show how many troops would be needed for nation-building in
> Iraq...

So Bill and Hillary ARE in on the Iraq plan. I knew it.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <YIIJf.1822$2c4.516@dukeread11>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <QcIJf.1815$2c4.1374@dukeread11>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?
> >
> > Test-run to show how many troops would be needed for nation-building in
> > Iraq...
>
> So Bill and Hillary ARE in on the Iraq plan. I knew it.

The benefit was realized by the Bush administration.

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:58:25 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>undeclared.
>>
>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>
> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>to those Japanese-Americans.

You really *are* dumb, aren't you?

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:58:25 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>>undeclared.
>>>
>>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>>
>> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>>to those Japanese-Americans.
>
> You really *are* dumb, aren't you?

Auto reaction when you can't dispute the point noted.

Lets quickly pursue this intellectual thread path
you've created to it's conclusion, Ok Dave?
..no you're dumb, no YOU"RE dumb,
NO *you're* Dumb, NONONON
YOU're "dumb....nonononononono its you...
and so on.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:38:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:58:25 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>>>undeclared.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>>>
>>> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>>>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>>>to those Japanese-Americans.
>>
>> You really *are* dumb, aren't you?
>
> Auto reaction when you can't dispute the point noted.
>
>Lets quickly pursue this intellectual thread path
>you've created to it's conclusion, Ok Dave?
>.no you're dumb, no YOU"RE dumb,
>NO *you're* Dumb, NONONON
>YOU're "dumb....nonononononono its you...
>and so on.

And how many times do YOU use this tactic? I guess it's only good when
*you* use it.

Let's look at this critically then. You talk about how it's routine to
"temporarily suspend liberties" during wartime. I then bring up
perhaps the most egregious instance of doing this. You're all in favor
of doing whatever's necessary - damn the consequences because we need
to WIN. I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
that bad. It doesn't affect ME". Well, that's what Americans said
during WWII. That's what they said when Nixon used the IRS and the FBI
to chip away at people's "liberties", because we were in a multi-front
"war" (in Vietnam and on the homefront).

If you want to ignore the past, that's up to you. If you want to
justify domestic spying, that's up to you. Personally, I'm more
concerned about trying to uphold those principles that the Founding
Fathers tried to instill in their now-yellowed and faded document. The
fact that we can barely read the original doesn't mean that we
shouldn't attempt it.

I expect to simply get more class snbbery from you, since you seem to
fall back on that during every discussion that we have. C'mon, sling
another Tennessee comment my way. I'll be seeing Elvis Costello at the
Grand Ole Opry tonight with Emmylou Harris, just like I did last
night, so I think I can take it. BTW, you can listen to it on the
internet if you can stomach a little criticism of the current
administration. Frankly, I was surprised at the overwhelmingly
positive response that Costello got when he sang The Scarlet Tide (the
anti-war song that he wrote for Cold Mountain) with the new line
"Admit you lied and bring the boys back home". I was quite surprised,
since the Grand Ole Opry audience consists mostly of hard-core country
fans from all over the country (lots of tour bus groups and people
there to see Little Jimmy Dickens and Whispering Bill Anderson). After
last night, I thought to myself, "Boy, President Bush HAS really lost
the heartland on the Iraqi occupation issue", because I halfway
expected a stony silence or some scattered boos. Didn't happen at all.

Oh yeah, to go on topic, the sound was excellent as it almost always
is at the Ryman.

Looking forward to Fripp in a couple of weeks...the sound at the
Belcourt is always top-notch as well...it will be interesting whether
it will be completely solo or whether he'll bring Belew on stage (I
suspect that this will actually be a duet show). They're already
ensconsed at Belew's house, preparing for rehearsals.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:38:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:58:25 -0800, "ScottW" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On 17 Feb 2006 14:01:55 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>>>>undeclared.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>>>>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>>>>to those Japanese-Americans.
>>>
>>> You really *are* dumb, aren't you?
>>
>> Auto reaction when you can't dispute the point noted.
>>
>>Lets quickly pursue this intellectual thread path
>>you've created to it's conclusion, Ok Dave?
>>.no you're dumb, no YOU"RE dumb,
>>NO *you're* Dumb, NONONON
>>YOU're "dumb....nonononononono its you...
>>and so on.
>
> And how many times do YOU use this tactic? I guess it's only good when
> *you* use it.

Why are too lazy to substantiate your claims?
>
> Let's look at this critically then. You talk about how it's routine to
> "temporarily suspend liberties" during wartime. I then bring up
> perhaps the most egregious instance of doing this. You're all in favor
> of doing whatever's necessary - damn the consequences because we need
> to WIN.

I NEVER said that. You're endlessly misrepresenting me
to score your RAO points while all it really does is show your
own lack of moral character.


> I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
> far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
> that bad. It doesn't affect ME".

I don't think the consequences for anybody who is innocent
are all that serious. Show one instance to the contrary.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> Little Jimmy Dickens

May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
MINe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
> > Little Jimmy Dickens
>
> May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose.
>
> Stephen

May an elephant caress you with his toes. :-)

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>>>>>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>>>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>>>>>undeclared.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>>>>>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>>>>>to those Japanese-Americans.
>>>>
>>>> You really *are* dumb, aren't you?
>>>
>>> Auto reaction when you can't dispute the point noted.
>>>
>>>Lets quickly pursue this intellectual thread path
>>>you've created to it's conclusion, Ok Dave?
>>>.no you're dumb, no YOU"RE dumb,
>>>NO *you're* Dumb, NONONON
>>>YOU're "dumb....nonononononono its you...
>>>and so on.
>>
>> And how many times do YOU use this tactic? I guess it's only good when
>> *you* use it.
>
> Why are too lazy to substantiate your claims?
>>
>> Let's look at this critically then. You talk about how it's routine to
>> "temporarily suspend liberties" during wartime. I then bring up
>> perhaps the most egregious instance of doing this. You're all in favor
>> of doing whatever's necessary - damn the consequences because we need
>> to WIN.
>
>I NEVER said that.

You said, and I repeat:

" Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
undeclared".

Now, how does that substantially differ than my restatement of your
views? Are you going to try to parse this to death in order to score
some "debating trade" points? If so, then simply insert your exact
words into my statement, plugging them in for "it's routine to
'temporarily suspend liberties' during wartime" and tell me how it's
wrong to bring up Japanese internment during wartime. Well-meaning
people used the same arguments at the time as you did.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>> I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
>> far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
>> that bad. It doesn't affect ME".
>
> I don't think the consequences for anybody who is innocent
>are all that serious. Show one instance to the contrary.

I just did. In fact, I gave you several. How many of those Japanese
internees were "guilty"? How many people like Ben Bradlee deserved to
have their tax returns audited *only* because they were critical of
the Nixon Administration? How many people deserve having a Federal
officer show up at their door because they checked out a certain book
from the library as recently happened? How many civil rights leaders
deserved to be wiretapped simply because they were fighting for the
rights of their people?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:58:30 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> Little Jimmy Dickens
>
>May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose.

Damn straight!

The little fellow is pretty spry for just having turned 85.

Man, you would have loved last night show. It was so cool, even in its
old school unhipness (or perhaps because of it). Costello even got to
do a Bill Anderson song in honor of the fact that he had hosted a
previous segment. He did the song from Kojak Varieties, "Must You
Throw Dirt on My Face".

I wonder what they're going to do tonight. They opened last night with
the great Gram Parson's song, Wheels. They're going to have an hour in
the early show that's going to be televised on GAC in March (so look
for it). Sadly, I'm only going to be at the late show. I couldn't see
spending another $55 for a short segment, and yes, I chose the wrong
show. But who knows? I might get a wild hair and get a ticket outside
for the early show. I've got some friends in town for this show and
they might just convince me to go when we have dinner before the
show...

If you ever get the chance to do a Grand Ole Opry show at the Ryman,
you should do it. It's a glimpse into a simpler time and one can
almost imagine Hank Williams doing Your Cheatin' Heart while
imploding. You've got the segment hosts like Jim Ed Brown coming over
to talk to the first rows and they actually ENCOURAGE people to come
to the front and take flash pictures during the pre-broadcast
briefing. Very fan friendly. But that's how they built country music,
isn't it? Shame that rock musicians don't take a cue from this. Now,
you almost have to have a lawyer when you buy a simple ticket.

Front row ticket to the Grand Ole Opry - $55.
Seat cushion to protect tush on hard church pews - $12 (not taken by
moi, BTW)
Beer and popcorn - $7 (also not taken by moi, but taken by many)
On-stage announcers giving Martha White biscuit recipes in dulcet
mildly southern accents between songs - PRICELESS.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
>>>>>>>>liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
>>>>>>>>undeclared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, just ask Japanese-Americans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comparing NSA spying and the Patriot Act to
>>>>>>Japanese-American internment is really insulting
>>>>>>to those Japanese-Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really *are* dumb, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> Auto reaction when you can't dispute the point noted.
>>>>
>>>>Lets quickly pursue this intellectual thread path
>>>>you've created to it's conclusion, Ok Dave?
>>>>.no you're dumb, no YOU"RE dumb,
>>>>NO *you're* Dumb, NONONON
>>>>YOU're "dumb....nonononononono its you...
>>>>and so on.
>>>
>>> And how many times do YOU use this tactic? I guess it's only good when
>>> *you* use it.
>>
>> Why are too lazy to substantiate your claims?
>>>
>>> Let's look at this critically then. You talk about how it's routine to
>>> "temporarily suspend liberties" during wartime. I then bring up
>>> perhaps the most egregious instance of doing this. You're all in favor
>>> of doing whatever's necessary - damn the consequences because we need
>>> to WIN.
>>
>>I NEVER said that.
>
> You said, and I repeat:
>
> " Let me help you relax... Americans have temporarily surrendered
> liberties for safety during every war in our history, declared and
> undeclared".

So far so good.

>
> Now, how does that substantially differ than my restatement of your
> views?

Where does this fit in?

" You're all in favor of doing whatever's necessary - damn
the consequences because we need to WIN."

>Are you going to try to parse this to death in order to score
> some "debating trade" points?

Hypocrisy noted. Its you parsing your own words
to defend your statement.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>> I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
>>> far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
>>> that bad. It doesn't affect ME".
>>
>> I don't think the consequences for anybody who is innocent
>>are all that serious. Show one instance to the contrary.
>
> I just did.

I was referring to this conflict... not past history.

> In fact, I gave you several. How many of those Japanese
> internees were "guilty"? How many people like Ben Bradlee deserved to
> have their tax returns audited *only* because they were critical of
> the Nixon Administration?

Irrelevant to current events.

> How many people deserve having a Federal
> officer show up at their door because they checked out a certain book
> from the library as recently happened?

Oh my gosh... how awful having someone at their door...
Then taking a national census must be a gross violation of
everyones rights in your view.


> How many civil rights leaders
> deserved to be wiretapped simply because they were fighting for the
> rights of their people?

Irrelevant to current events.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > There's too much fear for that. The republicans and their propaganda
>> > machine have seen to that.
>
>> Spoken like a true military career man.
>
> Sounds like your point is that "a true military career man" would never
> dare to criticize the President in his entire life. Is that what you
> meant?
>

Nope



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

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:51:04 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
>>>> far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
>>>> that bad. It doesn't affect ME".
>>>
>>> I don't think the consequences for anybody who is innocent
>>>are all that serious. Show one instance to the contrary.
>>
>> I just did.
>
> I was referring to this conflict... not past history.

Gee, I thought that we were talking about the suppression of personal
liberties during wartime.

Silly me.

BTW, you might want to ask some of the detainees at Guantanamo that
are being held without the benefit of legal procedures. Of course,
you've probably pronounced each and everyone of them guilty, but the
American way is to afford people due process...

[dave weil]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:51:04 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>> In fact, I gave you several. How many of those Japanese
>> internees were "guilty"? How many people like Ben Bradlee deserved to
>> have their tax returns audited *only* because they were critical of
>> the Nixon Administration?
>
>Irrelevant to current events.

It is VERY relevant to the concern that the suppression of personal
liberties isn't as benign as you claim it is.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:51:04 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:29 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I've been saying that the suspension of liberties has
>>>>> far-reaching consequences and you've been saying, "No, it's not all
>>>>> that bad. It doesn't affect ME".
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the consequences for anybody who is innocent
>>>>are all that serious. Show one instance to the contrary.
>>>
>>> I just did.
>>
>> I was referring to this conflict... not past history.
>
> Gee, I thought that we were talking about the suppression of personal
> liberties during wartime.

This wartime...not over the course of history.
>
> Silly me.

yup

>
> BTW, you might want to ask some of the detainees at Guantanamo that
> are being held without the benefit of legal procedures. Of course,
> you've probably pronounced each and everyone of them guilty, but the
> American way is to afford people due process...

different issue I've already posted on in opposition to continued
detention at Guantanamo.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:51:04 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> In fact, I gave you several. How many of those Japanese
>>> internees were "guilty"? How many people like Ben Bradlee deserved to
>>> have their tax returns audited *only* because they were critical of
>>> the Nixon Administration?
>>
>>Irrelevant to current events.
>
> It is VERY relevant to the concern that the suppression of personal
> liberties isn't as benign as you claim it is.

Each case has to be evaluated on its own. What Nixon did
isn't relevant to what Bush is doing AFAIAC unless it
established relevant legal precedent. Did Ben Bradlees
tax audit do that?

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> MINe 109 > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> > > Little Jimmy Dickens
> >
> > May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose.

> May an elephant caress you with his toes. :-)

It took moving to Texas for me to appreciate certain forms of music!

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, you might want to ask some of the detainees at Guantanamo that
> are being held without the benefit of legal procedures. Of course,
> you've probably pronounced each and everyone of them guilty, but the
> American way is to afford people due process

This is not an exercise in criminal prosecution. They are enemy combatants.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:51:04 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> In fact, I gave you several. How many of those Japanese
>>> internees were "guilty"? How many people like Ben Bradlee deserved to
>>> have their tax returns audited *only* because they were critical of
>>> the Nixon Administration?
>>
>>Irrelevant to current events.
>
> It is VERY relevant to the concern that the suppression of personal
> liberties isn't as benign as you claim it is.


One doesn't have personal liberties to
plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.



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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > BTW, you might want to ask some of the detainees at Guantanamo that
> > are being held without the benefit of legal procedures. Of course,
> > you've probably pronounced each and everyone of them guilty, but the
> > American way is to afford people due process
>
> This is not an exercise in criminal prosecution. They are enemy combatants.

"At least" 11% of them are.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 4:33 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> Gee, I thought that we were talking about the suppression of personal
>> liberties during wartime.

>This <is, I presume you meant> wartime...not over the course of history.

Except that we aren't at war.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: MINe 109
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:05 pm
Email: MINe 109 >

>> This is not an exercise in criminal prosecution. They are enemy combatants.

>"At least" 11% of them are.

And 10 of them (over the past three years) have even been charged with
something. They must be criminals, too.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 3:51 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> How many people deserve having a Federal
>> officer show up at their door because they checked out a certain book
>> from the library as recently happened?

>Oh my gosh... how awful having someone at their door...
>Then taking a national census must be a gross violation of
>everyones rights in your view.

Are strawman arguments something that you work on, or do they just come
naturally?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:19 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>you ought to move to a nicer neighborhood.

I already live in a tony upscale neighborhood.

And no, there are no mobile home parks here, so don't even think about
moving.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:05 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>So, you would have let them run free in their Afghani
>training camps, setting the whole ting up. Nice.

Um, we have military in Afghanistan, stopping them from setting any
ting up, moron.

>So, you would put all your eggs in one basket, just trying to
>stop them from getting the nuke into the country. Nice

That was said... where?

>So, you would give up the ability to secure information
>about the identity of the people who were planning the attack, and
>give up the ability to find out details of the plan, Nice.

Via illegal wiretaps? Si. I would give that up. If that constitutes our
entire "ability to secure information" and "ability to find out details
of the plan" i hate to tell you this, slick, but we're already ****ed.

>So you would emasculate our intelligence gathering capabilities. Nice.

See above. You are a dense one.

>I don't think you spent 21 years in the Army, but
>if you ever were in the Amy, you were no more than a Sergeant.
>And, if you were in the Army, I really would worry about
>the kind of people they are accepting for military service.

Um, say, General, what rank did you hold in the military? (That is,
assuming an ignorant chickenhawk POS like you could be bothered to
serve, and could pass the test...)

I've already said what rank I retired at and what my experiences are...

So now it's *your* turn: what military experience do *you* have?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:47 am
Email: "ScottW" >

>> Pulling out now would be irresponsible. We're there for the next 10-15
>> years, anyway.

>As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?

That's a NATO mission. We're ponying up our share.

The benefit is honoring treaties and agreements with our NATO partners.

Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:19 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>you ought to move to a nicer neighborhood.
>
> I already live in a tony upscale neighborhood.
>

Who's playing at your local Legion hall this weekend?
Placido Domingo?



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> How do you figure?

>You're right,

Yes, I am. Thanks.

>is just handed to you on a silver platter, for eternity.

No, I served 21 years to help protect people's rights. I've earned my
rights. Maybe that's why I'm not too interested in ****ing them away.
If you'd ever been in the military, you'd know what that meant.

One of the questions that I had to answer for myself once I decided to
make the military a career was, "Am I willing to die for stupid people,
drunks, drug addicts, people on welfare (remember I was a republican
then), and so on?" possibly dying for friends, family, and people that
you agree with is easy. It's the others that required thought.

I decided that overall the larger picture was worth it. Yes, I would.
Fortunately, I was not called on to prove it.

So I'd have even died for you, slick. For your right to be a moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them?

>I guess I just voted for 54 billion before I voted against it!

Oh. Sorry.

I didn't realize you just swallowed propaganda whole.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them?
>
>>I guess I just voted for 54 billion before I voted against it!
>
> Oh. Sorry.
>
> I didn't realize you just swallowed propaganda whole.
>

I didn't realize you ignore your own
hypocricy.



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

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 3:51 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>> How many people deserve having a Federal
>>> officer show up at their door because they checked out a certain book
>>> from the library as recently happened?
>
>>Oh my gosh... how awful having someone at their door...
>>Then taking a national census must be a gross violation of
>>everyones rights in your view.
>
> Are strawman arguments something that you work on, or do they just come
> naturally?

Ever had a Federal officer at your day? I did once. They were background
checking a neighbor for a job in the justice dept. Should I have cringed
in horror at the blacksuits at my door? You check out a book on how to
make ricin in your kitchen I hope you get a visit.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:47 am
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>> Pulling out now would be irresponsible. We're there for the next 10-15
>>> years, anyway.
>
>>As we are in Kosovo. What was the US benefit to that BTW?
>
> That's a NATO mission. We're ponying up our share.

and Somalia was a UN mission. BFD. Didn't keep our people from dying.

>
> The benefit is honoring treaties and agreements with our NATO partners.

Honor lost on South Vietnam.

>
> Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?

Never will be with "allies" like Germany and France.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> How do you figure?
>
>>You're right,
>
> Yes, I am. Thanks.
>
>>is just handed to you on a silver platter, for eternity.
>
> No, I served 21 years to help protect people's rights. I've earned my
> rights. Maybe that's why I'm not too interested in ****ing them away.
> If you'd ever been in the military, you'd know what that meant.
>
> One of the questions that I had to answer for myself once I decided to
> make the military a career was, "Am I willing to die for stupid people,
> drunks, drug addicts, people on welfare (remember I was a republican
> then), and so on?" possibly dying for friends, family, and people that
> you agree with is easy. It's the others that required thought.

You're not completely successful with your Starship Trooper citzenship
mentality.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:53 am
Email: "ScottW" >

>You're not completely successful with your Starship Trooper citzenship
>mentality.

You messed up a perfectly good punchline.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:47:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Ever had a Federal officer at your day? I did once. They were background
>checking a neighbor for a job in the justice dept. Should I have cringed
>in horror at the blacksuits at my door?

And if they were at your neighbor's door because you had checked out a
certain book, or someone read your postings here on RAO and decided
that you were too critical of certain presidents or critical of
certain policies of the government? That you sounded just a little too
"out-of-the-mainstream" for some analyst? And right now, you might
think that you're on the side of the angels, but what happens if the
administration takes a move to the Left (a re-election). Would your
archived scathing disapproval of leftist politics possibly trigger
some harassment? And if it happened, would you simply say, "It's the
price we pay for safety"?

You might not even know that they were possibly causing suspicion of
you by your neighbors. Are you telling me that even if it was
unfounded stuff, that simply because you didn't know about it, you
wouldn't be outraged once you found out that it was happening?

Or say they went to your workplace and asked your boss some probing
questions about you based on the fact that you happened to call
overseas and used a benign phrase that triggered some algorithm in
some screening software. You wouldn't mind something like this
happening without your knowledge?

The issue isn't one of narrowness as you try to frame it. It's a
matter of broad concern.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:47:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> Ever had a Federal officer at your day? I did once. They were
>> background
>>checking a neighbor for a job in the justice dept. Should I have cringed
>>in horror at the blacksuits at my door?
>
> And if they were at your neighbor's door because you had checked out a
> certain book, or someone read your postings here on RAO and decided
> that you were too critical of certain presidents or critical of
> certain policies of the government? That you sounded just a little too
> "out-of-the-mainstream" for some analyst? And right now, you might
> think that you're on the side of the angels, but what happens if the
> administration takes a move to the Left (a re-election). Would your
> archived scathing disapproval of leftist politics possibly trigger
> some harassment? And if it happened, would you simply say, "It's the
> price we pay for safety"?
>
> You might not even know that they were possibly causing suspicion of
> you by your neighbors. Are you telling me that even if it was
> unfounded stuff, that simply because you didn't know about it, you
> wouldn't be outraged once you found out that it was happening?
>
> Or say they went to your workplace and asked your boss some probing
> questions about you based on the fact that you happened to call
> overseas and used a benign phrase that triggered some algorithm in
> some screening software. You wouldn't mind something like this
> happening without your knowledge?

You suffer some deep seated paranoia. You sure you aren't
upto something... questionable?

I'll bet black and silent helicopters are keeping an eye on your
house, aren't they Dave.

>
> The issue isn't one of narrowness as you try to frame it. It's a
> matter of broad concern.

Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

If we knew a nuke was within our shores would you
ok dometic spying? I'd turn the NSA comupters lose on
every phone call made to anyone anywhere.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>Ever had a Federal officer at your day? I did once. They were background
>checking a neighbor for a job in the justice dept. Should I have cringed
>in horror at the blacksuits at my door?

I've had the feds check me out very thoroughly. That's part of the deal
when you apply for certain jobs, or need a certain military security
clearance. Invalid comparison. Just as the census is. Once again, you
(and slick) offer an unintelligent bull**** argument in response.

>You check out a book on how to make ricin in your kitchen I hope you get a visit.

They have books like that at your local library? They don't here. Or is
this another bull**** argument?;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
>adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
>civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
at all costs."

Please make up your mind. Yesterday you actually indicated that you had
a backbone. Now, poof! it's gone again.

You really do not give a **** about your (or anybody else's) civil
liberties. You are yellow in the face of any danger. You want your
nice, cozy little life uninterrupted, and worse, you want somebody else
to risk their necks to protect it for you.

Did you know Ben Franklin? I think he wrote that quote with you in
mind. You deserve neither liberty or safety.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter
>> than you.

>You lose points for taking this long to figure this out.

Oh, I figured that out a while ago. I was hoping that I was wrong.

>Strip away the neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.

Sackman? Did you come up with this one because he's so blind it's like
he has a bag over his head?

Anyway, LOL! That's a good one!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>One doesn't have personal liberties to
>plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.

So *that's* what you've been up to.

No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.

Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
capability.

Bravo!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to the Big ****:

> >Strip away the neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.
>
> Sackman? Did you come up with this one because he's so blind it's like
> he has a bag over his head?
>
> Anyway, LOL! That's a good one!

Pity the witless, for they know not what they do......

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?

>Never will be with "allies" like Germany and France.

The Germans are in Afghanistan, as are Canada and several other nations
we berated for not following our bidding in going to Iraq. I'm not sure
about France.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0625a.htm

"Allies" have their own soveriegn nations, and they get to make up
their own minds based on their intelligence estimates and a review of
their options.

Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
> Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.

Let's guess at the real reason(s) Dubya invaded Iraq. My fave (not bruited
much in the mainstream media) was to stifle Saddam's financing of
Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>One doesn't have personal liberties to
>>plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.
>
> So *that's* what you've been up to.
>
> No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
> 'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
> deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
> doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.
>
> Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
> self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
> capability.
>
> Bravo!
>



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>One doesn't have personal liberties to
>>plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.
>
> So *that's* what you've been up to.
>
> No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
> 'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
> deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
> doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.
>
> Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
> self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
> capability.
>
> Bravo!
>

the bull**** gets piled higher and deeper.



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

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
>>adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
>>civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.
>
> In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
> at all costs."

Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?
>
> >Never will be with "allies" like Germany and France.
>
> The Germans are in Afghanistan, as are Canada and several other nations
> we berated for not following our bidding in going to Iraq. I'm not sure
> about France.
>
> http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0625a.htm
>
> "Allies" have their own soveriegn nations, and they get to make up
> their own minds based on their intelligence estimates and a review of
> their options.
>
> Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.

So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
proof
it will be to save your ass from WMD.

As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.

Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why? Why not Iraq?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
>proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.

What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives. Then, after one reason
doesn't come through, to change the focus for political reasons, rather
than reality, all the while with people in the line of fire.

I have been trained to analyze a mission, and virtually every component
necessary to accomplish that mission, in extreme detail. When doing so
in a situation like this, looking at second, third, and fourth order
effects is also necessary. This administration, in all cases, either
did not do so, or ignored the opinions and expertise of those who did.

There is no evidence now, nor was there then, that a delay in combat
operations of a few weeks or months would have led to an attack. Even
then there was no "If we don't do it now, we'll get hit immediately."
Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

>As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.

Another bull**** argument. Why?

>Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why?

Not only in Kosovo, but Bosnia and Afghanistan too. Even Darfur. I've
already explained why. They are not apples to apples vis Iraq. I
would've thought that you were bright enough to see that and to know
why.

>Why not Iraq?

Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

See above: poor planning, poor reasoning, poor intelligence, going it
alone unnecessarily, ignoring the UN (yeah, yeah, I know: the UN
sucks.), civilians basically over-ruling the military on needs (I refer
you back to Wolfowitz's statements on Shinseki's estimates as an
example), misuse of assets, bad decisions in the post-combat phases,
and so on. No big deal.

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
>>proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.
>
> What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
> reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.

Sounds like Kosovo to me.

>Then, after one reason
> doesn't come through, to change the focus for political reasons, rather
> than reality, all the while with people in the line of fire.
>
> I have been trained to analyze a mission, and virtually every component
> necessary to accomplish that mission, in extreme detail. When doing so
> in a situation like this, looking at second, third, and fourth order
> effects is also necessary. This administration, in all cases, either
> did not do so, or ignored the opinions and expertise of those who did.
>
> There is no evidence now, nor was there then, that a delay in combat
> operations of a few weeks or months would have led to an attack. Even
> then there was no "If we don't do it now, we'll get hit immediately."
> Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
> resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?
>
>>As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.
>
> Another bull**** argument. Why?
>
>>Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why?
>
> Not only in Kosovo, but Bosnia and Afghanistan too. Even Darfur. I've
> already explained why. They are not apples to apples vis Iraq.

Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
and sits under the MSM radar.

> I
> would've thought that you were bright enough to see that and to know
> why.
>
>>Why not Iraq?
>
> Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
> dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
support forever.

>
> See above: poor planning, poor reasoning, poor intelligence, going it
> alone unnecessarily, ignoring the UN (yeah, yeah, I know: the UN
> sucks.), civilians basically over-ruling the military on needs (I refer
> you back to Wolfowitz's statements on Shinseki's estimates as an
> example), misuse of assets, bad decisions in the post-combat phases,
> and so on. No big deal.
>
> Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
> baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
> sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
basis. Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?
How about Panama?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Shhhh! said:
>
>> Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
>> Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.
>
> Let's guess at the real reason(s) Dubya invaded Iraq. My fave (not bruited
> much in the mainstream media) was to stifle Saddam's financing of
> Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
>

Too good a reason to keep secret.



--
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:9g9Kf.10921$2c4.6305@dukeread11...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> From: ScottW
>> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
>> Email: "ScottW" >
>>
>>>Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
>>>adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
>>>civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.
>>
>> In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
>> at all costs."
>
> Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.
>
> ScottW
>



--
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:9g9Kf.10921$2c4.6305@dukeread11...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> From: ScottW
>> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
>> Email: "ScottW" >
>>
>>>Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
>>>adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
>>>civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.
>>
>> In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
>> at all costs."
>
> Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.
>

I don't think he's old enough.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
>>proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.
>
>
> Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
> baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
> sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.
>

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.



--
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:

> > Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
> > baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
> > sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

> No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
to further our interests?

Wait, I lost track of who said what....

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
>> > baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
>> > sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.
>
>> No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.
>
> What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
> to further our interests?
>
> Wait, I lost track of who said what....
>

Looks that way to me.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
>> reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.

>Sounds like Kosovo to me.

Kosovo is a spillover from Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and the
disintegration of Yugoslavia. Read up on Milosevic, Mladic, Karadic,
Govina, and the rest.

>> Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
>> resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

>What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?

Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

In the eyes of much of the world, bushie wanted to rush in. Other
nations apparently conserve their troops and national wealth better
than we do. What could have changed is the opinions of some of the
other nations, like Germany and France, about committing their
resources to assist. It may not have (we'll never know) but the
situation in Iraq would've very likely not changed in the meantime.

>Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
>and sits under the MSM radar.

Serbs tend to be paranoid. Perhaps they have reason to be. But
Milosevic was strictly on a land-grab as Yugoslavia fell apart. He
ended up with 51% of Bosnian territory when Bosnian Serbs constituted
about 35% of the population. They also kicked out the Croats and
Bosnian Muslims. Kosovo is an extention of that.

>> Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
>> dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

>I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
>support forever.

I think that you're dreaming re: Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
strongly doubt it.

Kosovo will probably turn in to an EU mission like Bosnia did last
year.

>Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
>basis.

So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

>Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?

In that the US government launched an attack and escalated a war based
entirely on poor intelligence, lies and distortions, and that they made
the data fit what they wanted, they are the same. You are exactly
correct:

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

>How about Panama?

Fair enough. Like father, like son.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:51 pm
Email: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net>

>What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
>to further our interests?

>Wait, I lost track of who said what....

I said that. Scott pointed out Panama.

You're both correct. Mexico was, I think, 1846. We weren't the biggest
and baddest then, but the principle is correct. We got most of the
southwest in that one. I'd forgotten about Panama. Might as well throw
Grenada in there too, which I had also forgotten about.

<insert Scott's line here about my 'falsehoods' and 'lies'...>

Somalia was a part of a UN security mission to insure that humanitarian
aid could get through. I'm not aware of what US interests were there.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick - view profile
> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:15 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
>>> baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
>>> sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.
>
>>No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.
>
> You're probably aware of 'measured response.'


we coudn't locate their aspirin factory.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 12:17 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>>>No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

>> You're probably aware of 'measured response.'

>we coudn't locate their aspirin factory.

Apparently we couldn't locate their AA batteries either.

Funny, what with AWACS and JSTARS, and the radar and ECM capabilities
of US aircraft and all...

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: George M. Middius
> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:51 pm
> Email: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net>
>
>>What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
>>to further our interests?
>
>>Wait, I lost track of who said what....
>
> I said that. Scott pointed out Panama.
>
> You're both correct. Mexico was, I think, 1846. We weren't the biggest
> and baddest then, but the principle is correct. We got most of the
> southwest in that one. I'd forgotten about Panama. Might as well throw
> Grenada in there too, which I had also forgotten about.

I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
who had taken over....

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick - view profile
> Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:15 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
>>> baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
>>> sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.
>
>>No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.
>
> You're probably aware of 'measured response.' After all, you seem to be
> somewhat of a military expert, yes?

I'm also aware of impotent response as demonstrated by Clinton.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
>>> reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.
>
>>Sounds like Kosovo to me.
>
> Kosovo is a spillover from Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and the
> disintegration of Yugoslavia. Read up on Milosevic, Mladic, Karadic,
> Govina, and the rest.
>
>>> Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
>>> resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.
>
>>What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?
>
> Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

What rush... we spent years on this... and then there's the stupid game of
brinkmanship Saddam so loved. You get all your troops in position
and spent millions on deployment and at the last interest I'll declare
a desire to negotiate. Iran is playing that game now.
>
> In the eyes of much of the world, bushie wanted to rush in. Other
> nations apparently conserve their troops and national wealth better
> than we do. What could have changed is the opinions of some of the
> other nations, like Germany and France, about committing their
> resources to assist.

How many times does France have to say "never" before you
guys will believe them?

>It may not have (we'll never know) but the
> situation in Iraq would've very likely not changed in the meantime.
>
>>Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
>>and sits under the MSM radar.
>
> Serbs tend to be paranoid. Perhaps they have reason to be. But
> Milosevic was strictly on a land-grab as Yugoslavia fell apart. He
> ended up with 51% of Bosnian territory when Bosnian Serbs constituted
> about 35% of the population. They also kicked out the Croats and
> Bosnian Muslims. Kosovo is an extention of that.

For 20 years before Milosovich the KLA undertook a campaign
of murder against Serb officials killing police, judges, elected officials
and even simple teachers. The Albanian population refused to help
enforce the laws and keep the peace.
What is a nation to do in a case like this?

Milosovich did use this to create nationlist support for him but in the
end he was right. He said if Serbia doesn't enforce the law in Kosovo
and force the Albanians out... Kosovo would be lost to Serbia.
>
>>> Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
>>> dollars, anyway, so does it matter?
>
>>I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
>>support forever.
>
> I think that you're dreaming re: Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
> strongly doubt it.

In 3 years the cut and run crowd will have swayed US public
opinion. As I said before... as a nation we can only be trusted
until the next election.

>
> Kosovo will probably turn in to an EU mission like Bosnia did last
> year.
>
>>Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
>>basis.
>
> So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
> shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

Because they remain a protectorate of China.
Don't you remember how the Korean war hostilities ended?

>
>>Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?
>
> In that the US government launched an attack and escalated a war based
> entirely on poor intelligence, lies and distortions, and that they made
> the data fit what they wanted, they are the same. You are exactly
> correct:
>
> http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm
>
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
>
>>How about Panama?
>
> Fair enough. Like father, like son.

Clinton actually engaged in for more military incursions than Bush Sr.
though they were all on a smaller scale and all but the Baltic campaigns
ended up with little or no consequence.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:07 am
Email: "ScottW" >

>I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
>who had taken over....

But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
college students being in danger, IIRC.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:07 am
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
>>who had taken over....
>
> But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
> college students being in danger, IIRC.

I guess that puts every UN peace keeping we ever supported militarily
also applies. Sounds like your reputation you so desperately wanted to
preserve has even less basis than you thought.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
>> college students being in danger, IIRC.

>I guess that puts every UN peace keeping we ever supported militarily
>also applies. Sounds like your reputation you so desperately wanted to
>preserve has even less basis than you thought.

Another false argument. Why?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>How many times does France have to say "never" before you
>guys will believe them?

Who cares about France? They get to do what they do. What about the
rest of the world? Bush's approach was, and is, ****ed up.

>Milosovich did use this to create nationlist support for him but in the
>end he was right. He said if Serbia doesn't enforce the law in Kosovo
>and force the Albanians out... Kosovo would be lost to Serbia.

Then I presume that Carla de Ponte's court will acquit him.

> I think that you're dreaming re: Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
> strongly doubt it.

>In 3 years the cut and run crowd will have swayed US public
>opinion. As I said before... as a nation we can only be trusted
>until the next election.

Again with the spin machine terminology. Makes you sound dumb, you
know...

If this administration was really worried about it, they'd come out and
say, "You know what? This will take as long as it will take. It could
be 10 years."

They do not have the capability to be honest with the people though.
And they're really worried about the mid-terms now.

>> Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

>What rush... we spent years on this... and then there's the stupid game of
>brinkmanship Saddam so loved. You get all your troops in position
>and spent millions on deployment and at the last interest I'll declare
>a desire to negotiate. Iran is playing that game now.

The UN weapons inspector asked for six more months, IIRC. There was no
reason to rush. We could have given that up and still accomplished what
we wanted had it been necessary. Yup, even if we had worked on it for
years.

>> So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
>> shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

>Because they remain a protectorate of China.
>Don't you remember how the Korean war hostilities ended?

Thus your argument is, "No-fly zone infractions are justification for
invading Iraq (because we could get away with it) but DMZ infractions,
counterfeiting, and a *verified* nuclear program are not justification
in the case of North Korea (because we couldn't).

That about it?

>Clinton actually engaged in for more military incursions than Bush Sr.
>though they were all on a smaller scale and all but the Baltic campaigns
>ended up with little or no consequence.

By the way, we didn't occupy Grenada or Panama for any significant
amount of time.

I'm not against using the military, I'm against misusing it and then
lying about it.

I note that your Tonkin comparison goes unmentioned. Didn't that show
us what you wanted it to?;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:51 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>Nothing false about it.
>You set the criteria of provocation. I doesn't hold in most instances of
>US use of military force.

Actually, it does.

My, just when I think that you have a brain, reality sets back in.

Missions in conjunction with the UN or NATO, or as a result of honoring
a treaty for that matter, are not true invasions of a sovereign nation
like when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. Little blips like Grenada
were probably more for political show. Perhaps I should've seperated
'republican' from 'Democrat.'

Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

You can tell the difference, can't you?

We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam. One side wanted us
there. That's really not that much different from the French siding
with us during our revolution. (Say, you *do* remember as you berate
the French that there would be no USA if not for them?).

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:51 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>Nothing false about it.
>>You set the criteria of provocation. I doesn't hold in most instances of
>>US use of military force.
>
> Actually, it does.
>
> My, just when I think that you have a brain, reality sets back in.

Just when I think you had a point, facts get in the way.

>
> Missions in conjunction with the UN or NATO, or as a result of honoring
> a treaty for that matter, are not true invasions of a sovereign nation
> like when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. Little blips like Grenada
> were probably more for political show. Perhaps I should've seperated
> 'republican' from 'Democrat.'
>
> Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
first so I would say yes.

>
> You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
> exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
> invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

I'M stupid because YOU can't support your arguments with facts.


>
> You can tell the difference, can't you?
>
> We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam.

Nonsense.. Korea was divided into occupation zones.
This was the first proxy war in the cold war.
Civil war had little to do with it.

Once again you need to get your facts straight.


> One side wanted us
> there. That's really not that much different from the French siding
> with us during our revolution. (Say, you *do* remember as you berate
> the French that there would be no USA if not for them?).

We paid them back 100 fold in 2 world wars.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:14 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

>Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
>first so I would say yes.

My point exactly: we were provoked. I'm talking unprovoked invasion, as
I have been all along. We didn't do it. I don't like the fact that we
now have.

Neither world war fits. Korea doesn't fit. Vietnam doesn't fit (even
with the Gulf of Tonkin ****ups we did not invade South Vietnam).
Strictly speaking, Grenada doesn't fit, although I am willing to give
you that one, and I was the one that reminded you of it. And I was
wrong: Panama actually *doesn't* fit:

"On December 15, 1989, Noriega sought and was given by the legislature
the title of chief executive officer of the government. The Noriega-led
assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed.
The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer
dressed in civilian clothes."

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/panamaus1989.htm

So Noriega declared war on us. A dead Marine. Provocation? I'd say yes.

>> We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam.

>Nonsense.. Korea was divided into occupation zones.
>This was the first proxy war in the cold war.
>Civil war had little to do with it.

>Once again you need to get your facts straight.

We were administering (responsible for) South Korea after WWII. Russia
was administering (responsible for) North Korea. North Korea attacked
South Korea. Both Korean leaders wanted to rejoin the halves of their
country under their forms of government. Essentially a civil war. Yes,
there were both Cold War and anti-Communism components. We did not,
however, 'invade' unprovoked.

Mr. Middius brought up the Mexican War. Valid, but if you remember, my
point was that when we were, or since we have been, the biggest,
baddest military on Earth we have not attacked a sovereign nation
unprovoked. I stand by that statement.

Going back that far, BTW, I am also not very proud of the US Army's
role against the Native Americans during the mid-to-late 1800s.

It would appear my facts are straighter than you thought. Certainly far
straighter than yours.

>> You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
>> exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
>> invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

>I'M stupid because YOU can't support your arguments with facts.

As you said, you're stupid. Research your facts better.

>We paid them [France] back 100 fold in 2 world wars.

Actually, we entered WWI very late. The Brits and the French had been
fighting for over three years before we got there (with any numbers) in
the summer of 1918. And if we were honest (and not to downplay our
overall contribution) the Russians had far more to do with European
victory in WWII than we did. Unfortunately for accurate history, their
huge contribution was probably downplayed due to the Cold War. They'd
been fighting for well over a year before we became involved in the
war, and for over four by the time of the Normandy invasion. Patton's
3rd Army raced through an empty shell that was basically stripped to
face the Russian onslaught. Germans surrendered in huge numbers to us
rather than to the Russians, who showed far less mercy to the captives.

So we paid the French back in WWII. They owe us nothing, and we owe
them nothing. Sounds about right. So why whine about their refusal to
do our (actually bushie's) bidding?

Say, speaking of getting facts straight, shall we start a separate
thread on the Gulf of Tonkin?;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:09 am
Email: "ScottW" >

>> You're probably aware of 'measured response.' After all, you seem to be
>> somewhat of a military expert, yes?

>I'm also aware of impotent response as demonstrated by Clinton.

Exactly what would you have done differently?

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:14 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>> Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.
>
>>Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
>>first so I would say yes.
>
> My point exactly: we were provoked. I'm talking unprovoked invasion, as
> I have been all along. We didn't do it. I don't like the fact that we
> now have.

Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
100 years.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

You now have a lot of homework to do.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:53 am
Email: "ScottW" >

>Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
>first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
>100 years.

Spinning? Here is *exactly* what I said:

"Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more."

Now, if you go back to any time prior to WWII, we most assuredly did
*not* have the "biggest,
baddest military on Earth." So I made a claim, stand by it, prove that
you're wrong, and *I'm* the one spinning? LOL!

I gave you Grenada. I had quite frankly forgotten about that, and
admitted as much. Further, in an effort at honest discourse *I* was the
one that brought it up. That's the only 'invasion' mentioned in your
list since WWII. Name one other nation that we have invaded without
provocation since the US became the "biggest, baddest military on
Earth."

Even the URL you give says 'interventions' and not 'invasions.' I see
no unprovoked 'invasion' on your list, and certainly none since 1930,
when we had an outdated, understrength, under-equipped military by any
measure. We have been a world military power since WWII.

The following is a partial list of U.S. military *interventions* from
1890 to 1999.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

>You now have a lot of homework to do.

Not really.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: ScottW
> Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:53 am
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
> >Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
> >first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
> >100 years.
>
> Spinning? Here is *exactly* what I said:
>
> "Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
> baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
> sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more."
>
> Now, if you go back to any time prior to WWII, we most assuredly did
> *not* have the "biggest,
> baddest military on Earth." So I made a claim, stand by it, prove that
> you're wrong, and *I'm* the one spinning? LOL!
>
> I gave you Grenada. I had quite frankly forgotten about that, and
> admitted as much.

Let me get this straight. You made a claim...you stand by your
claim,
you proved I am wrong disputing your claim,
but you give me Grenada. Ok.


> Further, in an effort at honest discourse *I* was the
> one that brought it up. That's the only 'invasion' mentioned in your
> list since WWII. Name one other nation that we have invaded without
> provocation since the US became the "biggest, baddest military on
> Earth."

Why just on earth.. clearly many of out incursions were western
hemisphere (our backyard) actions and we were clearly the biggest and
baddest in the western hemisphere since long before WWII. In fact...
due to the difficulties in projecting power...one could easily argue
that we were the biggest and baddest in the western hemisphere of all
the countries on earth since before WWI.

We also clearly differ on the meaning of provocation.
I think Saddam provided plenty of provocation.

>
> Even the URL you give says 'interventions' and not 'invasions.'

Semantics.... now you must define invasion for us.
Any military incursion inside their borders? How about air space?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:05 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>Semantics.... now you must define invasion for us.
>Any military incursion inside their borders? How about air space?

Actually, I do not have to define anything for 'us.' In fact, there is
nothing that I 'must' do for you, 'us' or anybody else.

If you want to, why don't you define 'invasion' for 'us'?

Scott, without getting lost in minutiae and arguing about whatever
happened on April 3rd 1946 at 12:00, as is the typical response to any
claim or argument made on r.a.o that I've seen, and which is also the
track you are very much trying to go down here, the point is this:

Unlike the Roman, Macedonians, Greeks, Norse, Spanish, British, French,
Germans, or any other 'empire' down throught the ages, we have not,
until now, tried to invade other nation-states to militarily conquer
other lands to make them bend to our will. We changed from the War
Department to the Department of Defense. That, to me, was more than
just a symbolic name change. We should change it back.

You, on the other hand, want to claim that actions such as this:

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants
harbor mines against revolution.

are exactly the same. I disagree.

You believe whatever you wish. I find this much more interesting than
debating minutiae with you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11467986/

Particularly this quote:

At any rate, the school isn't just about operating in Iraq, Short said,
but about preparing officers for the rest of their careers. "I think
*we're going to be in more of these wars*," he said. (Emphasis mine.)

So my point, before it gets lost in a boring (I should say *more*
boring) debate with you about what constitutes an invasion vs. another
operation in your mind, is this: we have, as a nation and a military,
turned a corner that I disagree with. That was what I said. That was
what I meant. That was, in part, why I chose to retire when I did. And
I stand by that statement.

On the bright side, another point that I've made is that the military
is very ill-suited to these missions. It appears that, after three
years, they're starting to figure that out. Unfortunately, as the
article says, in order to do the job right, we have to leave our bases.
That is without question true, but that also exposes the troops to
higher levels of danger.

So Scott, you go on your merry little way and argue that the US has
acted exactly the same as the previous empire-building nations that
have had the biggest, baddest militaries on Earth have acted down
through history. I don't think that we have in the past. I think we are
starting to now. You disagree. I predict the results will be the same
for us. You probably think that we will somehow get a different result
from what history has shown, just as rummy thinks that new weapons mean
the underlying concepts of warfare have changed.

Whatever.

Now, you get the final word, and you can even declare 'victory' if you
want to. How's that for being agreeable?