David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p

David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.

The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.

Huh?

You and your ilk would scream bloody murder if those folks were put in 'the hot
seat'.

Damn you're a 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:56:03 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p


Again, you believe the party line, which is total misinformation. The
Bin Ladins, the Bushes and the Saudis are all working together to
****-over us little people. NWO.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...359690,00.html

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:27:48 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.

The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.

Huh?

You and your ilk would scream bloody murder if those folks were put in 'the hot
seat'.

Damn you're a 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

WTF is an ''ilk'' and why do you think I have one?

Some folks are smart enough to not have home internet access.I know
quite a few of them,and they all seem to be very happy without the
hassels and confusions of messing around with computers.
cuhulin

David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:56:03 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:


David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p



Again, you believe the party line, which is total misinformation. The
Bin Ladins, the Bushes and the Saudis are all working together to
****-over us little people. NWO.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...359690,00.html






Ah, yes. The gratuitous oversimplified accusation. Which, by the
rules of logic, may be gratuitously denied.


And so it has.


It's been fun, David. But since you not only know, and understand,
the truth, certainly enough to argue both sides as you have so far here
today, I'll take leave of you now, as my participation in the discussion
is clearly unnecessary.

Have a good day, David.

Look forward to conversing with you again, when the mood strikes.

D Peter Maus wrote:


The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


Oh, give *up*, Peter, you are arguing with a turnip.

....his plug should have been pulled before Terry Schiavo's... talk
about "fixed and unresponsive..."

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:20:40 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

It's been fun, David. But since you not only know, and understand,
the truth, certainly enough to argue both sides as you have so far here
today, I'll take leave of you now, as my participation in the discussion
is clearly unnecessary.

Have a good day, David.

Look forward to conversing with you again, when the mood strikes.


Not arguing anything. Just telling it as I see it. Later.

-=jd=- wrote:

On Mon 18 Jul 2005 09:03:12a, David wrote in message
:

On 18 Jul 2005 02:54:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Sun 17 Jul 2005 07:29:00p, D Peter Maus
wrote in message
:

David wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:01:05 -0500, "Brian Hill"
wrote:


lol! I really touched a nerve today. It sure feels good to give you
liberal wack jobs a taste of your own medicine. Now I can sleep well.
:)

P.S. Hey Greg! Don't forget to check my spelling and make sure Dave
clips his toe nails before you guys jump into bed together. LOL!!!!!

B.H.



Liberal? Bill Cooper was my hero.





Now, had you said Lt Col. Jeff Cooper, you'd have been on to
something.



rickets is incapable of appreciating the full meaning of "knee-deep-in-
brass-and-still-shooting-fast". Though, I imagine that right about the
time his beloved terrorists were drawing the knife across the first 1/4"
of his own throat, he might experience an epiphany (and some regret).
I'm pretty sure that's about what it would take. He's made it painfully
clear that he has no concern for anyone else's throat.

-=jd=-

**** you, Rambo.


I've got you pegged! LOL! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Not only do you
refuse to stand up for yourself, you can't tolerate the thought of anyone
else standing up for you either. You posture as if only you know true
liberty with your plagiarized rhetoric; yet you have proven that you would
be among the first to cut and run, or roll-over and submit. The only tough
talking you can muster is to spit at those who would fight on your behalf.
How utterly, nauseatingly, pathetic. When cornered and bereft of stolen
propaganda to banty about, the absolute best you can come up with is the
lame, tired, worn-out profanity preceding this paragraph? Oh, you can
always be counted on for a chuckle! It must absolutely *suck* for you to
have to wake up each morning and look at yourself in the mirror.

....and realise he's still retarded.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:


dxAce wrote:


LMAO at the drug addled 'tard boy!

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore, stayin' a bore.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore.


Still hung up on the Bee Gee's? OK:

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, stayin a 'tard.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, M II's stayin a 'tard.



it's too hard to come up with your own stuff, isn't it?..yawnnnn..





mike

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:


dxAce wrote:


LMAO at the drug addled 'tard boy!

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore, stayin' a bore.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore.


Still hung up on the Bee Gee's? OK:

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, stayin a 'tard.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, M II's stayin a 'tard.

it's too hard to come up with your own stuff, isn't it?..yawnnnn..

Yeah, you had to rip off the Bee Gee's, and then I copied your 'tard boy drivel!

Keep trying you stupid Canuck, keep trying.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

it's too hard to come up with your own stuff, isn't it?..yawnnnn..


Yeah, you had to rip off the Bee Gee's, and then I copied your 'tard boy drivel!


It's YOUR drivel and I gave full credit in another post. Aren't YOU the renowned
'Barely Glib' who formed one of the three brother group? It's nice to see you
now live off insurance settlements instead of Disco royalties, although both are
considered slimy in most civilized quarters.










mike

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

it's too hard to come up with your own stuff, isn't it?..yawnnnn..


Yeah, you had to rip off the Bee Gee's, and then I copied your 'tard boy drivel!

It's YOUR drivel and I gave full credit in another post. Aren't YOU the renowned
'Barely Glib' who formed one of the three brother group? It's nice to see you
now live off insurance settlements instead of Disco royalties, although both are
considered slimy in most civilized quarters.

What would you know about civilized quarters anyway? You ARE in CanaDuh after all.

Keep trying 'tard boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

-=jd=- wrote:

Putting our infidel boots on sacred soil in *TWO* islamic countries,
thereby drawing the scumbag, jihadists in like moths to a flame -and-
tearing up *their* neighborhood instead of ours *IS* "taking the fight to
the terrorists". I suppose that's hard for someone like yourself to
understand. After all, your first instinct is to ****-backwards, run and
hide, offer a bribe -- anything but stand-up for and/or fight for what you
believe in. Nothing is worth fighting for in your mind, isn't that correct?
Isn't it safe to presume you would have preferred the U.N. send their
version of a bumbling "Inspector Clouseau" after OBL, with no expectation
of actually arresting him. You probably feel that the symbolic gesture of
passing some worthless U.N. "resolution" would be more than adequate to
disarm and placate the hard-core, radical islamic terrorist. Is that about
right?


If some foreign power had troops in YOUR country, would you like people showing
up to help fight the occupation? And in your case, if they just happened to kill
a few thousand Democrats, it would just be the natural progress of things,
wouldn't it?

Your chance is coming. Some people are predicting civil war within the next
decade, thanks to the scum now controlling the political process in the US. Note
how the feelings of hate towards your own countrymen are being cultivated. It's
not an accident.







mike

m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

Putting our infidel boots on sacred soil in *TWO* islamic countries,
thereby drawing the scumbag, jihadists in like moths to a flame -and-
tearing up *their* neighborhood instead of ours *IS* "taking the fight to
the terrorists". I suppose that's hard for someone like yourself to
understand. After all, your first instinct is to ****-backwards, run and
hide, offer a bribe -- anything but stand-up for and/or fight for what you
believe in. Nothing is worth fighting for in your mind, isn't that correct?
Isn't it safe to presume you would have preferred the U.N. send their
version of a bumbling "Inspector Clouseau" after OBL, with no expectation
of actually arresting him. You probably feel that the symbolic gesture of
passing some worthless U.N. "resolution" would be more than adequate to
disarm and placate the hard-core, radical islamic terrorist. Is that about
right?

If some foreign power had troops in YOUR country, would you like people showing
up to help fight the occupation? And in your case, if they just happened to kill
a few thousand Democrats, it would just be the natural progress of things,
wouldn't it?

Your chance is coming. Some people are predicting civil war within the next
decade, thanks to the scum now controlling the political process in the US. Note
how the feelings of hate towards your own countrymen are being cultivated. It's
not an accident.

It's not an accident that CanaDuh sucks either. It's just the natural progress (or
lack thereof in this case) of things.

Now go stuff your face with some poutine, 'tard boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On 20 Jul 2005 00:48:27 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


I've got you pegged! LOL! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Not only do you
refuse to stand up for yourself, you can't tolerate the thought of anyone
else standing up for you either. You posture as if only you know true
liberty with your plagiarized rhetoric; yet you have proven that you would
be among the first to cut and run, or roll-over and submit. The only tough
talking you can muster is to spit at those who would fight on your behalf.
How utterly, nauseatingly, pathetic. When cornered and bereft of stolen
propaganda to banty about, the absolute best you can come up with is the
lame, tired, worn-out profanity preceding this paragraph? Oh, you can
always be counted on for a chuckle! It must absolutely *suck* for you to
have to wake up each morning and look at yourself in the mirror.

-=jd=-
I am totally repulsed by your testosterone laden John Wayne
simplistic, latent-homosexual bravado. You and yourkind are the
people who have ****ed things up for everyone else.

You are the coward.

Who would Jesus bomb?

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:07:41 -0400, dxAce
wrote:
Why don't the 2 of youze get a room?

David wrote:

Who would Jesus bomb?

Stupid 'tards such as yourself I'd imagine. From what I've been led to believe
he didn't put up with to much crap.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:07:41 -0400, dxAce
wrote:
Why don't the 2 of youze get a room?

Why? Because were not 'tards, like you are you moronic screwed up idiot!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

What would you know about civilized quarters anyway? You ARE in CanaDuh after all.


Apparently a great deal. You've just answered your own question. How's Detroit?





mike

dxAce wrote:

If some foreign power had troops in YOUR country, would you like people showing
up to help fight the occupation? And in your case, if they just happened to kill
a few thousand Democrats, it would just be the natural progress of things,
wouldn't it?

Your chance is coming. Some people are predicting civil war within the next
decade, thanks to the scum now controlling the political process in the US. Note
how the feelings of hate towards your own countrymen are being cultivated. It's
not an accident.


It's not an accident that CanaDuh sucks either. It's just the natural progress (or
lack thereof in this case) of things.

Note how the feelings of hate towards your independent sovereign neighbours are
being cultivated. It's not an accident.



Now go stuff your face with some poutine, 'tard boy.


Nope. It reminds me too much of the squeezings from your zits. For you, puberty
isn't very kind.





mike

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:07:41 -0400, dxAce
wrote:
Why don't the 2 of youze get a room?


Duh, Why don't the 2 of youze get a room? Duh Why don't the 2 of youze get a
room? Duh where was I ???? Duh Oh yea! Duh Why don't the 2 of youze get a
room? Duh My name is David Duh. LOL!!!

B.H.

dxAce wrote:

Why? Because were not 'tards, like you are you moronic screwed up idiot!



....yawnnn...must ...get to...next..thread...must keep..yawnnn...eyes open....

-=jd=- wrote:


From where I stand, it's apparent that the bulk of the hate eminates from
the left. It's the leftists that are the gloom and doomers, steeped in
obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric. That seems to be one of
the more glaringly obvious reasons why they are continuing to lose
elections. They have stopped articulating their solutions to today's
problems and plans for the future, apparently because they are too busy
attacking the right. They can't stop long enough to map out an acceptable
positive agenda, so they just go with what they know: obstructionism,
negativity and hate-laced rhetoric. Why, for example I offer up the
preceding paragraph of yours...



Your posting is exactly what you accuse the other guys of doing. I seem to
remember the phrase "obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric" as
being charges levied by kangaroo courts in totalitarian states. Stalin and Mao
come to mind. They had show trials for anyone perceived as a threat to the
system. Some evil countries have now dispensed with even the show trials.






mike

"m II" wrote in message
news:_siDe.164975$on1.82893@clgrps13...
-=jd=- wrote:


From where I stand, it's apparent that the bulk of the hate eminates from
the left. It's the leftists that are the gloom and doomers, steeped in
obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric. That seems to be one
of the more glaringly obvious reasons why they are continuing to lose
elections. They have stopped articulating their solutions to today's
problems and plans for the future, apparently because they are too busy
attacking the right. They can't stop long enough to map out an acceptable
positive agenda, so they just go with what they know: obstructionism,
negativity and hate-laced rhetoric. Why, for example I offer up the
preceding paragraph of yours...



Your posting is exactly what you accuse the other guys of doing. I seem to
remember the phrase "obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric"
as being charges levied by kangaroo courts in totalitarian states. Stalin
and Mao come to mind. They had show trials for anyone perceived as a
threat to the system. Some evil countries have now dispensed with even the
show trials.






mike

Oh! come on mike. Gee

B.H.

Brian Hill wrote:

Oh! come on mike. Gee


I'm not sure I can take this virulent, foul and offensive language anymore.
One more 'gosh', 'fiddle sticks' or 'shucks' and I may..just may..lower my
opinion of you. As a Canadian, I certainly wouldn't take such a life changing
drastic step lightly but we all must have some standards we live by.

I hope you can appreciate the difficult situation you're putting me in.





mike

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

If some foreign power had troops in YOUR country, would you like people showing
up to help fight the occupation? And in your case, if they just happened to kill
a few thousand Democrats, it would just be the natural progress of things,
wouldn't it?

Your chance is coming. Some people are predicting civil war within the next
decade, thanks to the scum now controlling the political process in the US. Note
how the feelings of hate towards your own countrymen are being cultivated. It's
not an accident.


It's not an accident that CanaDuh sucks either. It's just the natural progress (or
lack thereof in this case) of things.

Note how the feelings of hate towards your independent sovereign neighbours are
being cultivated. It's not an accident.

Now go stuff your face with some poutine, 'tard boy.

Nope. It reminds me too much of the squeezings from your zits. For you, puberty
isn't very kind.

Wasn't very kind to either you, or CanaDuh. You're both never moved beyond puberty.

As for your 'sovereignty' that really can't be the case as you still have a Queen on
some of your money... You're really still a colony.

Continue to tote and live in your dream world. You'll get a rude awakening soon enough.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On 20 Jul 2005 02:26:40 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



You truly, honestly can't see that we were *counting* on that to happen in
Iraq and Afghanistan? What - did you think we wanted to go house-to-house
all around the globe? We made them *flock* to Iraq and Afghanistan, as
desired.

Ahh. The Famous Flypaper Gambit. Laughable. London 7-7.

I defy you to explain the logic underlying *that* assumption?! I only want
the radical islamics to have one of the many things they hold so dear:
martyrdom! Where have I ever indicated that I would prefer the deaths of
any American simply based on their political affiliation -- not to mention
"a few thousand" of them?

You better hope they are religious fanatics, because if the sucuders
are soldiers they are brave mofos, aren't they?

From where I stand, it's apparent that the bulk of the hate eminates from
the left. It's the leftists that are the gloom and doomers, steeped in
obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric. That seems to be one of
the more glaringly obvious reasons why they are continuing to lose
elections. They have stopped articulating their solutions to today's
problems and plans for the future, apparently because they are too busy
attacking the right. They can't stop long enough to map out an acceptable
positive agenda, so they just go with what they know: obstructionism,
negativity and hate-laced rhetoric. Why, for example I offer up the
preceding paragraph of yours...

The Left would lose fewer elections if the Right would quit ****ing
with the voting process. I predict in 2006, the rigged vote will
result in massive civil disobedience.

Religious people think they have the right to cheat. That the end
justifies the means. They will only respond to pain. Bring 'em on!

From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 20 Jul 2005 02:26:40 GMT
Subject: " Bring Em On !"

On Tue 19 Jul 2005 08:59:28p, m II wrote in message
news:QlhDe.138457$9A2.62981@edtnps89:

-=jd=- wrote:

(snip)

From where I stand, it's apparent that the bulk of the hate eminates from
the left. It's the leftists that are the gloom and doomers, steeped in
obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric. That seems to be one of
the more glaringly obvious reasons why they are continuing to lose
elections. They have stopped articulating their solutions to today's
problems and plans for the future, apparently because they are too busy
attacking the right. They can't stop long enough to map out an acceptable
positive agenda, so they just go with what they know: obstructionism,
negativity and hate-laced rhetoric. Why, for example I offer up the
preceding paragraph of yours...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Dunno why I'm weighing in here. Bored, I guess. Answered all my email.
Nothing's happening on 5714. If there is, I can't hear it above the noise
floor.

But I must take exception to your position that "the bulk of the hate
eminates from the left..." Seems to me that the "hatred", the truly
offensive and vitriolic commentary really took off with the right wing talk
shows on bcb radio. Especially during the Clinton administration
(encouraged by Clinton's bad deeds). Remember when Rush Slimeball called
Chelsea Clinton "the family dog"? Remember Mary Matalin whining "Guess what
Clinton has done now!" on a daily basis? Mention Hillary's name and our
friends on the right go ballistic, and she still won her senate election,
and will probably win many more.

Tune in Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, et al, and the message is the same:
"Liberal elites" hate the president, hate the country, want our troops to
fail, want to free all the criminals and kill all the babies.

Democrats, liberals, the left, didn't invent hatred. I'm a Democrat. I
don't hate the president. I don't hate his brother Jeb, my governor. And
if I disagree with the President, it doesn't mean I don't support our
troops, no matter what some jerk on the radio says.

Thank God that reasonable men, like all of us on rrs can discuss our
differing views in a climate of friendliness and mutual respect!

Greg
Not elite!

"m II" wrote in message
news:h7jDe.164982$on1.152156@clgrps13...
Brian Hill wrote:

Oh! come on mike. Gee


I'm not sure I can take this virulent, foul and offensive language
anymore. One more 'gosh', 'fiddle sticks' or 'shucks' and I may..just
may..lower my opinion of you. As a Canadian, I certainly wouldn't take
such a life changing drastic step lightly but we all must have some
standards we live by.

I hope you can appreciate the difficult situation you're putting me in.





mike

How bout Gee Wiz ?

Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) ducked over to Switzerland to get out of
serving our Country.Some Rambo that movie hollywood yellow belly chicken
is! Anybody can be in movies.
cuhulin

From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 21 Jul 2005 03:51:17 GMT
Subject: " Bring Em On !"

On Wed 20 Jul 2005 01:31:03p, Greg wrote in
message :

(Cleverly presented argument from both sides snipped)


Seems to me that the "hatred", the truly
offensive and vitriolic commentary really took off with the right wing
talk shows on bcb radio. Especially during the Clinton administration
(encouraged by Clinton's bad deeds). Remember when Rush Slimeball
called Chelsea Clinton "the family dog"? Remember Mary Matalin whining
"Guess what Clinton has done now!" on a daily basis?


Are you saying that liberal hosts did not engage in similar behavior.

Nope, I'm saying the right wing media, once they found their voice and
reached their audience, mostly on the am BCB, ran amok and ratcheted up the
hateful commentary to an unprecedented (in my lifetime) degree. The only
liberal equivalent to Rush/Hannity/Savage/Ingraham/et al is Air America, and
those folks are basically irrelevant. Lionel, a lonely liberal voice on am,
is pretty reasonable and well-behaved compared to those neocon spokespeople.


Mention Hillary's
name and our friends on the right go ballistic, and she still won her
senate election, and will probably win many more.



Mention Rush's name and liberals hyperventilate and froth at the mouth. Yet
he will still continue to be succesful and make obscene profits.


No argument there. If success means he's right, then he is way right (pun
intended, I said, frothing at the mouth).

Tune in Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, et al, and the message is the same:
"Liberal elites" hate the president, hate the country, want our troops
to fail, want to free all the criminals and kill all the babies.


And, generally, they have a video or audio clip to back up their opinion
that "("Liberal elites" hate the president, hate the country, want our
troops to fail, want to free all the criminals and kill all the babies)".
In any event, you forgot to mention liberal hosts who engage in similar
behavior.

Again, I just don't see it. Not to the degree that the right wingers do.

Democrats, liberals, the left, didn't invent hatred.


No-one is saying they did, just that *currently* they are the source of the
majority of obstructionism, negativism, and vitriolic rhetoric in the
political realm.

I'm a Democrat. I
don't hate the president. I don't hate his brother Jeb, my governor.
And if I disagree with the President, it doesn't mean I don't support
our troops, no matter what some jerk on the radio says.

Thank God that reasonable men, like all of us on rrs can discuss our
differing views in a climate of friendliness and mutual respect!

Greg
Not elite!




True - any political group that finds itself on the minority side resorts
to offensive and vitriolic commentary, and it didn't begin during the
Clinton administration. It didn't begin with Burr and his duel. However,
the issue was not about behavior 10, 20 or 200 years ago, but rather the
behavior of today where it currently has impact on the political process.
And currently, it is the left's turn to be the spouter and perpetuators of
offensive, vitriolic commentary, obstructionism and negativism. One day,
when the democrats manage to get back in office, then it will be the
Republicans turn. And this thread will be reborn, but turned 180 degrees.


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Okay, you have the last word.
Happy monitoring.

Greg

On 21 Jul 2005 03:35:46 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


The Left would lose fewer elections if the Right would quit ****ing
with the voting process.

Daley was Republican? I thought election fraud was typically for democrats
in states/cities with a significant mob presence. Go figure...


I predict in 2006, the rigged vote will
result in massive civil disobedience.


Yeah... Good luck with that. I think it's safe to disregard your
predictions.

Religious people think they have the right to cheat. That the end
justifies the means. They will only respond to pain. Bring 'em on!

You proved my point by bringing-up Cook County in 1960.

Reich Wingerscontinue to use that incident to justify their assault on
the most sacred of all American rituals and will probably do so
forever, unless they are forcibly stopped.

Hard to admit you've been hoodwinked, but for the sake of the country
please take the blinders off. Thanks.

dxAce wrote:

Continue to tote and live in your dream world. You'll get a rude awakening soon enough.


Is that a threat to launch a zit attack on us? I can see it now.."We, the
Pimple...."





mike

Brian Hill wrote:
"m II" wrote in message
news:h7jDe.164982$on1.152156@clgrps13...

Brian Hill wrote:


Oh! come on mike. Gee


I'm not sure I can take this virulent, foul and offensive language
anymore. One more 'gosh', 'fiddle sticks' or 'shucks' and I may..just
may..lower my opinion of you. As a Canadian, I certainly wouldn't take
such a life changing drastic step lightly but we all must have some
standards we live by.

I hope you can appreciate the difficult situation you're putting me in.





mike


How bout Gee Wiz ?




The obscenities just never end....Perhaps if I crank this 'The Osmonds Visit Pat
Boone' record a bit louder the vulgarity will wash away...











mike

"m II" wrote in message
news:dkkEe.148229$tt5.94109@edtnps90...

The obscenities just never end....Perhaps if I crank this 'The Osmonds
Visit Pat
Boone' record a bit louder the vulgarity will wash away...

No such luck. It'll only lead to more vulgarity, I'm afraid.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/schutz19/patboone.htm

Walker's World: Bombers' Pakistan Link. www.stevequayle.com (click
on the big gold Q) (it looks gold looking on my webtv tv set anyway) I
can't sleep because that brunette woman in the Le Petit Soldat movie on
tv (my other tv set,no stinking little picture in picture for me!) is
sooooo,sooooo pretty.oooooo la la.I am going to have to go across
Highway 80 to the Be Bop store in the parking lot area just outside
Metrocenter Mall www.metromalljackson.com it's about 200 footsteps
South (South is always best) from me and see can I get them to order
that Le Petit Soldat video for me.
cuhulin

Brought me that pretty brunette woman in the Le Petit Soldat movie.I am
not vulgar.I am really a nice guy.
cuhulin

Brought me,means,,,,, well,if you have to don't stop and thought about
it,you are wayyyyyy too slowwwww,,,,,,
cuhulin

I don't listen to those kooks,rush/savage.hannity,ingraham (ingraham!
are you crazy!) and you et them all.I listen to those kooks,Paul Gallo
and JT and Dave on 97.3 FM, www.supertalkms.com
cuhulin