| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
American Conservative comments on our insane leadership
Radical Son
Bush may not have read Dostoyevsky—but his speechwriters have. by Justin Raimondo In a world aflame with war and terrorism, George W. Bush’s second inaugural address was a match flung onto an oil slick. By the time his 17-minute peroration reached midpoint, it was clear that was his intention: Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world. “A fire in the mind”—such a felicitous phrase. It aptly and succinctly describes the feverish mental state of our neoconservative policymakers, who set out to build an empire in the Middle East and now, with this speech, clearly envision much more. It also describes the mental state of some of the characters in Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed (or The Devils), from which the fiery metaphor is taken. Michael Barone pointed out the allusion in his U.S. News column, wherein he described Dostoyevsky’s work as “a novel about a provincial town inspired by new revolutionary ideas. After a turbulent literary evening, a fire breaks out, and one townsman says, ‘The fire is in the minds of men, not in the roofs of buildings.’” Well, not quite. The novel is about a group of revolutionaries who plot the destruction of a small provincial town—and, by extension, the whole of Russia and of human civilization. The intricate plot involves the governor of the province, who is continually beset by his wife and her liberal intellectual friends: they take up fashionably radical ideas almost, it seems, just to show him up as a bore. Members of this devilish clique have insinuated themselves into the higher social circles and, Rasputin-like, have bewitched the governor’s wife and high society in general, all the while plotting and scheming behind the scenes. The governor is subtly provoked into cracking down on rebellious workers, the rabble rises up in the midst of a bizarre fete given by the governor’s vacuous wife, and the town is burned to the ground. The scene from which Bush’s fiery call to arms is taken finds the narrator discovering the governor in the midst of this chaotic scene, gesticulating and shouting at a building consumed by the blaze: ‘It’s all incendiarism! It’s nihilism! If anything is burning, it’s nihilism!’ I heard almost with horror; and though there was nothing to be surprised at, yet actual madness, when one sees it, always gives one a shock. Ignoring the pleas of his subordinates to get to safety, the half-mad governor continues on with his soliloquy: ‘They will wipe away the tears of the people whose houses have been burnt, but they will burn down the town. It’s all the work of four scoundrels, four and a half! Arrest the scoundrel! He worms himself into the honor of families. …It’s vile, vile!’ Suddenly noticing a fireman at the top of the burning lodge, he asks: ‘What is he doing there?’ ‘He is putting the fire out, your Excellency.’ ‘Not likely. The fire is in the minds of men and not in the roofs of houses. Pull him down and give it up! Better give it up, much better! Let it put itself out.’ The fire does not break out as a result of spontaneous combustion, as Barone seems to imply: it is deliberately set by disgruntled workers acting under the influence of a nihilistic cabal. This is meant to dramatize Dostoyevsky’s view of the Russian revolutionaries of his time, whom he saw as possessed by a desire to destroy and little else. In any case, the borrowed imagery is far from obscure. Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith is the title of a classic study of 19th-century radicalism by James H. Billington, now the Librarian of Congress. Certainly none of this was unknown to the men who shaped this speech —not counting the man who delivered it. The Los Angeles Times reported: White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson held a two-hour seminar with a panel of foreign policy scholars, including several leading neocons—newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution—according to a person who was present. The Washington Post reported that Bill Kristol also coached Bush on the speech. These four neoconservative ideologues, presided over by Rove, are the 21st-century equivalent of Dostoyevsky’s revolutionary devils—and, what’s more, they seem to know it. As Dostoyevsky put it: “It’s all the work of four scoundrels, four and a half!” A prophetic sentence, that. Bush’s peroration was suffused with fire, it burned with the steely-eyed fanaticism of the ideologues who forged it, full of phrases that soared so far above the real world that a good many listeners had trouble believing their ears. Does the president seriously believe “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands”? Surely he didn’t really mean to explain away the exponential expansion of big government in America as due to the lack of civil liberties in, say, the former Soviet Union or the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia? The war-weary wondered, at home and abroad, as they listened to the most powerful man on earth enunciate his militant doctrine: what new conflict will erupt as a result of a crusade to accelerate “the expansion of freedom in all the world”? What else could be the meaning of a pledge “to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”? In a vain attempt to reassure the panicked, Bush senior made a rare intervention. “People want to read a lot into it,” he said, “that this means new aggression or newly assertive military forces. That’s not what that speech is about. It’s about freedom.” In other words, it’s all talk and no action. But there is already plenty of action going on in Iraq and good reason to expect more. Rumors of war with Iran are persistent and credible. Seymour Hersh, whose record has been pretty good so far, reports that U.S. operatives are already penetrating Iranian territory in search of Tehran’s elusive nukes. And in Eastern Europe, on the far frontier of what used to be the heartland of the old Russian empire, a Western-financed “orange revolution” is engineered by a coalition of the U.S. and an expansionist European super-state, while NATO edges closer to the gates of Moscow. In Dostoyevsky’s day, urban radicals influenced by Marx and emboldened by Bakunin went out into the countryside proclaiming the doctrines of socialism and syndicalist anarchism, to little effect. They committed sporadic acts of spectacular violence and functioned roughly. Such groups as the Narodnaya Volya (Peoples’ Will), whose militants assassinated two Russian czars, were 19th-century versions of al-Qaeda. Dostoyevsky’s novel is a dark chronicle of the psychology that energized their terroristic brand of nihilism. The “fire in the minds of men” eventually engulfed all Russia; The Possessed bitterly foreshadowed the red inferno of the 1917 revolution. That a phrase torn from its entrails should augur a new worldwide revolutionary movement seems almost like payback for the author’s notoriously “reactionary” views. Yet it does seem as if the new militants are following in the footsteps of Dostoyevsky’s original models, venturing out from the Western metropolis into the countryside of the world, bent on “liberating” poor oppressed peasants who languish in premodernity. That they would meet with the same overt hostility that greeted the Narodniks of yesteryear was all too predictable. As Russell Kirk warned in a 1990 speech: A politicized American army operating abroad would be no more popular … than the Red Army has been. An imposed or induced abstract democracy thrust upon peoples unprepared for it would produce at first anarchy, and then—as in nearly all of ‘emergent’ Africa, over the past four decades —rule by force and a master. The neocons, who revile Kirk’s memory on account of this scolding, threw their hats in the air as Bush embraced their core agenda. “This is real neoconservatism,” Robert Kagan exulted to the Los Angeles Times. “It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong.” Others were not so ebullient. “If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House,” said Nixon Center president Dimitri Simes. “I hope and pray that he didn’t mean it … [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy.” William F. Buckley Jr. pronounced the speech “confusing.” Aside from being “an improvisation,” it was also embarrassingly ungrammatical: “Mr. Bush said that ‘whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.’ You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny.” The speech was, in Buckley’s view, bad policy as well as execrable grammar: “What about China? Is it U.S. policy to importune Chinese dissidents ‘to start on this journey of progress and justice’? How will we manifest our readiness to ‘walk at [their] side?’” If the National Endowment for Democracy isn’t already on the job, the president’s recent pronouncements are bound to direct their efforts in China’s direction. Professor Claes Ryn saw where all this was leading, and he put it quite well in his 2004 address to the Philadelphia Society: The notion that America knows better than all other nations and has a right to dictate terms to them betrays a monumental conceit. It also guarantees that other nations will see a need to arm themselves just to have some protection against American bullying. … China, which has long found Western hegemony intolerable and is already strongly prone to nationalism, can be expected to respond to American assertiveness by greatly expanding its military power. If present trends continue, the time should soon be ripe—in 50 years perhaps?—for a horrendous Sino-American confrontation. Nothing is “too massive a challenge to our liberationist policy” that it dwarfs the monumental edifice of the liberationists’ conceit. Yes, but “what about Saudi Arabia?” asks Buckley. “Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?” I would think that the real objective is to seize it. Peggy Noonan found the speech “startling,” and confessed it left her “with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike” evoked by such grandiose phrases as “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” This, she averred “is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not… have a case of what I have called in the past ‘mission inebriation.’ A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.” Drunk with power, flush with Pyrrhic victories, and convinced that they are on the right side of history, the “mission inebriation” that bedevils this administration is Ms. Noonan’s polite way of describing megalomania. The defining characteristic of what Ryn calls the “imperialistic personality” is a monumental conceit: it is the same will to dominate that drove the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the 19th-century followers of the nihilist Sergei Nechaev, upon whom the author of The Possessed modeled his characters. That American policymakers will likely end up like Dostoyevsky’s revolutionary conspirators —increasingly committed to state terrorism in pursuit of some utopian vision—seems horribly and tragically inevitable. __________________________________________________ ____ amconmag |
That's right Dave, you big pussy! We're going to beat freedom and liberty right into these heathen *******s who treat their women like **** and spew vile intolerant hatred wile terrorizing the innocent and depriving their fellow man of their given rights. You like em so much Dave, go live with them. C.A. |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:17:13 GMT, David wrote:
Radical Son snip David, Would you please stop posting all these articles. Those who seek information on current political information can find it quite well with the multitude of sources online, various written news outles and over-the-air broadcast. This group has been fairly quiet lately in terms of OT posts and political threads that escalate into senseless name-calling and bickering - your posts only serve as a catalyst for "newsgroup mayhem" to return to r.r.s. I have read your on-topic posts and you are capable of being a sound contributor to the topic of this newsgroup; please exercise that option in future postings. Thank You, Howard |
Bush may not have read Dostoyevsky-but his speechwriters have. I wouldn't bet money on it. Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation When American soldiers plunder, they say they are "liberating" the goodies. Members of this devilish clique have insinuated themselves into the higher social circles and, Rasputin-like, Rasputin was a religious fanatic and 'prophet'. Don't underestimate the possibility of a *real* Rasputin telling Bush "God wants you to invade Afghanistan; Iraq; Iran; Syria...! God wants you to kill the heathen!" I long to read the Secret History that gives all the gory details. These four neoconservative ideologues, presided over by Rove, are the 21st-century equivalent of Dostoyevsky's revolutionary devils The Thucydides, the Tacitus, of the Bush administration will have to explain the strange alliance between the neocons and the religious right. Is it just a common lust to dominate? Anti-Muslim prejudice? US Messianism? Beats me. the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia? It's hard to imagine Bush as a feminist! Anyway, aren't the problems of men and women the same everywhere? "the expansion of freedom in all the world".... the growth of democratic movements ... ending tyranny in our world"? An honest Bu****e definition of "freedom," "democracy," "tyranny" would be very interesting. Probably it amounts to Bush getting his own way at all times. If present trends continue, the time should soon be ripe-in 50 years perhaps?-for a horrendous Sino-American confrontation. Some End Times teachers believe that the Book of Revelation predicts an inevitable war between the US and China. ch. 9: 15-17 speaks of an army of 200 million men, and, according to the teachers, this can only be China. Attacking China would be like Napoleon attacking Russia. Ordinary Chinese people are not very aggressive, but they are stubborn. hat American policymakers will likely end up like Dostoyevsky's revolutionary conspirators -increasingly committed to state terrorism in pursuit of some utopian vision-seems horribly and tragically inevitable. Pride goes before a fall, and the Bushies are nothing if not proud. Justin Raimondo Hudley Pearse |
|
David wrote: Radical Son Bush may not have read Dostoyevsky-but his speechwriters have. by Justin Raimondo In a world aflame with war and terrorism, George W. Bush's second inaugural address was a match flung onto an oil slick. By the time his 17-minute peroration reached midpoint, it was clear that was his intention: Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world. "A fire in the mind"-such a felicitous phrase. It aptly and succinctly describes the feverish mental state of our neoconservative policymakers, who set out to build an empire in the Middle East and now, with this speech, clearly envision much more. It also describes the mental state of some of the characters in Dostoyevsky's The Possessed (or The Devils), from which the fiery metaphor is taken. Michael Barone pointed out the allusion in his U.S. News column, wherein he described Dostoyevsky's work as "a novel about a provincial town inspired by new revolutionary ideas. After a turbulent literary evening, a fire breaks out, and one townsman says, 'The fire is in the minds of men, not in the roofs of buildings.'" Well, not quite. The novel is about a group of revolutionaries who plot the destruction of a small provincial town-and, by extension, the whole of Russia and of human civilization. The intricate plot involves the governor of the province, who is continually beset by his wife and her liberal intellectual friends: they take up fashionably radical ideas almost, it seems, just to show him up as a bore. Members of this devilish clique have insinuated themselves into the higher social circles and, Rasputin-like, have bewitched the governor's wife and high society in general, all the while plotting and scheming behind the scenes. The governor is subtly provoked into cracking down on rebellious workers, the rabble rises up in the midst of a bizarre fete given by the governor's vacuous wife, and the town is burned to the ground. The scene from which Bush's fiery call to arms is taken finds the narrator discovering the governor in the midst of this chaotic scene, gesticulating and shouting at a building consumed by the blaze: 'It's all incendiarism! It's nihilism! If anything is burning, it's nihilism!' I heard almost with horror; and though there was nothing to be surprised at, yet actual madness, when one sees it, always gives one a shock. Ignoring the pleas of his subordinates to get to safety, the half-mad governor continues on with his soliloquy: 'They will wipe away the tears of the people whose houses have been burnt, but they will burn down the town. It's all the work of four scoundrels, four and a half! Arrest the scoundrel! He worms himself into the honor of families. ...It's vile, vile!' Suddenly noticing a fireman at the top of the burning lodge, he asks: 'What is he doing there?' 'He is putting the fire out, your Excellency.' 'Not likely. The fire is in the minds of men and not in the roofs of houses. Pull him down and give it up! Better give it up, much better! Let it put itself out.' The fire does not break out as a result of spontaneous combustion, as Barone seems to imply: it is deliberately set by disgruntled workers acting under the influence of a nihilistic cabal. This is meant to dramatize Dostoyevsky's view of the Russian revolutionaries of his time, whom he saw as possessed by a desire to destroy and little else. In any case, the borrowed imagery is far from obscure. Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith is the title of a classic study of 19th-century radicalism by James H. Billington, now the Librarian of Congress. Certainly none of this was unknown to the men who shaped this speech -not counting the man who delivered it. The Los Angeles Times reported: White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson held a two-hour seminar with a panel of foreign policy scholars, including several leading neocons-newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford's Hoover Institution-according to a person who was present. The Washington Post reported that Bill Kristol also coached Bush on the speech. These four neoconservative ideologues, presided over by Rove, are the 21st-century equivalent of Dostoyevsky's revolutionary devils-and, what's more, they seem to know it. As Dostoyevsky put it: "It's all the work of four scoundrels, four and a half!" A prophetic sentence, that. Bush's peroration was suffused with fire, it burned with the steely-eyed fanaticism of the ideologues who forged it, full of phrases that soared so far above the real world that a good many listeners had trouble believing their ears. Does the president seriously believe "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands"? Surely he didn't really mean to explain away the exponential expansion of big government in America as due to the lack of civil liberties in, say, the former Soviet Union or the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia? The war-weary wondered, at home and abroad, as they listened to the most powerful man on earth enunciate his militant doctrine: what new conflict will erupt as a result of a crusade to accelerate "the expansion of freedom in all the world"? What else could be the meaning of a pledge "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world"? In a vain attempt to reassure the panicked, Bush senior made a rare intervention. "People want to read a lot into it," he said, "that this means new aggression or newly assertive military forces. That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom." In other words, it's all talk and no action. But there is already plenty of action going on in Iraq and good reason to expect more. Rumors of war with Iran are persistent and credible. Seymour Hersh, whose record has been pretty good so far, reports that U.S. operatives are already penetrating Iranian territory in search of Tehran's elusive nukes. And in Eastern Europe, on the far frontier of what used to be the heartland of the old Russian empire, a Western-financed "orange revolution" is engineered by a coalition of the U.S. and an expansionist European super-state, while NATO edges closer to the gates of Moscow. In Dostoyevsky's day, urban radicals influenced by Marx and emboldened by Bakunin went out into the countryside proclaiming the doctrines of socialism and syndicalist anarchism, to little effect. They committed sporadic acts of spectacular violence and functioned roughly. Such groups as the Narodnaya Volya (Peoples' Will), whose militants assassinated two Russian czars, were 19th-century versions of al-Qaeda. Dostoyevsky's novel is a dark chronicle of the psychology that energized their terroristic brand of nihilism. The "fire in the minds of men" eventually engulfed all Russia; The Possessed bitterly foreshadowed the red inferno of the 1917 revolution. That a phrase torn from its entrails should augur a new worldwide revolutionary movement seems almost like payback for the author's notoriously "reactionary" views. Yet it does seem as if the new militants are following in the footsteps of Dostoyevsky's original models, venturing out from the Western metropolis into the countryside of the world, bent on "liberating" poor oppressed peasants who languish in premodernity. That they would meet with the same overt hostility that greeted the Narodniks of yesteryear was all too predictable. As Russell Kirk warned in a 1990 speech: A politicized American army operating abroad would be no more popular ... than the Red Army has been. An imposed or induced abstract democracy thrust upon peoples unprepared for it would produce at first anarchy, and then-as in nearly all of 'emergent' Africa, over the past four decades -rule by force and a master. The neocons, who revile Kirk's memory on account of this scolding, threw their hats in the air as Bush embraced their core agenda. "This is real neoconservatism," Robert Kagan exulted to the Los Angeles Times. "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong." Others were not so ebullient. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Nixon Center president Dimitri Simes. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy." William F. Buckley Jr. pronounced the speech "confusing." Aside from being "an improvisation," it was also embarrassingly ungrammatical: "Mr. Bush said that 'whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.' You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny." The speech was, in Buckley's view, bad policy as well as execrable grammar: "What about China? Is it U.S. policy to importune Chinese dissidents 'to start on this journey of progress and justice'? How will we manifest our readiness to 'walk at [their] side?'" If the National Endowment for Democracy isn't already on the job, the president's recent pronouncements are bound to direct their efforts in China's direction. Professor Claes Ryn saw where all this was leading, and he put it quite well in his 2004 address to the Philadelphia Society: The notion that America knows better than all other nations and has a right to dictate terms to them betrays a monumental conceit. It also guarantees that other nations will see a need to arm themselves just to have some protection against American bullying. ... China, which has long found Western hegemony intolerable and is already strongly prone to nationalism, can be expected to respond to American assertiveness by greatly expanding its military power. If present trends continue, the time should soon be ripe-in 50 years perhaps?-for a horrendous Sino-American confrontation. Nothing is "too massive a challenge to our liberationist policy" that it dwarfs the monumental edifice of the liberationists' conceit. Yes, but "what about Saudi Arabia?" asks Buckley. "Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?" I would think that the real objective is to seize it. Peggy Noonan found the speech "startling," and confessed it left her "with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike" evoked by such grandiose phrases as "we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." This, she averred "is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not... have a case of what I have called in the past 'mission inebriation.' A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts." Drunk with power, flush with Pyrrhic victories, and convinced that they are on the right side of history, the "mission inebriation" that bedevils this administration is Ms. Noonan's polite way of describing megalomania. The defining characteristic of what Ryn calls the "imperialistic personality" is a monumental conceit: it is the same will to dominate that drove the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the 19th-century followers of the nihilist Sergei Nechaev, upon whom the author of The Possessed modeled his characters. That American policymakers will likely end up like Dostoyevsky's revolutionary conspirators -increasingly committed to state terrorism in pursuit of some utopian vision-seems horribly and tragically inevitable. __________________________________________________ ____ amconmag Well come on over here Mr. Academic weenie....I've lived, worked and fought in the Middle East for the past 24 years....try to level your theories in the face of brutal subjegation of these peoples by a radical or elite minority who rape and pillage in the truest sense, or one better than our CEOs ever envisioned. Clear fact is that unless we affect a cultural transformation not of Islam, but the Arabs, extermination is the only road left to the rest of the civilized world. Their hate of anything not Islamic is public, and their treachery towards the one nation that stood between them an the European powers' colonial amibitions after both world wars is factual. They turned towards an athesitic eastern power......so we turned to Israel. You miss the biggest point in all of this dying and liquid political rhetoric.... the younger generation here wants what we already have, but a small group wants the status quo under the auspices of religious edicts, hadiths, and not dogma, the Koran. What have you been seeing on TV (CNN) is onlt the half-truth or spectrum of what I live with, hear, and see here everyday. They are standing up for their children and their own right to personal freedom - a first in how many thousand of years. They are being jailed, or killed by the same minority that the terrorist claim to be fighting against, but receive funding from the same dictators or royalist. We had our turn at history and civil war...this is their turn in the barrel of freedom. Who are you to stand with evil forces, long supported by American and European business, and not necessarily Mr. Bush. I care not for Bush, nor moreso, the myoptic Rumpsfield...but the fact remains that they picked a fight that we are going to finish one way or the other. SO VOLUNTEER AND BE A REAL MAN AND AMERICAN OR SHUT-UP. 26% of Americans have been carrying you big mouth liberals throughout our history - it is our way of life at stake...try living over here with family or friends...the absence of freedom, and daily insecurities will change your ignorant tune. McCain in 2008 ... or we can just get ready for another series of 9-11's . |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:09:13 -0700, Howard
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:17:13 GMT, David wrote: Radical Son snip David, Would you please stop posting all these articles. Those who seek information on current political information can find it quite well with the multitude of sources online, various written news outles and over-the-air broadcast. This group has been fairly quiet lately in terms of OT posts and political threads that escalate into senseless name-calling and bickering - your posts only serve as a catalyst for "newsgroup mayhem" to return to r.r.s. I have read your on-topic posts and you are capable of being a sound contributor to the topic of this newsgroup; please exercise that option in future postings. Thank You, Howard This is too important to not talk about everywhere. Our country is under attack by sinister forces. We are at war. |
"David" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:09:13 -0700, Howard wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:17:13 GMT, David wrote: Radical Son snip David, Would you please stop posting all these articles. Those who seek information on current political information can find it quite well with the multitude of sources online, various written news outles and over-the-air broadcast. This group has been fairly quiet lately in terms of OT posts and political threads that escalate into senseless name-calling and bickering - your posts only serve as a catalyst for "newsgroup mayhem" to return to r.r.s. I have read your on-topic posts and you are capable of being a sound contributor to the topic of this newsgroup; please exercise that option in future postings. Thank You, Howard This is too important to not talk about everywhere. Our country is under attack by sinister forces. We are at war. Please tell me you don't talk about this when you go out on dates. Most people would think that if you talked about the same thing all the time that you'd be a bit obsessed. --Mike L. |
"David" wrote in message ... This is too important to not talk about everywhere. Our country is under attack by sinister forces. We are at war. That would be your opinion. Yes we are under attack, by liberals and obstructionist Democrats. |
"Michael Lawson" wrote in message ... Please tell me you don't talk about this when you go out on dates. BWHAHAHHAHA, now that's funny. |
MnMikew wrote:
"David" wrote... This is too important to not talk about everywhere. Our country is under attack by sinister forces. We are at war. That would be your opinion. Yes we are under attack, by liberals and obstructionist Democrats. And worst of all, RINOs. -- If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. |
"David" wrote
This is too important to not talk about everywhere. Our country is under attack by sinister forces. We are at war. Indeed! Who is Dennis "Justin" Raimondo www.DiscoverTheNetwork.com Raimondo is a confused and confusing person, who seeks to be the master of the confusion he creates. Born plain Dennis, he renamed himself Justin, while attending the Cherry Lawn School, a defunct prep school in Darien, Conn., which he graduated in 1970. .... He is flamboyantly gay, but promotes himself as a Buchananite conservative and was in fact Buchanan's San Francisco campaign spokesman during the "culture war" that other gays took personally, many elections ago. The entire package is deceitful, and it is a calculated deceit. .... The movement that Raimondo has cobbled out of opponents of the Iraq war, who are drawn into his site, is unabashedly fascist. Justin Raimondo personifies an American "red-brown" alliance, like the one that surfaced briefly in the 1930s when Communists and Nazis combined forces to bring down the Weimar Republic. .... Raimondo has always wanted to be considered an author and journalist, no less than a political figure. At about 13 or so, he seems to have imagined himself as a science fictioneer. But he never had the discipline or stamina to apply himself to any profession aside from that of absurdist publicity hound. He has failed as a journalist and political commentator, exactly as Hitler failed as a painter, as Mussolini failed as a socialist leader, and as the most notorious fascist of the left, Fidel Castro, failed as a lawyer. .... Like his models, when Raimondo never engages intellectually with opponents, but relies on invective, insults, and innuendo. Notwithstanding his bizarre and vulnerable persona as a gay Buchananite, he glories in violating the privacy of others. .... The psychological term for Raimondo's posturing is "projection." He is obsessed with rooting out alleged political, ideological, and even religious chameleons, with the unconscious intent of advertising his own political transvestism. This pattern is evident in all his activities: he claims that America is becoming a dictatorship, the better to justify his own ambitions for power. .... Much, much mo http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/in...asp?indid=1894 |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message 0... On Mon 20 Jun 2005 09:18:24a, David wrote in message : {drivel snipped} We have no democracy here in the USA, yet we claim to be ''spreading'' it elsewhere, at the muzzle of a gun, like so much vile peanut butter. That is *the* worst analogy I have ever read. Ever. In my life. It is so bad, that I half expected a string of recall messages from you. I mean, even for your intellect, "...like so much vile peanut butter" is humiliatingly pathetic. And, we have no interest in any other analogies you considered, and discarded, before deciding to go with "vile peanut butter". How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when your -like scribblings (the parts you don't copy & paste from someone else) serve only to prompt everyone to laugh *at* you? -=jd=- -- My Current Disposable Email: (Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly) I think you just pegged him jd. "pre-teen" I think we got another Cheeto boy. Is there any Kentucky in this boys header? LOL!! OUCH!!!, Hit my head falling over laughing! B.H. |
Brian Hill wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message 0... On Mon 20 Jun 2005 09:18:24a, David wrote in message : {drivel snipped} We have no democracy here in the USA, yet we claim to be ''spreading'' it elsewhere, at the muzzle of a gun, like so much vile peanut butter. That is *the* worst analogy I have ever read. Ever. In my life. It is so bad, that I half expected a string of recall messages from you. I mean, even for your intellect, "...like so much vile peanut butter" is humiliatingly pathetic. And, we have no interest in any other analogies you considered, and discarded, before deciding to go with "vile peanut butter". How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when your -like scribblings (the parts you don't copy & paste from someone else) serve only to prompt everyone to laugh *at* you? -=jd=- -- My Current Disposable Email: (Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly) I think you just pegged him jd. "pre-teen" I think we got another Cheeto boy. Is there any Kentucky in this boys header? LOL!! OUCH!!!, Hit my head falling over laughing! Apparently Saddam has a fondness for Cheeto's as well. dxAce Michigan USA http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
"dxAce" wrote in message Apparently Saddam has a fondness for Cheeto's as well. dxAce Michigan USA http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm Oh really? Humm? It's all starting to make sense. -- 73 and good DX. B.H. Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm |
On 20 Jun 2005 21:32:50 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Mon 20 Jun 2005 09:18:24a, David wrote in message : {drivel snipped} We have no democracy here in the USA, yet we claim to be ''spreading'' it elsewhere, at the muzzle of a gun, like so much vile peanut butter. That is *the* worst analogy I have ever read. Ever. In my life. It is so bad, that I half expected a string of recall messages from you. I mean, even for your intellect, "...like so much vile peanut butter" is humiliatingly pathetic. And, we have no interest in any other analogies you considered, and discarded, before deciding to go with "vile peanut butter". How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when your pre-teen-like scribblings (the parts you don't copy & paste from someone else) serve only to prompt everyone to laugh *at* you? -=jd=- I feel the same way whenever I hear our beloved dictator use the term ''spread democracy''. It may as well be some greasy yuck in his fevered brain; he certainly doesn't have any kind of grasp of its true meaning. |
"David" wrote Why do we prop up the Saudi dictators? Because we are too much of a bunch of pussies to bite the bullet and quit sucking their oil. Pure and simple. LMAO - David is now a scientist who has discovered an oil alternative. Hey, your keypad is made of oil. Oh, your mouse to. How about the toilet seat you **** on? Oh yeah, that fertilizer used to produce the food you eat to. About those medications you keep forgeting to take. Viagra, Cialas... Hey, don't forget that sexy lingerie your girl/boyfriend wears for you every Friday night after your date at the movies. Which incedentally is printed on a film made of oil! As Bart says - D'oh! We have no democracy here in the USA, yet we claim to be ''spreading'' it elsewhere, at the muzzle of a gun, like so much vile peanut butter. ROTFLMAO - now David is a political scientista. NO! He is a "Useful Idiot". |
peebarrel wrote:
You don't know what a dictator is David. I wish you could spend a year under one and you probably would have a completely different outlook. Under one? Stop spreading your homosexual agenda here, you pervert. How are your 'tre idiots' doing? Look in a mirror, I'm sure you may have 'fo' of 'em.. mike |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message The jury's still out from my point of view. There's an element about rickets that would be quite insulting if applied to the "College Level Debate Coach" variety of Kentuckian... -=jd=- -- You got point there jd. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message LOL! You honestly feel you have *any* standing to berate anyone else's ability to "grasp the true meaning of anything"? That's good for a chuckle!! Ironically, you wouldn't recognize an actual dictator if he were feeding you into the wood-chipper feet-first. Someone like you who chooses to play so fast and loose with unsubstantiated, careless rhetoric does not deserve to benefit from American Liberty. Oh, you most certainly *will* benefit from it -- but you most definitely do not deserve to. One tiny example: go to the African Dictatorship of your choice and publicly whine about their dictator. See how long you benefit from the ability to draw a clear breath. Spineless leeches like yourself clearly lack the capability to fully understand the complex, real-world situations that you so carelessly whine about. Perhaps you will finally grow-up (mature) one day... -=jd=- Dito! Now the frustrating part will be David's total lack of comprehending what you just wrote. -- 73 and good DX. B.H. Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm |
On 21 Jun 2005 23:05:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Ironically, you wouldn't recognize an actual dictator if he were feeding you into the wood-chipper feet-first. Someone like you who chooses to play so fast and loose with unsubstantiated, careless rhetoric does not deserve to benefit from American Liberty. Oh, you most certainly *will* benefit from it -- but you most definitely do not deserve to. One tiny example: go to the African Dictatorship of your choice and publicly whine about their dictator. See how long you benefit from the ability to draw a clear breath. Spineless leeches like yourself clearly lack the capability to fully understand the complex, real-world situations that you so carelessly whine about. Perhaps you will finally grow-up (mature) one day... -=jd=- Living in fear and insecurity is not Liberty, it is tyranny. |
"David" wrote in message ... On 21 Jun 2005 23:05:32 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: Ironically, you wouldn't recognize an actual dictator if he were feeding you into the wood-chipper feet-first. Someone like you who chooses to play so fast and loose with unsubstantiated, careless rhetoric does not deserve to benefit from American Liberty. Oh, you most certainly *will* benefit from it -- but you most definitely do not deserve to. One tiny example: go to the African Dictatorship of your choice and publicly whine about their dictator. See how long you benefit from the ability to draw a clear breath. Spineless leeches like yourself clearly lack the capability to fully understand the complex, real-world situations that you so carelessly whine about. Perhaps you will finally grow-up (mature) one day... -=jd=- Living in fear and insecurity is not Liberty, it is tyranny. Shut up you ****!!! B.H. |
peebarrel wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:44:34 GMT, m II wrote: peebarrel wrote: You don't know what a dictator is David. I wish you could spend a year under one and you probably would have a completely different outlook. Under one? Stop spreading your homosexual agenda here, you pervert. How are your 'tre idiots' doing? Look in a mirror, I'm sure you may have 'fo' of 'em.. mike I'm not homosexual. Btw, your mom was fantastic last night. I told you she died of cancer about six years ago, you inbred moron. The pain she went through was unbearable. mike -- "The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America." Ronald Reagan |
Brian Hill wrote:
Shut up you ****!!! That's beneath you. You have more class than that. mike -- "The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America." Ronald Reagan |
"m II" wrote in message news:Ck2ue.87371$tt5.77204@edtnps90... peebarrel wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:44:34 GMT, m II wrote: peebarrel wrote: You don't know what a dictator is David. I wish you could spend a year under one and you probably would have a completely different outlook. Under one? Stop spreading your homosexual agenda here, you pervert. How are your 'tre idiots' doing? Look in a mirror, I'm sure you may have 'fo' of 'em.. mike I'm not homosexual. Btw, your mom was fantastic last night. I told you she died of cancer about six years ago, you inbred moron. Forgive me for making light of a horrible situation, but what's your point? You just might be able to take him at his word. On a lighter note, I hear beerbarrel claims that he once had both of the Olson twins, at the same time. Of course, that was before they were famous. |
"beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:44:34 GMT, m II wrote: peebarrel wrote: You don't know what a dictator is David. I wish you could spend a year under one and you probably would have a completely different outlook. Under one? Stop spreading your homosexual agenda here, you pervert. How are your 'tre idiots' doing? Look in a mirror, I'm sure you may have 'fo' of 'em.. mike I'm not homosexual. Btw, your mom was fantastic last night. Let's analyze this, shall we? Mike told beerbarrel that his mother was no longer with us. We all heard it, and beerbarrel knows that we did. Therefore we know, and he knows that we do as well, that the second half of his statement was a lie. Since that blatantly false second statement was designed to bolster the first statement, that being that he's not gay, and since he knows that we know it to be false, we ought to be able to assume that in fact the first statement is false as well, and that he wants us to know that he is in fact gay. Personally, I'd like to commend him for his courage in coming out. But perhaps the blatant lie wasn't one after all. If we assume that beerbarrel is in fact telling the truth, and that he's not gay, then he did in fact have congress with a dead woman last night. So...beerbarrel....which is it? In light of this latest post, maybe we should change his name to "bier"barrel. P.S. to beerbarrel: Here's a link for the big word, bonehead: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bier |
"beerbarrel" wrote in message ... Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. Incredibly, we've now seen a new low. You're truly the bottom of the barrel. |
peebarrel wrote:
Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. There is a special place in hell for you, cretin. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 ...just how common IS necrophilia in the US Forces? |
"m II" wrote in message news:qm2ue.87372$tt5.38915@edtnps90... Brian Hill wrote: Shut up you ****!!! That's beneath you. You have more class than that. mike I'm just like my old man mike. If I don't like ya, I don't like ya in a very unclassy way. The thing is I like most people but this guy I can't stand and it's not so much his politics as it is his lack of a personality and humor. The dip **** borrowed every thought process he ever had and he was to stupid to borrow anything clever. Besides I need at least one enemy on Usenet ;) -- 73 and good DX. B.H. Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm |
Brian Hill wrote:
The dip **** borrowed every thought process he ever had and he was to stupid to borrow anything clever. I guess that kinda puts a stop to the borrowed 'tard' insult eh? mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 ...just how common IS necrophilia in the US Forces? |
"m II" wrote in message news:Xx3ue.55324$wr.42281@clgrps12... Brian Hill wrote: The dip **** borrowed every thought process he ever had and he was to stupid to borrow anything clever. I guess that kinda puts a stop to the borrowed 'tard' insult eh? mike LOL! ok. B.H. |
Brian Hill wrote:
LOL! ok. Thank you. Even one poster using that is too much. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 ...just how common IS necrophilia in the US Forces? |
Honus wrote:
Forgive me for making light of a horrible situation, but what's your point? You just might be able to take him at his word. On a lighter note, I hear beerbarrel claims that he once had both of the Olson twins, at the same time. Of course, that was before they were famous. Before fame found them? That would make them what, SEVEN? Mind you, I seem to recall there was quite a stir about it at the time among the prepubescents and their lawyers visiting Neverland. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 posted in rec.radio.shortwave |
"m II" wrote in message news:5g3ue.55311$wr.12358@clgrps12... M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 http://www.qrz.com/detail/KE4ODD |
"m II" wrote in message news:do4ue.87396$tt5.23981@edtnps90... Honus wrote: Forgive me for making light of a horrible situation, but what's your point? You just might be able to take him at his word. On a lighter note, I hear beerbarrel claims that he once had both of the Olson twins, at the same time. Of course, that was before they were famous. Before fame found them? That would make them what, SEVEN? I think they were a -wee- bit younger than that. Like five or so years younger. |
Honus wrote:
http://www.qrz.com/detail/KE4ODD The American Anti-Necrophilia Association will be happy to get that. An old deviant necrophiliac named Fort When asked of his favourite sport, replied with disdain, "In the sexual heat, for a real treat, nothing beats dead meat, and I'm going to hell sighing Vive La Morte" There once was a deviate named Fort, Who ate six bushels of maggots ala Morte, After dinner he turned to necrophilia, His member covered with wormy hernia, he was too stupefied to think of a retort. Compared this monster, Cuhulin now seems like a real down home good ol' boy. Despite his affinity for the barnyard playmates. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 |
"m II" wrote in message news:wT4ue.55339$wr.26656@clgrps12... Compared this monster, Cuhulin now seems like a real down home good ol' boy. Despite his affinity for the barnyard playmates. One of cuhulin's charms was that no matter how totally ignorant he was, you always had the feeling that one day, one glorious day, he'd actually say something clever. Beerbarrel doesn't even have that much promise. |
Honus wrote:
Before fame found them? That would make them what, SEVEN? I think they were a -wee- bit younger than that. Like five or so years younger. Oh dear...Is there no end to his debauchery? That makes the 'man' a monster of the first degree. I feel his kind should be castrated immediately before being ejected from the military. That would indeed be providing real homeland security. I don't feel my family members, both alive and deceased, are safe with the likes of him running loose. It's a Mom and apple pie thing. I'm sure nobody would mind an 'after the fact' slice of the knife. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 http://www.qrz.com/detail/KE4ODD |
Honus wrote:
Beerbarrel doesn't even have that much promise. Alcoholism and syphilis have that effect on necrophiliacs...I can hear Fort humming 'Breaking up is hard to do", which i suspect has something to do with rigor mortis setting into his newest paramour. mike -- Dug her ass right up! She was too damn ugly to have sex with before she died. The old bag o bones fell apart in my hands! She didn't complain about much either other than the lousy sex she got from those foursomes with you, Mike and her husband. M/Sgt. Tracy Fort 116 AMX 250 Martin Luther King Blvd. Robins ANG, GA. 31098-2009 http://www.qrz.com/detail/KE4ODD |
"m II" wrote in message news:Db5ue.87489$tt5.74413@edtnps90... Honus wrote: Before fame found them? That would make them what, SEVEN? I think they were a -wee- bit younger than that. Like five or so years younger. Oh dear...Is there no end to his debauchery? Oh, there's an end to it. Two inches away from where it begins would be my guess. That makes the 'man' a monster of the first degree. I feel his kind should be castrated immediately before being ejected from the military. No. We've invested money in him, and we need some sort of return on it. There has to be a use for him. He could be used as a (sub) human shield for the real men in the military, for instance. Of course, castration would have no effect on his effectiveness, so that part of your suggestion can still go ahead. The small amount of missing mass wouldn't block more than a BB anyway. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com