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

http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2005/06/16/

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.