| |
Main
Date: 26 Oct 2006 06:50:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
research.
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
act."
In the commercial, Fox throws his support behind Democratic Missouri
Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research,
against Republican James M. Talent. Fox also taped similar ads for
other Democratic candidates, including Benjamin L. Cardin in his Senate
race against Republican Michael S. Steele in yland and Wisconsin
Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who is seeking reelection.
The ads bear witness to the actor's unmistakable decline from
Parkinson's, which the actor has suffered from for a long time, and
harnesses that physical degeneration into a political message.
"What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans
like me," Fox said in the television spot, which will continue airing
throughout Missouri this week.
"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the
symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control
himself."
Limbaugh said Fox could "control himself enough to stay in the frame of
the picture" and to keep "his eyes right on the . . . teleprompter. But
his head and shoulders are moving all over the place."
"He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
"This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
didn't take his medication or he's acting."
Fox, who gained fame for his roles in the "Family Ties" and "Spin City"
television shows and "Back to the Future" movies, has long been open
about his battle with Parkinson's and his support for the research that
could lead to a treatment.
But in this ad he shows a noticeable degree of decline not widely seen
in previous public appearances. His speech is clear but his head and
body are jerky and unsteady.
William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of
neurology at the University of yland Medical Center and director of
the Parkinson's clinic there, says the following about Fox's behavior:
"What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He
has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ...
He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:39:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> Republicans introduce
> bills that would have stopped horrors like "partial birth abortion"
> and Nancy Pelosi and the other godless devils oppose them-- even
> filibuster to stop them.
>
You can drop the "godless devil" tag.
That's "Madame Speaker" to you, pal!
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
>
> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
That's one that everyone can hate.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 16:08:42
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>John B. wrote:
>> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
>>
>> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
>> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
>> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
>
>I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
>That's one that everyone can hate.
And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
trivia by little people.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 10:34:06
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2006 07:24:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
> >buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
> >labeled as a conspiracy loon
>
>
> I make it a rule never to attack people personally and have respect
> for people who hold opinions different from mine. However, anyone who
> believes that WTC #1, #2, or #7 was/were brought down by explosive
> charges is an idiot.
http://www.wtc7.net/
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 16:15:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 4 Nov 2006 10:34:06 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2006 07:24:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>> >buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>> >labeled as a conspiracy loon
>>
>>
>> I make it a rule never to attack people personally and have respect
>> for people who hold opinions different from mine. However, anyone who
>> believes that WTC #1, #2, or #7 was/were brought down by explosive
>> charges is an idiot.
>
>http://www.wtc7.net/
A web site for idiots.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:45:44
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2006 07:24:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>>> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>>> labeled as a conspiracy loon
>>
>> I make it a rule never to attack people personally and have respect
>> for people who hold opinions different from mine. However, anyone who
>> believes that WTC #1, #2, or #7 was/were brought down by explosive
>> charges is an idiot.
>
> http://www.wtc7.net/
>
Can the owners of a building, who obviously set the charges, be tried
for "demolition" of the building to collect the insurance money just
like when a building is burned to collect the insurance money?
Maybe it was a gas explosion, like the one recently on the upper east side?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:03:30
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"larry" wrote:
> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> trivia by little people.
Gingrich is st? Surely you jest.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:25:33
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
JJK wrote:
> "larry" wrote:
>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
>> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
>> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
>> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down
>> over trivia by little people.
>
>
> Gingrich is st? Surely you jest.
He got his Ph.D. at Tulane. Last I checked that is a respectable and
accredited institution.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:30:16
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> trivia by little people.
God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran out of
town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid and his,
eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:48:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <4546df62$0$17450$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
> On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> > US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> > of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> > congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> > trivia by little people.
>
> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran out of
> town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid and his,
> eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
He lied to a Congressional hearing! How 'trivial' is that?
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:22:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <4546df62$0$17450$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in
>>> the US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be
>>> President of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor,
>>> great congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought
>>> down over trivia by little people.
>>
>> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran
>> out of town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid
>> and his, eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
>
> He lied to a Congressional hearing! How 'trivial' is that?
Were you offended when your boy Bubba Clinton lied and philandered while in
office? Yeah, didn't think so; hypocrite.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:39:00
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>> WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> investigation.
>
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
The guy in charge of WTC7 must be an idiot.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated
plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to
demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary
"America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the
following statement;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
stest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull
and we watched the building collapse."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC
6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv
There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in
this context.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:03:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 8 Nov 2006 20:39:00 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
>
>The guy in charge of WTC7 must be an idiot.
That may, or may not, be so but anyone who thinks that WTC7 was
destroyed by explosives is surely an idiot.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:15:29
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Tex wrote:
> Hey idiot...how many gallons of fuel in Lidle's plane? How far did the
> plane penetrate the building?
>
> How many gallons of Jet Fuel in a 767? How far did the plane penetrate
> the building?
>
> Perhaps you should do some studying of the facts. Of course, that
> might require actual thinking, something which seems to escape you from
> time to time.
Hey Brokeback, WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:54:49
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>> Hey idiot...how many gallons of fuel in Lidle's plane? How far did
>> the plane penetrate the building?
>>
>> How many gallons of Jet Fuel in a 767? How far did the plane
>> penetrate the building?
>>
>> Perhaps you should do some studying of the facts. Of course, that
>> might require actual thinking, something which seems to escape you
>> from time to time.
>
> Hey Brokeback, WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane.
How much energy was involved in the collapse of two concrete buildings of
110 stories each? How much energy transfer occurred that was absorbed by
WTC7? Include flying debris as well as the energy transferred to the
bedrock those two buildings were set on. Siesmic graphs registered the
collapse of those building hundreds of miles away. It was not like dropping
your cheetos.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:26:12
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > >
> > WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> > and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> > crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> > investigation.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
>
> We all saw the footoge of the Cory Lidle plane that flew into the
> apartment building. The flames were intense and yet only one apartment
> was burned up. Now we are expected to believe that a steel high-rise
> building was destroyed by fire from debris form the other WTC buildings
> and then fell at free-fall speed? This would be the first steel
> high-rise building in history to be destroyed by fire. If I believed
> all of that I would be an idiot.
Hey idiot...how many gallons of fuel in Lidle's plane? How far did the
plane penetrate the building?
How many gallons of Jet Fuel in a 767? How far did the plane penetrate
the building?
Perhaps you should do some studying of the facts. Of course, that
might require actual thinking, something which seems to escape you from
time to time.
Tex
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:29:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> >
> WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> investigation.
>
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
We all saw the footoge of the Cory Lidle plane that flew into the
apartment building. The flames were intense and yet only one apartment
was burned up. Now we are expected to believe that a steel high-rise
building was destroyed by fire from debris form the other WTC buildings
and then fell at free-fall speed? This would be the first steel
high-rise building in history to be destroyed by fire. If I believed
all of that I would be an idiot.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:50:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> We all saw the footoge of the Cory Lidle plane that flew into the
> apartment building. The flames were intense and yet only one
> apartment was burned up. Now we are expected to believe that a steel
> high-rise building was destroyed by fire from debris form the other
> WTC buildings and then fell at free-fall speed? This would be the
> first steel high-rise building in history to be destroyed by fire. If
> I believed all of that I would be an idiot.
You are comparing a tiny aircraft that weighs less than a Volkwagen and has
40 gallons of regular pump gasoline to an aircraft that travels at 90% of
the speed of sound and weighs more than a thousand Volkswagens and holds
tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Talk about apples and oranges.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:44:16
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 6-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > >
> > WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> > and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> > crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> > investigation.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
>
> We all saw the footoge of the Cory Lidle plane that flew into the
> apartment building. The flames were intense and yet only one apartment
> was burned up. Now we are expected to believe that a steel high-rise
> building was destroyed by fire from debris form the other WTC buildings
> and then fell at free-fall speed? This would be the first steel
> high-rise building in history to be destroyed by fire. If I believed
> all of that I would be an idiot.
It takes weeks to set up a building for explosive demolition Perhaps you
should research your subject a bit before you start eating shoe-leather?
Here's a good place to start:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
me
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:49:09
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote in message
news:eJGdnYIRrZ7--9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 6-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It takes weeks to set up a building for explosive demolition Perhaps
> you
> should research your subject a bit before you start eating
> shoe-leather?
>
> Here's a good place to start:
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
>
> me
...Err Sparky, this site states:
"The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity
that brings the building down."
Well exactly so. And since the building fell at free-fall speed, that
would suggest that explosives removed the lower floors allowing
the upper floors to collapse at the speed of gravity. It cannot be
otherwise. It's a commonplace. It happens almost every day, but
always with the help of accurately placed explosive charges.
Alan.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:51:03
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 6-Nov-2006, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
> And since the building fell at free-fall speed, that
> would suggest that explosives removed the lower floors allowing
> the upper floors to collapse at the speed of gravity.
This is a classical logical fallicy. Can any debaters out there name it?
--
bill-o <-- Cogito ergo suma cum loudly!
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:34:35
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 6-Nov-2006, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
> "Sparky" <biff@funco.com> wrote in message
> news:eJGdnYIRrZ7--9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > On 6-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > It takes weeks to set up a building for explosive demolition Perhaps
> > you
> > should research your subject a bit before you start eating
> > shoe-leather?
> >
> > Here's a good place to start:
> > http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
> >
> > me
>
> ...Err Sparky, this site states:
> "The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity
> that brings the building down."
Yeah, So what? Gravity brings down all buildings that collapse
regardless of the initial cause of structural failure.
> Well exactly so. And since the building fell at free-fall speed, that
> would suggest that explosives removed the lower floors allowing
> the upper floors to collapse at the speed of gravity. It cannot be
> otherwise. It's a commonplace. It happens almost every day, but
> always with the help of accurately placed explosive charges.
Your continued harping on this so-called "free-fall speed" as being the
main indicator of explosives use is one of the funnier things I've read on
RSG.
me <-------likes to be entertained.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:11:00
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote in message
news:fbqdncsUG_fyN9LYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 6-Nov-2006, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sparky" <biff@funco.com> wrote in message
>> news:eJGdnYIRrZ7--9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> >
>> > On 6-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It takes weeks to set up a building for explosive demolition Perhaps
>> > you
>> > should research your subject a bit before you start eating
>> > shoe-leather?
>> >
>> > Here's a good place to start:
>> > http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
>> >
>> > me
>>
>> ...Err Sparky, this site states:
>> "The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity
>> that brings the building down."
>
> Yeah, So what? Gravity brings down all buildings that collapse
> regardless of the initial cause of structural failure.
>
>> Well exactly so. And since the building fell at free-fall speed, that
>> would suggest that explosives removed the lower floors allowing
>> the upper floors to collapse at the speed of gravity. It cannot be
>> otherwise. It's a commonplace. It happens almost every day, but
>> always with the help of accurately placed explosive charges.
>
> Your continued harping on this so-called "free-fall speed" as being the
> main indicator of explosives use is one of the funnier things I've read
> on
> RSG.
>
>
> me <-------likes to be entertained.
Sorry you don't get it yet, Sparky. But you will one day.
One of the funnier things I've seen on rsg BTW was your
wristbreak photographed by Annika. Were you born like
that or did you (free)fall off a building once?
Alan :-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 03:42:17
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 6-Nov-2006, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
> Sorry you don't get it yet, Sparky. But you will one day.
Oh, I get it all right, just not what you intended...
> One of the funnier things I've seen on rsg BTW was your
> wristbreak photographed by Annika. Were you born like
> that or did you (free)fall off a building once?
My thumb on my left hand is double jointed at the knuckle.
me
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:50:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:34:35 GMT, "Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote:
> Your continued harping on this so-called "free-fall speed" as being the
> main indicator of explosives use is one of the funnier things I've read on
> RSG.
I'd like to see his numbers - how fast it would have fallen if
explosives were used & how fast it would have fallen if the supports
broke due to the fire - compared to how fast it actually fell.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:02:03
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:6dbvk2ta7g27gja93dlmkliic8slbjgs81@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:34:35 GMT, "Sparky" <biff@funco.com> wrote:
>
>> Your continued harping on this so-called "free-fall speed" as being the
>> main indicator of explosives use is one of the funnier things I've read
>> on
>> RSG.
>
> I'd like to see his numbers - how fast it would have fallen if
> explosives were used & how fast it would have fallen if the supports
> broke due to the fire - compared to how fast it actually fell.
Here are a couple of calculations, Howard.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Alan.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:36:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 6 Nov 2006 07:29:24 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>We all saw the footoge of the Cory Lidle plane that flew into the
>apartment building. The flames were intense and yet only one apartment
>was burned up. Now we are expected to believe that a steel high-rise
>building was destroyed by fire from debris form the other WTC buildings
>and then fell at free-fall speed? This would be the first steel
>high-rise building in history to be destroyed by fire. If I believed
>all of that I would be an idiot.
See previous post.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:26:11
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:22:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> In article <4546df62$0$17450$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in
>>>> the US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be
>>>> President of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor,
>>>> great congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought
>>>> down over trivia by little people.
>>>
>>> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran
>>> out of town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid
>>> and his, eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
>>
>> He lied to a Congressional hearing! How 'trivial' is that?
>
>
>Were you offended when your boy Bubba Clinton lied and philandered while in
>office? Yeah, didn't think so; hypocrite.
I remember Lieberman saying when it was first reported that Clinton
had molested a White House Intern-"If he did that-- he is GONE!" But
then politics intervened and the Senate would not vote to convict (and
remove) him.
Clinton definitely committed felony sexual harassment-- had Monica
signed a complaint.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:51:39
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> Clinton definitely committed felony sexual harassment-- had Monica
> signed a complaint.
They were both consenting adults, so I don't think he did anything illegal.
His philandering was immoral, IMHO; but again that's just a personal
opinion since what he did was not felonious. That having been said; lying
to Independant Counsel was felonious; and for it he paid the ultimate price
and was impeached. I believe he also had to give up his license to practice
law. I am more concerned with the real issues that surrounded Clinton;
not that he wanted to play hide the salami with someone young enough to be
his daughter. The real issues surrounding Clinton include foreign policy
(including Rwanda) and why he pardoned someone who's illegal weapon sales
were responsible for the deaths of millions and million of people (c
Rich). And of course all those folks in Clinton's inner circle that keep
dying of non-natural causes....
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodycnt.html
Clinton Casualties
A "Casualty" is defined as anyone threatened with harm or actually harmed
because of their knowledge of and/or involvement in one or more of the
Clinton Scandals.
The following is a partial list of a large number of persons who who are
presumed to be "Casualties" of the various Clinton scandals. President
Clinton has told political supporters in Arkansas he will devote a lot of
time going after detractors who pursued him on Whitewater and other ethical
questions. (USA Today, November 8, 1996). It is a partial list because new
addditions are added regularly and the full extent of being associated with
Bill Clinton is not completly known.
The accounting of these mysterious deaths began in 1994 when in a letter to
congressional leaders, former Rep. William Dannemeyer listed 24 people with
some connection to Clinton who had died "under other than natural
circumstances" and called for hearings on the matter. Dannemeyer's list of
"suspicious deaths" was largely taken from one compiled by Linda Thompson,
an Indianapolis lawyer, containing the names of 34 people she believed died
suspiciously and who had ties to the Clinton family.
Some of the "Casualties" were openly murdered, but many were killed in such
a way so that their deaths could be ruled accidents or suicides. This was
especially true if they died in Arkansas where the medical examiners
routinely rule apparent murders as either accidents or suicides when it
suits political purposes. In fact, this is so common that it is often
referred to as "Arkancide" or "Arkansas Suicide".
"An apparent pattern of violence and intimidation has befallen a number of
men and women with ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, their partners in
business, law and politics, and people investigating their affairs..." (The
Arizona Republic, June 7, 1994)
On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson died when the airplane she was flying
in crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77 was reportedly
piloted by a suicidal terrorist whose cohorts also crashed planes into the
World Trade Center in New York city and in Pennsylvania. Barbara served as
the Republican chief counsel for the congressional committeee investigating
the Clintons' involvement in Travelgate and Filegate. She also authored two
books, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," a
scathing expose of Hillary Clinton, and "The Final Days: A Behind the Scenes
Look at the Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House."
I recently read an undocumented and unconfirmed report that yet another
Clinton connected person has died of an "apparent" suicide. In ch 1999,
Eric Fox, who served on ine One, was found shot in head after his car
swerves off road.
On Sunday, February 22nd, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28 year old son of
journalist Britt Hume, was reportedly found dead in his Arlington, Virginia
home. Aside from the statement that this was an "apparent" suicide, there
remains in place a total media blackout on this story. Hume was a reporter
for The Hill magazine, a newspaper about Congress for Congress, and had
broken a major story in 1997 regarding the friction between House Speaker
Newt Gingrich and a faction led by Representative Paxon (who announced his
resignation just 24 hours after Hume's death).
Sandy had a reputation for getting the story that nobody else wanted to look
at, and at the time of his death there reports that "a reporter" who was
about to break a story confirming the White House's use of investigators to
dig up dirt on critics and invstigators.
The man who performed the as-yet-unreleased autopsy is none other than Dr.
James C. Beyer, who has a record of concealing homicides behind a ruling of
suicide.
Danny Casolaro, a reporter who was investigating several of the Clinton
Scandals, was found dead in the bathtub of a hotel room in West Virginia on
Aug. 10, 1991, with his wrists slit. He had earlier warned his family that
his life was in danger and if he was found dead due to an apparent accident
or suicide, not to believe it.
Finishing Casolaro's work, Kenn thomas and Jim Keith wrote, The Octopus :
The Secret Government and Death of Danny Casolaro. It's a provocative
analysis of the mysterious death of journalist Danny Casolaro and discusses
the link between the death and high-level government conspiracy involving
the Iran-Contra affair, the October Surprise, BCCI, and other political
scandals and cover-ups.
On ch 3, 1994, Dr. Ronald Rogers, a dentist from Royal, AR, was killed
when his twin-engine Cessna crashed near Lawton, OK, in clear weather. He
was on his way to see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a reporter from the "London
Sunday Telegraph", to reveal some "dirt" on Clinton.
John A. Wilson, a Washington, D.C. councilman, "hung himself". He allegedly
knew a lot about Clinton and was reportedly going to start talking before
his death made that impossible.
Gandy Baugh, attorney representing Mr. Lassater in a case concerning alleged
financial misconduct, died in an alleged suicide on Jan.8, 1994, by jumping
out of a window of a multi-story building. Mr. Lassater was a close
associate of Gov. Clinton, and was later indicted on drug related charges,
among other things. Baugh's law partner was "suicided" one month later on
Feb. 9, 1994.
TailGate
In July 1997, during the pre-trial publicity surrounding the Paula Jones
lawsuit, and mere days after Newsweek's Mike Isikoff had dropped hints that
a "former White House staffer" was about to go public with her story of
sexual harassement at 1600 Pennsylvania, gunmen entered the Starbuck's
Coffee shop in Georgetown while the crew was cleaning up. y Mahoney, a 25
year old former White House Intern for Bill Clinton, was working as the
Assistant Manager. y's two associates, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory
Evans, 25, were taken to a room and shot. y herself had five bullets in
her, from at least two different guns, most likely with silencers. A total
of ten shots were fired; none of them heard by neighbors in the densely
populated Georgetown section. y was shot in the chest, her face, and in
the back of the head. No money was taken.
Suzanne Coleman had an affair with Bill Clinton when he was Attorney General
in Arkansas. On 15 February 1977, she "committed suicide" with a gunshot to
the back of the head. No autopsy was performed, but it has been alleged that
she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant with Clinton's child, although
never proven.
Judy Gibbs, who appeared in the December 1979 issue of Penthouse, and her
sister Sharon were part of a house of prostitution in Fordyce, Arkansas that
also engaged in blackmail of it's more powerful clients. Linked to Bill
Clinton by both her own family and by one of Bill's bodyguards, Judy had
just decided to cooperate with police in an investigation of Arkansas
cocaine trafficking when she burned to death inside her home from a fire of
undetermined origin.
Gary Johnson, an attorney who lived next door to Gennifer Flowers, was
beaten severely and left for dead by two thugs who broke into his apartment.
It seems he had videotaped some of Clinton's "visits" and had mentioned the
existence of the tapes to other people. The intruders made sure THEY TOOK
THE "CLINTON-FLOWERS" TAPES after they finished the beating.
Kathy Ferguson, the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, was
found dead with a gunshot wound to the head, in Sherwood, AR. On May 11,
1993, the right-handed Ferguson supposedly shot herself behind the left ear.
It was labeled a suicide even though much of the forensic evidence does not
support this finding. She died five days after her ex-husband, was named a
co-conspirator in the Paula Jones case. Kathy had told friends that Clinton
had sexually harassed her in a manner similar to that reported by Paula
Jones. She purportedly had knowledge of Clinton's "regulars" and often
talked about how Clinton had gotten Danny to bring women to him and stand
watch while they had sex. Part of Danny's job was to make sure that each
woman was ready and willing when she and Clinton got together. Kathy said
she heard that Clinton was really mad when Paula Jones wouldn't "put out".
Bill Shelton, an Arkansas police officer and boyfriend of Kathy Ferguson at
the time of her death, was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, in
Sherwood, AR. He was shot behind the ear which is usually the sign of an
execution. His death was also labeled a suicide. Shelton was highly critical
of the conclusion of local police that Kathy had committed suicide and he
aired his complaints widely.
Sally Perdue, one of Clinton's "regulars", was offered a $60,000/year
federal job to keep her mouth shut; or she would have her legs broken. When
she did come forward, she received a series of threats; but luckily for her,
the American press mostly ignored her.
The Dallas Morning News reported that the offices of The American Spectator
magazine were broken into and ransacked twice in September of 1994 after
David Brock returned to Washington, DC from Arkansas to write up his
interview of the Arkansas State Troopers. There was also a September
break-in at an apartment that the magazine keeps on the upper east side of
Manhattan. The three break-ins during Sept. of 1994 are the only ones ever
experienced by the magazine in its 27 year history.
Whitewater
People have been beaten and perhaps even killed for trying to expose the
background of Webster Hubbell and the dealings of the Rose Law Firm of which
he was a partner. Other famous partners in the firm were Hillary Rodham
Clinton, and Vincent Foster.
James McDougal was serving his 3 year sentence for bank fraud at the Fort
Worth Federal Medical Center in Texas, a facility operated by the federal
Bureau of Prisons for inmates who need medical attention. Just prior to
another round of testimony before Kenneth Starr's grand jury, Jim McDougal
suffered a heart attack while in solitary confinement and died ch 8,
1998. When Jim McDougal was taken out of solitary, instead of attempting to
defibrillate his heart with equipment on hand at the facility, he was driven
over to John Peter Smith hospital. Not the closest hospital to the Fort
Worth Federal Medical Center, John Peter Smith hospital is a welfare
hospital, where (in the words of one local) ,"They let interns practice on
deadbeats".
The single most damning fact to come out of the McDougal death was his
injection with Lasix, a diuretic, to force his giving a urine sample for
drug testing, even though McDougal was not a known drug case, and Lasix is
contra-indicated in cases of heart disease. Lasix can cause excessive
diuresis, blood volume reduction, circulatory collapse, and vascular
thrombosis, or blood clots. If a matching potassium supplement is not
administered at the same time, Lasix can kill.
Vince Foster, a former partner in the Rose Law firm and White House aide,
had just been served a subpeona and was supposed to testify about
Whitewater. Instead of testifying, he died on July 20, 1993. A suicide note
was supposedly found a few days later, torn into several pieces, in his
briefcase, after his office had been entered by white house staff and
materials removed. (The "suicide" note has since been revealed to be a
forgery.) The suicide conclusion does NOT square with the testimony from the
man who found the body (the Confidential Witness) or much of the forensic
evidence. For example, the gun which he supposedly used to kill himself was
reported to be still in his hand, but the person who first found the body
reports that there was no gun. A signed report of Medical Examiner, Dr.
Donald Haut was uncovered at the National Archives, proving that Foster had
a previously unreported gunshot wound to his neck. And, an FBI memo has
surfaced dated the day after the date of the official autopsy, in which the
autopsies informs the FBI that there was NO exit wound.
I'm sure Bill Clinton was relieved when the Supreme Court ruled that the
attorney-client privilege of confidentiality protects against disclosure of
the notes even after a client's death. That was the plan, after all, wasn't
it?
The Associated Press:Vincent Foster: the death investigation that hasn't
ended.
Jon Walker, an investigator for the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC),
mysteriously "fell" to his death from Lincoln Towers, in Arlington, VA. In
ch 1992, Walker contacted the Kansas City RTC office for information
concerning the ties between Whitewater and the Clintons. He reportedly was
looking into a 50 million dollar transfer from an RTC fund in Chicago to
Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan to cover up a 47 million dollar
embezzlement.
Johnny Franklin Laughton, Jr., and a friend hit a telephone pole at a high
rate of speed, . 29, 1998, after their car had become airborne and left
the road. They had driven less than 1/4 of a mile at the time of the impact.
In the spring of 1997, a tornado ripped through some junked cars at Johnny's
transmission and opened up the trunk of a car that proved to have a box of
Whitewater records in it, including a copy of a $27,000 cashiers check drawn
on Madison and payable to Bill Clinton. Johnny Franklin Laughton, Jr.
realized what he was looking at and turned the box of documents over to the
FBI.
Campaign Finance
The night before White House secretary, Betty Currie, was to testify before
the Campaign Finance hearing, her brother, Theodore Williams, Jr., was
severely beaten and hospitalized (see Oregonian January 29, 1998 Page A9).
Then within one month of her testifying in the Lewinsky Grand Jury her
sister was killed in a car "accident" in December 1997.
Ronald Miller died October 12, 1997. Miller is a former co-owner of Creek
Systems/Gage Corp., an Oklahoma natural gas company that alleged
discrimination by corrupt utility regulators. A court case that could have
proved damaging to high-ranking Democrats was averted at the last minute
when the Lums helped to purchase Gage Corp. and drop the lawsuit. Miller
tape recorded Gene and Nora Lum and turned those tapes (and other records)
over to congressional oversight investigators. The Lums were sentenced to
prison for campaign finance violations, using "straw donors" to conceal the
size of their contributions to various candidates.
Reportedly a healthy man, Ron suddenly took ill on October 3rd, and steadily
worsened until his deah 9 days later. (This pattern fits Ricine poisoning.)
Owing to the strangeness of the illness, doctors at the Integris Baptist
Medical Center referred the matter to the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner's
Office who promptly ran tests on samples of Ron Miller's blood, but has
refused to release the results or even to confirm that the tests were ever
completed.
Ed Willey, the manager of the Clinton presidential campaign finance
committee, died of a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound in Nov. '93. He was seen
handling briefcases full of cash during the campaign. Mr. Willey died on the
same day his wife was allegedly assaulted in the White House by Bill
Clinton.
Barbara Alice Wise was employed in the same section of the Commerce
Department which was the focus of illegal foreign fundraising. She was found
dead in her office at Commerce's International Trade Administration on
November 29, 1996.
Jerry Parks, the owner of a security firm that provided security for
Clinton's presidential campaign, was gunned down, assassination style, on
Sept. 26, 1993 in Little Rock. Now the dead man's son, Gary Parks, charges
that his father, who ran American Contract Services Inc., was killed "to
save Bill Clinton's political career." Interviewed in the London Telegraph,
the younger Parks said "my dad was working on Clinton's infidelities for
about six years, starting in the campaign around 1983," and had compiled two
name-and-photo-filled files on Mr. Clinton that he kept hidden in his
bedroom.
The Clinton campaign had failed to settle an outstanding debt to Parks for
$81,000 at the time of his death. Parks' wife said her husband threatened to
go public with his information if Clinton did not pay the bill. Parks' home
was broken into only hours before he was murdered. THE ONLY THING TAKEN FROM
HIS HOME WAS THE DOCUMENTATION HE HAD ON CLINTON'S "ACTIVITIES".
C. Victor Raiser II, the co-chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign
finance committee, was killed in a plane crash on July 30, 1992 near
Anchorage, AK, in good weather. With his inside knowledge of the Clinton
operation, he had become disillusioned by what he had seen and thus became a
potential liability.
The Democratic National Committee political director, Paul Tully, died from
unknown causes in his hotel room in Little Rock on September 24, 1992. The
Arkansas medical examiner's office ruled the death was because of a massive
heart attack.
L.J. Davis, a veteran journalist, was knocked unconscious in a Little Rock
hotel. Pages were stolen from his notebook that contained information on the
inner workings of the Rose law firm. He later received threats to back off
the story. Davis is a contributing editor for Harper's magazine and does
free-lance writing for many publications. The article, "The Name of Rose,"
which provides an excellent overview of politics and corruption in Arkansas
is available from the Electronic Newsstand.
Herschel Friday, a member of the Clinton presidential campaign finance
committee, was killed when his plane crashed on . 1, 1994 as he
approached his private landing strip near his Arkansas home, in a light
drizzle.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was killed when his plane crashed as it
approached the Dubrovnik, Croatia airport. Brown had previously been under
investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Commerce Department's
Inspector General, the Justice Department, the FDIC, and the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee was within two weeks of possibly
being indicted for an bribe allegedly paid by Dynamic Energy Resources in
Oklahoma.
A few years ago, a Vietnamese official accused him of asking for a $700,000
or so bribe in exchange for using his influence with Clinton to get
sanctions against Vietnam lifted and to open the country up to U.S. trade
and investment. After apparently stalling on the issue, the Justice
Department convened a grand jury to hear evidence, which could have resulted
in a possible criminal indictment. Veteran investigative journalist Sherman
Skolnick, commented that "There was jury-tampering by President Clinton and
his Justice Department. The grand jury proceedings were supposed to be kept
secret, yet Brown and his confederates were day by day illegally kept
informed, so they could obstruct justice by bribing or terrorizing grand
jury witnesses. Brown was not indicted......"
Brown made sure that Democratic leaders got the message: "I'm too old to go
to jail. If I go down, I'll take everyone else down with me." That, of
course, would include the Clintons. Brown's oft-repeated warning was clearly
heard. Brown's threats may have become his own death warrant.
Brown's plane was probably relying on Croatian ground beacons for
navigation. In the minutes before Brown's plane crashed, five other planes
landed at Dubrovnik without difficulty, and none experienced problems with
the beacons. But additional questions about the beacons and the crash will
remain unanswered because, as the Air Force acknowledges, airport
maintenance chief Niko Junic died by gunshot just three days after the crash
and before he could be interviewed by investigators. Within a day of his
death, officials determined the death was a suicide.
Dying along with Ron Brown on April 3, 1996, was Charles Meissner, Assistant
Secretay of Commerce. Meissner reportedly had provided special security
clearance to John Huang.
Air Force Tech. Sgt. Shelley Kelly, a stewardess, survived the crash for
some four hours. Kelly and another stewardess had been seated in a jump seat
at the very rear of the 737. That area was found basically intact after the
crash. According to the Air Force, she received first aid from Croatian
rescuers but died on the way to a nearby hospital. Her autopsy report states
that Kelly died of a broken neck."
Ron Brown's high level Muslim associate, Mohamed Ferrat was supposed to be
on Ron Brown's doomed death flight, but he changed plans at the last minute.
He later died on TWA Flight 800. Coincidence?
Terry Reed, co-author of, Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA received a
death threat while signing copies at a Little Rock Wal-t. The book claims
that Bill Clinton was involved in more than $9 million a week in cash being
secretly air dropped into Arkansas while he was governor. The threat was
slipped onto the front seat of his car according to Little Rock Police
Information Report Number 94-53155.
Stanley Huggins, a partner in a Memphis law firm, was found dead on June 23,
1994 reportedly from viral pneumonia. Huggins headed a 1987 examination into
the loan practices of Madison Savings & Loan. He produced a 300-400 page
report that has never been made public.
Drug Smuggling Operations at Mena
Paul Wilcher, an attorney, was found dead in his Washington, D.C. home. The
coroner either could not find or did not report the cause of death. At the
time of his death, Wilcher was investigating gun-running and the drug
business in Mena, AR. Shortly before his death he wrote a 105-page letter to
Attorney General Janet Reno describing evidence that he allegedly had
concerning Mena. The first page of his letter stated in part; "The lives of
key participants, other witnesses, and even myself, are now in grave danger
as a result of my passing this information on to you. If you let this
information fall into the hands of the wrong persons... some or all of those
who know the truth ...could well be silenced in the very near future."
Alder Berriman (Barry) Seal, the head of the cocaine smuggling operation at
Mena airport, was murdered.
Florence tin, an accountant who had worked as a sub-contractor for the
CIA, was found dead in Mabell, TX, the victim of three gunshot wounds to the
head. She had the documents and paperwork as well as the pin number to an
account that had been set up in the name of Barry Seal for $1.46 million
dollars at the Fuji Bank in the Cayman Islands.
Kevin Ives, a teenager who lived near Mena, AR, was run over by a train
close to Mena. First ruled a suicide, a later autopsy showed he was murdered
before he was run over by the train. He may have gotten too curious about
air drops he had seen in the nearby countryside.
Don Henry, a friend of Kevin Ives, was also run over by the train on the
same night. His death was initially ruled a suicide, too, but a later
autopsy showed he was also murdered before he was run over by the train.
Keith Coney, an individual who claimed to have information about the deaths
of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, was fleeing an attacker on his motorcycle, when
he slammed into the back of a truck. Police ruled it a "traffic fatality".
Keith McKaskle, another person who claimed to have information about the
Ives-Henry murders, was brutally stabbed to death in his home. He knew
someone was after him so he had said goodbye to his friends and family.
Gregory Collins, another person who claimed to have information about the
Ives-Henry murders, died from a shotgun blast in the face.
Jeff Rhodes, another person who claimed to have information about the
Ives-Henry murders, was shot in the head. His burned body was found in the
city dump, with his hands, feet, and head partially severed.
Richard Winters, another person who claimed to have information about the
Ives-Henry murders, was killed by a man using a sawed-off shotgun.
Jordan Ketelson, another person who claimed to have information about the
Ives-Henry murders, died of a shotgun blast to the head.
Assault on Waco
Steve Willis - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
Robert Williams - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
Conway LeBleu - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
Todd McKeehan - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
Died on Feb. 28, 1993, or perhaps "executed" by gunfire in the Waco, Texas
assault on the Branch Davidians. All four were examined by a "private
doctor" and died from nearly identical wounds to the left temple, so-called
execution style. According to Linda Thompson, videotapes and other evidence
indicates that none died from guns fired by Branch Davidians.
In the videotape by the American Justice Federation, "WACO II, the Big Lie
Continues," Linda Thompson demonstrates that 15 shots were fired from six
separate weapons into and out of a room into which three of the four agents
had entered through a window. Four of these shots were fired from an
overhead helicopter, at least two shots were fired into the room by an agent
outside the window, firing an MP5 submachine gun, who also threw in a
concussion grenade. In the autopsies of these agents, three had virtually
identical wounds to the left temple that exited through the rear of the
head, execution-style.
In his address to employees of the Treasury Department in the Cash Room on
ch 18, 1993, Clinton said: "My prayers and I'm sure yours are still with
the families of all four of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents who
were killed in WACO -- Todd McKeehan and Conway Le Bleu of New Orleans;
Steve Willis of Houston, and Robert Williams from my hometown of Little
Rock. Three of those four were assigned to my security during the course of
the priy or general election." However, the Little Rock, Arkansas office
of the ATF confirmed that all four had at one point been bodyguards for Bill
Clinton, three while he was campaigning for President, and while he had been
governor of Arkansas.
Dead Bodyguards
Maj. Gen. William Robertson - Deputy Commanding General, V Corps, Europe
Col William Densberger - V Corps Chief of Operations and Plans
Col. Robert Kelly - V Corps Chief of Intelligence
Spec. Gary Rhodes - Crew Chief
All were killed Feb. 23, 1993, when their Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter
crashed in Weisbaden, Germany. No cause was ever determined. V Corps figured
prominently in the US Bosnia-Serbia peacekeeping operations, along with the
carrier Roosevelt. These men, and 8 others associated with Clinton's visit
to the Roosevelt all died within 4 months of each other.
Staff Sgt. Brian Haney - Clinton bodyguard
ine Sgt. Tim Sabel - Clinton bodyguard
Maj. William Barkley - Clinton bodyguard
Capt. Scott Reynolds - Clinton bodyguard
All four men died May 19, 1993 when their helicopter crashed in the woods
near Quantico, Va. Reporters were barred from the site, and the head of the
fire department responding to the crash described it by saying, "Security
was tight," with "lots of ines with guns." A videotape made by a
firefighter was seized by the ines. All four men had escorted Clinton on
his flight to the carrier Roosevelt shortly before their deaths.
Alan G. Whicher oversaw Clinton's Secret Service detail. In October 1994
Whicher was transferred to the Secret Service field office in the Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City. Whatever warning was given to the BATF agents in
that building did not reach Alan Whicher, who died in the bomb blast of
April 19th 1995.
Luther Parks, head of Clinton's Gubernatorial security team in Little Rock,
was gunned down in his car at the intersection of Chanaul Parkway and
Cantrell Road, near Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 26, 1993. Parks was
shot through the rear window of his car. The assailant then pulled around to
the driver's side of Park's car and shot him three more times with a 9mm
pistol.
His family reported that shortly before his death, they were being followed
by unknown persons, and their home had been broken into (despite a top
quality alarm system). Parks had been compiling a dossier on Clinton's
illicit activities. The dossier was stolen. When news of the discovery of
Vincent Foster's body came over the news, Parks is reported to have
said,"Bill Clinton is cleaning house".
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:37:41
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <bhihk25kvg1cjk4j0q4ddnip20ga584jq7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:22:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
> >William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> In article <4546df62$0$17450$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> >> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in
> >>>> the US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be
> >>>> President of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor,
> >>>> great congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought
> >>>> down over trivia by little people.
> >>>
> >>> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran
> >>> out of town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid
> >>> and his, eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
> >>
> >> He lied to a Congressional hearing! How 'trivial' is that?
> >
> >
> >Were you offended when your boy Bubba Clinton lied and philandered while in
> >office? Yeah, didn't think so; hypocrite.
>
> I remember Lieberman saying when it was first reported that Clinton
> had molested a White House Intern-"If he did that-- he is GONE!" But
> then politics intervened and the Senate would not vote to convict (and
> remove) him.
>
> Clinton definitely committed felony sexual harassment-- had Monica
> signed a complaint.
>
> Larry
Well since she was the one that came on to him as an adult, you are
totally right.
No molestation, no sexual harassment.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:43:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <pxT1h.9889$N4.8716@bignews5.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <4546df62$0$17450$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30-Oct-2006, larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in
> >>> the US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be
> >>> President of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor,
> >>> great congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought
> >>> down over trivia by little people.
> >>
> >> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran
> >> out of town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid
> >> and his, eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
> >
> > He lied to a Congressional hearing! How 'trivial' is that?
>
>
> Were you offended when your boy Bubba Clinton lied and philandered while in
> office? Yeah, didn't think so; hypocrite.
Good job - the typical neocon 'change the topic to Clinton' trick.
Sorry, doesn't work - we don't having the likes of you put words in our
mouths. Gingrich was run out of town by the GoP, not the Dems.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:13:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Good job - the typical neocon 'change the topic to Clinton' trick.
What on earth makes you think I am neo-conservative? I am an equal
opportunity hater - I despise the Democrats and Republicans fairly equally.
I can't even tell the difference between them anymore. They both spend like
drunken sailors, and both want nothing more than to grow the Federal
Government even further to benefit themselves.
> Sorry, doesn't work - we don't having the likes of you put words in
> our mouths.
I don't need to William - you spew so much gun-grabbing crap and espouse
the wonder of socially irresponsibile spending that you don't need my help.
Whatever will you do when all the wealthy people get tired of being robbed
by you left wingers and move away to the Caribbean or other such places?
Then all you will be left with are lower class left wingers with their hands
out, and there will be no money to give them.
> Gingrich was run out of town by the GoP, not the Dems.
Oh, stop. Now you are just being retarded. Left wing, pro Democrat media
have had a field day with Anne Manning, Callista Bisek, Kip Carter, the
Hospital divorce story, bounced checks, the Murdoch deal, GOPAC, etc.
I am not saying Gingrich is a prize; but if you are going to lambaste this
guy you should be equally critical of Bubba Clinton. You might also be
critical of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson. Jimmy was rather ineffective
in foriegn policy and was part of a food-for-oil scandal; and Johnson had a
mistress and even told her Kennedy was going to die the day before it
happened. The end of the "Fucking Irish Mafia" if I remember.
Democrats and Republicans suck fairly equally, IMHO. The dishonesty of
the Executive and Legislative branches crossed party lines.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John B. wrote:
> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >>
> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >
> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >That's one that everyone can hate.
>
> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> trivia by little people.
>
> Larry
Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
Democrats, Larry.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:19:26
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John B. wrote:
>> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
>> >>
>> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
>> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
>> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
>> >
>> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
>> >That's one that everyone can hate.
>>
>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
>> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
>> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
>> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
>> trivia by little people.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
>intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
>statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
>
>You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
>Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
>and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
>Democrats, Larry.
As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:51:23
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <619dk2tih8fb0avthipjbnnf0kmler10lj@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >> >>
> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >> >
> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
> >>
> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> >> trivia by little people.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
> >
> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> >Democrats, Larry.
>
> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
>
> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
>
> Larry
Larry, you are so easily impressed by the 'academic' community, and yet
you have to compensate for this adoration by constantly trying to
denigrate them (unless they support the GoP, of course). Gingrich is a
typical windbag, and he got caught fair and square a) cheating and then
b) lying. His own party led the charge to ditch him.
You can get help for this paranoia, you know.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:44:43
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <619dk2tih8fb0avthipjbnnf0kmler10lj@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >> >>
> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >> >
> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
> >>
> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> >> trivia by little people.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
No reply, Larry? Why am I not surprised?
> >
> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> >Democrats, Larry.
>
> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
>
> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
A person of distinctly questionable ethics...
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:53:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <w9a1h.18952$kI6.5108@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> Yeah, right. The thought of you and Dad's Army holding the borders
> >>> is even scarier. Moving to Baghdad sounds almost appealing, if it
> >>> means getting away from you vigilante nutters.
> >>
> >>
> >> BWHAHAHA. Idiots like you deserve everything the Muslims send your
> >> way. Just roll over and stick your legs in the air, pussy.
> >
> > Thank you for showing us all your true intelligence.
> >
> > Golf, anyone?
>
> I am not sure you have the brain power to operate a club.
>
> I'm sure I speak for many others when I say how grateful I am for the really intelligent and thought-provoking arguments you've brought to this discussion. Thank you so much.
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
> I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
> gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
> Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:11:38
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <%L61h.41481$X11.8829@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Note to Larry, all hell HAS broken loose. Our only hope is a change of
> > > direction to try to cap it now. However, I suspect that this genie is
> > > well and truly out of the bottle. God help us all.
> >
> > Keep buying guns and ammo. It's all we can do. At best, that will stop
> > Muslim fanatic countries from trying to invade. I have no solution for how
> > to stop them from sending nukes in cargo containers. I found a website
> > today (it was advertised in this month's Soldier of Fortune) that I am
> > starting to surf and check out - seems interesting.
> > www.nuclearresponse.org
>
> Yeah, right. The thought of you and Dad's Army holding the borders is
> even scarier. Moving to Baghdad sounds almost appealing, if it means
> getting away from you vigilante nutters.
I'll help you pack...when you leaving?
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:22:03
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1162159898.482461.25970@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <%L61h.41481$X11.8829@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > Note to Larry, all hell HAS broken loose. Our only hope is a change of
> > > > direction to try to cap it now. However, I suspect that this genie is
> > > > well and truly out of the bottle. God help us all.
> > >
> > > Keep buying guns and ammo. It's all we can do. At best, that will stop
> > > Muslim fanatic countries from trying to invade. I have no solution for
> > > how
> > > to stop them from sending nukes in cargo containers. I found a
> > > website
> > > today (it was advertised in this month's Soldier of Fortune) that I am
> > > starting to surf and check out - seems interesting.
> > > www.nuclearresponse.org
> >
> > Yeah, right. The thought of you and Dad's Army holding the borders is
> > even scarier. Moving to Baghdad sounds almost appealing, if it means
> > getting away from you vigilante nutters.
>
> I'll help you pack...when you leaving?
>
> Tex
Let's set it for the day you make a courteous and intelligent post.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:40:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1162159898.482461.25970@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <%L61h.41481$X11.8829@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> Note to Larry, all hell HAS broken loose. Our only hope is a
>>>>> change of direction to try to cap it now. However, I suspect that
>>>>> this genie is well and truly out of the bottle. God help us all.
>>>>
>>>> Keep buying guns and ammo. It's all we can do. At best, that
>>>> will stop Muslim fanatic countries from trying to invade. I have
>>>> no solution for how
>>>> to stop them from sending nukes in cargo containers. I found a
>>>> website
>>>> today (it was advertised in this month's Soldier of Fortune) that
>>>> I am starting to surf and check out - seems interesting.
>>>> www.nuclearresponse.org
>>>
>>> Yeah, right. The thought of you and Dad's Army holding the borders
>>> is even scarier. Moving to Baghdad sounds almost appealing, if it
>>> means getting away from you vigilante nutters.
>>
>> I'll help you pack...when you leaving?
>>
>> Tex
>
> Let's set it for the day you make a courteous and intelligent post.
Your irony meter is borked, assnozzle.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:23:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <3Cd1h.9991$Bs.3898@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1162159898.482461.25970@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <%L61h.41481$X11.8829@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> Note to Larry, all hell HAS broken loose. Our only hope is a
> >>>>> change of direction to try to cap it now. However, I suspect that
> >>>>> this genie is well and truly out of the bottle. God help us all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keep buying guns and ammo. It's all we can do. At best, that
> >>>> will stop Muslim fanatic countries from trying to invade. I have
> >>>> no solution for how
> >>>> to stop them from sending nukes in cargo containers. I found a
> >>>> website
> >>>> today (it was advertised in this month's Soldier of Fortune) that
> >>>> I am starting to surf and check out - seems interesting.
> >>>> www.nuclearresponse.org
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, right. The thought of you and Dad's Army holding the borders
> >>> is even scarier. Moving to Baghdad sounds almost appealing, if it
> >>> means getting away from you vigilante nutters.
> >>
> >> I'll help you pack...when you leaving?
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> > Let's set it for the day you make a courteous and intelligent post.
>
>
> Your irony meter is borked, assnozzle.
But it is clearly in better shape than your IQ.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:32:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Let's set it for the day you make a courteous and intelligent post.
>>
>>
>> Your irony meter is borked, assnozzle.
>
> But it is clearly in better shape than your IQ.
4th grade taunts from some coward? Are the parents of your students aware
of your idiocy?
William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Associate Dean, Graduate School
250 University Hall
230 N. Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-9490
clark.31@osu.edu
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:38:34
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
Hey Pot, I think you just met Kettle. You say anything you want about
anyone on here with never an apology and then you call Rush (wait, ALL
Republicans) a lying scumbag. How is he any different than you?
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:03:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
> >> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
> >> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
> >> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
> >> point.
> >
> > You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> > in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> > tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>
> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
> what the medications do and how they work.
>
> >> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> >> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> >> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> >> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
> >
> > Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> > bother).
>
> He is a Democrat.
Arlen Specter was considered a moderate Republican before the lunatics
took over the asylum. Now people are calling him a Democrat.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:32:32
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
>>>> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
>>>> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
>>>> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
>>>> point.
>>> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
>>> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
>>> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
>> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
>> what the medications do and how they work.
>>
>>>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
>>>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
>>>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
>>>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
>>> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
>>> bother).
>> He is a Democrat.
>
> Arlen Specter was considered a moderate Republican before the lunatics
> took over the asylum. Now people are calling him a Democrat.
>
When you do the Democrat's bidding you become one of them.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:13:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:02:22 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <vfn7k214vvqapkjs671b9p54jtegaon29j@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn
> >> Smith) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
> >> >But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
> >> >are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
> >> >other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
> >> >view the person and position rather than the party lable.
> >> >
> >> >I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
> >> >at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
> >> >the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
> >> >hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
> >> >some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
> >> >Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
> >> >why not.
> >> >
> >> >The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
> >> >polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
> >> >seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
> >> >If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
> >> >from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
> >> >we are rapidly approaching that point.
> >>
> >> If our republic falls it wll be from collapse of our economy due to
> >> foreign investors pulling their money. Exactly as happened after
> >> 9/11 but much worse and more persistent. That will take our stock
> >> ket to 1929 levels-- and nearly every big bank will fail within
> >> weeks or months. Most big businesses will fail, all airlines and
> >> manufacturing will fail, unemployment will go to 70% or higher.
> >>
> >> That could all be triggered by one or several successful 9/11 type
> >> attacks on America-- because those foreign investors would pull their
> >> money once they realized America is a target and helpless. Democrats
> >> in charge would blind us to stop attacks by disabling our intelligence
> >> services (like they did under both Carter and Clinton) and by
> >> disabling our ability to follow their money and much more. Pacifists
> >> would force us to withdraw from Iraq and thus create a situation like
> >> Vietnam-- Radical Islam is watching, and has predicted that America
> >> doesn't have the stomach for a fight--and will retreat when its nose
> >> is bloodied-- Democrats in charge would make that prophesy the truth.
> >> Vote Republican or lose your country.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
> >glasses of yours.
>
> Amazing that people who deny we're in a war conveniently forget what
> happened in the months immediately after 9/11. The stock ket
> crashed--and took 4 years to recover! Several important industries
> nearly went bust-- the airlines have STILL not fully recovered.
Sorry, Larry. Wrong yet again. The stock ket crashed, if you want to
call it that, in 2000. That's when the hi-tech bubble burst.
>
> Another attack like 9/11 will verify to those investors that we are
> indeed a helpless target and cannot stop further attacks. They will
> pull their investments.
>
> Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 06:53:17
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Kenn Smith wrote:
> I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
> But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
> are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
> other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
> view the person and position rather than the party lable.
>
> I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
> at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
> the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
> hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
> some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
> Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
> why not.
>
> The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
> polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
> seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
> If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
> from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
> we are rapidly approaching that point.
Well said, Kenn. Thank you.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 09:10:45
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1162133597.291128.17590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Kenn Smith wrote:
> > I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
> > But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
> > are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
> > other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
> > view the person and position rather than the party lable.
> >
> > I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
> > at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
> > the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
> > hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
> > some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
> > Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
> > why not.
> >
> > The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
> > polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
> > seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
> > If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
> > from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
> > we are rapidly approaching that point.
>
>
> Well said, Kenn. Thank you.
Besides the internet revolution, the other thing that has fed the rise
of unreasoned discourse in politics is the repeal of the Fairness
Doctrine.
When that happened, all the fringe talkers came out of the woodwork to
spread whatever doctrine they felt was important in very hateful forms.
This polarized discourse to the level we see today.
Reports from Congress indicate that the two parties don't even talk to
each other. And while it is easy to say that the Republicans have
fomented this, it isn't the whole truth. Instead of the spirit of
compromise in how Congress works as set in our Constitution, we get the
politics of power, cutting out those in the minority entirely.
Those of us with representatives not in the party with the majority
still expect our elected officials to have input into the lawmaking.
That isn't happening, and I'm not sure we can step back and re-introduce
our Congress critters to the notion. The only way I see it happening is
to bounce all incumbents periodically to remind them who they work for.
I don't see that happening in my lifetime, much to the country's
detriment.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
view the person and position rather than the party lable.
I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
why not.
The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
we are rapidly approaching that point.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:54:53
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn
Smith) wrote:
>I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
>But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
>are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
>other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
>view the person and position rather than the party lable.
>
>I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
>at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
>the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
>hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
>some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
>Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
>why not.
>
>The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
>polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
>seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
>If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
>from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
>we are rapidly approaching that point.
If our republic falls it wll be from collapse of our economy due to
foreign investors pulling their money. Exactly as happened after
9/11 but much worse and more persistent. That will take our stock
ket to 1929 levels-- and nearly every big bank will fail within
weeks or months. Most big businesses will fail, all airlines and
manufacturing will fail, unemployment will go to 70% or higher.
That could all be triggered by one or several successful 9/11 type
attacks on America-- because those foreign investors would pull their
money once they realized America is a target and helpless. Democrats
in charge would blind us to stop attacks by disabling our intelligence
services (like they did under both Carter and Clinton) and by
disabling our ability to follow their money and much more. Pacifists
would force us to withdraw from Iraq and thus create a situation like
Vietnam-- Radical Islam is watching, and has predicted that America
doesn't have the stomach for a fight--and will retreat when its nose
is bloodied-- Democrats in charge would make that prophesy the truth.
Vote Republican or lose your country.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:18:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <vfn7k214vvqapkjs671b9p54jtegaon29j@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
> >But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
> >are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
> >other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
> >view the person and position rather than the party lable.
> >
> >I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
> >at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
> >the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
> >hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
> >some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
> >Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
> >why not.
> >
> >The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
> >polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
> >seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
> >If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
> >from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
> >we are rapidly approaching that point.
>
> If our republic falls it wll be from collapse of our economy due to
> foreign investors pulling their money. Exactly as happened after
> 9/11 but much worse and more persistent. That will take our stock
> ket to 1929 levels-- and nearly every big bank will fail within
> weeks or months. Most big businesses will fail, all airlines and
> manufacturing will fail, unemployment will go to 70% or higher.
>
> That could all be triggered by one or several successful 9/11 type
> attacks on America-- because those foreign investors would pull their
> money once they realized America is a target and helpless. Democrats
> in charge would blind us to stop attacks by disabling our intelligence
> services (like they did under both Carter and Clinton) and by
> disabling our ability to follow their money and much more. Pacifists
> would force us to withdraw from Iraq and thus create a situation like
> Vietnam-- Radical Islam is watching, and has predicted that America
> doesn't have the stomach for a fight--and will retreat when its nose
> is bloodied-- Democrats in charge would make that prophesy the truth.
> Vote Republican or lose your country.
>
> Larry
You're getting desperate, Larry.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:51:55
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Thank you, Larry, you made my point even clearer. To parapharase your
post, "Democrats are all evil, Republicans are all good." Where in that
mindset is any room for constructive dialog?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:02:22
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <vfn7k214vvqapkjs671b9p54jtegaon29j@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
> >But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
> >are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
> >other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
> >view the person and position rather than the party lable.
> >
> >I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
> >at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
> >the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
> >hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
> >some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
> >Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
> >why not.
> >
> >The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
> >polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
> >seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
> >If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
> >from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
> >we are rapidly approaching that point.
>
> If our republic falls it wll be from collapse of our economy due to
> foreign investors pulling their money. Exactly as happened after
> 9/11 but much worse and more persistent. That will take our stock
> ket to 1929 levels-- and nearly every big bank will fail within
> weeks or months. Most big businesses will fail, all airlines and
> manufacturing will fail, unemployment will go to 70% or higher.
>
> That could all be triggered by one or several successful 9/11 type
> attacks on America-- because those foreign investors would pull their
> money once they realized America is a target and helpless. Democrats
> in charge would blind us to stop attacks by disabling our intelligence
> services (like they did under both Carter and Clinton) and by
> disabling our ability to follow their money and much more. Pacifists
> would force us to withdraw from Iraq and thus create a situation like
> Vietnam-- Radical Islam is watching, and has predicted that America
> doesn't have the stomach for a fight--and will retreat when its nose
> is bloodied-- Democrats in charge would make that prophesy the truth.
> Vote Republican or lose your country.
>
> Larry
All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
glasses of yours.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:59:02
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:02:22 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>In article <vfn7k214vvqapkjs671b9p54jtegaon29j@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:21:04 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn
>> Smith) wrote:
>>
>> >I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, too tedious for me.
>> >But, I will directly answer Anniks's question. No, not all Republicans
>> >are lying scumbags, nor are all Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or
>> >other groups. Some are, some are persons of great integrity. I tend to
>> >view the person and position rather than the party lable.
>> >
>> >I've never in my 74 years voted a straight party ticket. I try to look
>> >at candidate's position on issues of importance to me or what I see as
>> >the national interest. I vote on what I discern from what I can read,
>> >hear an see. I've already voted in the midterms - some Republicans,
>> >some Democrats, a couple of Independents and even a couple of
>> >Liberterians. The Liberterians were a protest vote but, what the hell,
>> >why not.
>> >
>> >The thing which makes me fearful for our republic is that the
>> >polarization between right and left is getting worse and worse. There
>> >seems to be no place for civil dialog and open minded exchange of ideas.
>> >If the republic falls it will not be from terrorists abroad, it will be
>> >from within when we can no longer reason together. And I am afraid that
>> >we are rapidly approaching that point.
>>
>> If our republic falls it wll be from collapse of our economy due to
>> foreign investors pulling their money. Exactly as happened after
>> 9/11 but much worse and more persistent. That will take our stock
>> ket to 1929 levels-- and nearly every big bank will fail within
>> weeks or months. Most big businesses will fail, all airlines and
>> manufacturing will fail, unemployment will go to 70% or higher.
>>
>> That could all be triggered by one or several successful 9/11 type
>> attacks on America-- because those foreign investors would pull their
>> money once they realized America is a target and helpless. Democrats
>> in charge would blind us to stop attacks by disabling our intelligence
>> services (like they did under both Carter and Clinton) and by
>> disabling our ability to follow their money and much more. Pacifists
>> would force us to withdraw from Iraq and thus create a situation like
>> Vietnam-- Radical Islam is watching, and has predicted that America
>> doesn't have the stomach for a fight--and will retreat when its nose
>> is bloodied-- Democrats in charge would make that prophesy the truth.
>> Vote Republican or lose your country.
>>
>> Larry
>
>All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
>glasses of yours.
Amazing that people who deny we're in a war conveniently forget what
happened in the months immediately after 9/11. The stock ket
crashed--and took 4 years to recover! Several important industries
nearly went bust-- the airlines have STILL not fully recovered.
Another attack like 9/11 will verify to those investors that we are
indeed a helpless target and cannot stop further attacks. They will
pull their investments.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:23:07
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <albck2tdfmfahrpacmeqhia4a33rfre1eu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> >All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
> >glasses of yours.
>
> Amazing that people who deny we're in a war conveniently forget what
> happened in the months immediately after 9/11. The stock ket
> crashed--and took 4 years to recover! Several important industries
> nearly went bust-- the airlines have STILL not fully recovered.
>
> Another attack like 9/11 will verify to those investors that we are
> indeed a helpless target and cannot stop further attacks. They will
> pull their investments.
>
> Larry
It is amazing what you can put together to almost come up with a cogent
comment!
Bush's rush to war with Iraq has exacerbated the issue more than it
helped. We had them contained and they were not part of 9/11 as all
legit studies have shown.
The stock ket, btw, has not fully recovered. With inflation
accounted for, it would need to be about 14K to have that be true.
As to the airlines. Well the big boys were already in trouble before
9/11, it just accelerated a process that is still ongoing.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:08:27
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Bush's rush to war with Iraq has exacerbated the issue more than it
> helped. We had them contained and they were not part of 9/11 as all
> legit studies have shown.
That cannot be deduced without a crystal ball. Trying to guess what
Al-Qaida, Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. would have done had we not waged war
on terror is a guestimation/swag at best.
> As to the airlines. Well the big boys were already in trouble before
> 9/11, it just accelerated a process that is still ongoing.
Some airlines are doing well. It's hub/spoke and the unions that are
killing some of the big players.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:29:40
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:23:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>In article <albck2tdfmfahrpacmeqhia4a33rfre1eu@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> >All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
>> >glasses of yours.
>>
>> Amazing that people who deny we're in a war conveniently forget what
>> happened in the months immediately after 9/11. The stock ket
>> crashed--and took 4 years to recover! Several important industries
>> nearly went bust-- the airlines have STILL not fully recovered.
>>
>> Another attack like 9/11 will verify to those investors that we are
>> indeed a helpless target and cannot stop further attacks. They will
>> pull their investments.
>>
>> Larry
>
>It is amazing what you can put together to almost come up with a cogent
>comment!
>
>Bush's rush to war with Iraq has exacerbated the issue more than it
>helped. We had them contained and they were not part of 9/11 as all
>legit studies have shown.
>
>The stock ket, btw, has not fully recovered. With inflation
>accounted for, it would need to be about 14K to have that be true.
>
>As to the airlines. Well the big boys were already in trouble before
>9/11, it just accelerated a process that is still ongoing.
Oh, so another attack from Al Queda would be no big deal? Do believe
as Nancy Pelosi does, that we are not really in any sort of war?
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:59:06
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:gidck2lbn8d8ndfskkn2n0ci44luit4k3u@4ax.com...
>
> Oh, so another attack from Al Queda would be no big deal? Do believe
> as Nancy Pelosi does, that we are not really in any sort of war?
>
There is no formal declaration of "war" in effect. The military campain to
remove Saddam Hussain from power and effect regime change is complete. The
standing army of the country of Iraq is dismantled.
We are now engaged in (pick one): an occupation, a police action,
peacekeeping, providing assistance to the sovereign nation of Iraq.
Whatever it is - it is no longer a "war" be any classic definition.
The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a tactic?
Now, that isn't to say we are not in a period of great violence and danger.
Perhaps great enough that the Republicans will be able to convince us to
give up our freedoms and engage in the very tactics used by our enemies.
Bush likes to simle-mindedly say "They hates our freedoms" - well if that is
the case then they have won - since we are apparently all too willing to
give them up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:12:05
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
No party has a corner on the lying scumbag title.
I have found that if they wear a suit and their lips are moving, they are
probably a lying scumbag.
Why else would they wear a suit?
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:34:56
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Otto wrote:
> No party has a corner on the lying scumbag title.
>
>
> I have found that if they wear a suit and their lips are moving, they
> are probably a lying scumbag.
>
>
>
> Why else would they wear a suit?
To hide the HIV+ sores?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:27:23
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
I'm not into attacking "leaders" over physical issues.
I do not like lying, cheating, or stealing.
Give me all the sores you want if you can at least be honest, tell the
truth, and not cheat or steal.
You can run on that in jeans and a tshirt and I'll vote for ya.
Wouldn't that be welcome relief? --voting for someone who has the
welfare of the country as the first priority.
We have what? --436 representatives and 100 senators and none of them can
meet that standard. They all want to make a retirement off Gov't service.
Fuck'em all.
Otto
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:2JT1h.9899$N4.4541@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> To hide the HIV+ sores?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:31:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Otto wrote:
> I'm not into attacking "leaders" over physical issues.
>
> I do not like lying, cheating, or stealing.
>
> Give me all the sores you want if you can at least be honest, tell the
> truth, and not cheat or steal.
>
> You can run on that in jeans and a tshirt and I'll vote for ya.
>
> Wouldn't that be welcome relief? --voting for someone who has the
> welfare of the country as the first priority.
>
> We have what? --436 representatives and 100 senators and none of
> them can meet that standard. They all want to make a retirement off
> Gov't service.
> Fuck'em all.
>
> Otto
IAWTP. 100%
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:52:32
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
FredK wrote:
> The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
> tactic?
The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one ounce
baggie?
> Now, that isn't to say we are not in a period of great violence and
> danger. Perhaps great enough that the Republicans will be able to
> convince us to give up our freedoms and engage in the very tactics
> used by our enemies. Bush likes to simle-mindedly say "They hates our
> freedoms" - well if that is the case then they have won - since we
> are apparently all too willing to give them up.
Islam has clearly stolen my freedom. I can't even bring toothpaste and
shaving cream on an airplane anymore.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:49:49
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:47x1h.14826$Fd7.388@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> FredK wrote:
> > The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
> > tactic?
>
> The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one ounce
> baggie?
>
Um. Because that phrase too is political sloganeering? The police action
to reduce the flow of drugs into the U.S. is pretty much a lost cause. The
political expediant being that a simple phrase and visible action is easier
to explain than trying to find/fix the underlying causes and attacking the
problem directly. The "war on drugs" is about as effective as prohibition
was, and has had the same effect on criminal behavior.
> > Now, that isn't to say we are not in a period of great violence and
> > danger. Perhaps great enough that the Republicans will be able to
> > convince us to give up our freedoms and engage in the very tactics
> > used by our enemies. Bush likes to simle-mindedly say "They hates our
> > freedoms" - well if that is the case then they have won - since we
> > are apparently all too willing to give them up.
>
>
> Islam has clearly stolen my freedom. I can't even bring toothpaste and
> shaving cream on an airplane anymore.
>
Islam? Or terrorists? Or do you see no difference (which is my bet). It
appears that the invasion of Iraq - sorry - "the War on Terror" - hasn't
kept democracy safe for toothpaste. It's those darn Brits - we need to
invade England - if we are to restore our ability to shave at 35,000ft.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:30:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
FredK wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote in message
>> FredK wrote:
>>> The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
>>> tactic?
>>
>> The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one
>> ounce baggie?
>
> Um. Because that phrase too is political sloganeering?
Bingo. We have a winner.
> The police
> action to reduce the flow of drugs into the U.S. is pretty much a
> lost cause.
Legalize it and tax it. No problem with a use tax for weed, toot, and H.
>> Islam has clearly stolen my freedom. I can't even bring toothpaste
>> and shaving cream on an airplane anymore.
>>
>
> Islam? Or terrorists? Or do you see no difference (which is my
> bet).
I see no difference. I have read the Koran. Those "terrorists" are just
following orders from their god (lower case out of disrespect).
O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian)
monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the
way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in
the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful
doom. [Koran 9:34]
Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the disbelievers
wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and
prepare for them each ambush. [Koran 9:5]
Lo! those who disbelieve, among the people of the Scripture and
idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created
beings. [Koran 98:6]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued. [Koran 9:29]
Prophet ,We have made lawful to you..the slavegirls whom Allah has
given you as booty.. and as many other women who gave themselves to
you and whom you wished to take in riage. This privilege is yours
alone : being granted to no other believer. We well know of the duties
We have imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and slavegirls.
We grant you these privileges ,so that none may blame you..it shall be
unlawful for you to change your present wives for other women ,however
you may change your slavegirls. Allah takes consideration of all
things. (Koran 33:50)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:32:44
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 30-Oct-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> FredK wrote:
> > The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
> > tactic?
>
> The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one ounce
> baggie?
Now there is a war that makes Iraq look like a rip-roaring success!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:23:24
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 30-Oct-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> FredK wrote:
>>> The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
>>> tactic?
>>
>> The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one
>> ounce baggie?
>
> Now there is a war that makes Iraq look like a rip-roaring success!
Bushtard should have said Saddam was hiding toot somewhere in Iraq.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:45:26
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <47x1h.14826$Fd7.388@bignews6.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> FredK wrote:
> > The "war on terror" is also not a "war" - how do you wage "war" on a
> > tactic?
>
> The war on drugs - how do you wage war on a white powder in a one ounce
> baggie?
Precisely. That's not a war either
>
> > Now, that isn't to say we are not in a period of great violence and
> > danger. Perhaps great enough that the Republicans will be able to
> > convince us to give up our freedoms and engage in the very tactics
> > used by our enemies. Bush likes to simle-mindedly say "They hates our
> > freedoms" - well if that is the case then they have won - since we
> > are apparently all too willing to give them up.
>
>
> Islam has clearly stolen my freedom. I can't even bring toothpaste and
> shaving cream on an airplane anymore.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:51:33
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <gidck2lbn8d8ndfskkn2n0ci44luit4k3u@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:23:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <albck2tdfmfahrpacmeqhia4a33rfre1eu@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >All pure conjecture on your part as seen through those neocon colored
> >> >glasses of yours.
> >>
> >> Amazing that people who deny we're in a war conveniently forget what
> >> happened in the months immediately after 9/11. The stock ket
> >> crashed--and took 4 years to recover! Several important industries
> >> nearly went bust-- the airlines have STILL not fully recovered.
> >>
> >> Another attack like 9/11 will verify to those investors that we are
> >> indeed a helpless target and cannot stop further attacks. They will
> >> pull their investments.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >It is amazing what you can put together to almost come up with a cogent
> >comment!
> >
> >Bush's rush to war with Iraq has exacerbated the issue more than it
> >helped. We had them contained and they were not part of 9/11 as all
> >legit studies have shown.
> >
> >The stock ket, btw, has not fully recovered. With inflation
> >accounted for, it would need to be about 14K to have that be true.
> >
> >As to the airlines. Well the big boys were already in trouble before
> >9/11, it just accelerated a process that is still ongoing.
>
> Oh, so another attack from Al Queda would be no big deal? Do believe
> as Nancy Pelosi does, that we are not really in any sort of war?
>
> Larry
Larry, you are such a pinhead. If and when Al Queda decides to take
another run at us, they will. And it will be just as hard as it always
is when a nutball runs loose. And since the reports show that we've
really helped create MORE terrorists with our tryst with Iraq, you
should be ashamed of supporting our policy with Iraq.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:08:02
From: jo ann and jim T
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
MOST ALL ARE LIARS AND CROOKS, , I VOTE AND ASHAMED TO SAY I DO. BOTH
SIDES ARE LIARS , ONE WILL LIE AND THE OTHER WILL SWEAR TO IT. THATS MY
TAKE ON THIS, STUFF,
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:37:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >
> > Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> > book on underhand smear tactics.
>
> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>
> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
Where are you, Bert? I'm in McLean Va.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:42:26
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>>
>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
>
> Where are you, Bert? I'm in McLean Va.
>
Gaithersburg, MD.
Lived in Fairfax County for 20 years before moving to the county of many
muni courses.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:34:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >> at you.
> >
> >
> > He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> > commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> > has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> > symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
> >
>
> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
that's been said about him?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:41:22
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>>>> at you.
>>>
>>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
>>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
>>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
>>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
>>>
>> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
>> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
>> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
>> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
>
>
> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
> that's been said about him?
>
Absence of duplicity? You have to be kidding. Do some research on the
ballot initiative in Missouri and the Senate race in yland that Fox
was "involved" in.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:48:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <RtudnUo07NjfC97YnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >>>> at you.
> >>>
> >>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> >>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> >>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> >>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
> >>>
> >> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
> >> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
> >> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
> >> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
> >
> >
> > He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
> > of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
> > did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
> > Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
> > that's been said about him?
> >
>
> Absence of duplicity? You have to be kidding. Do some research on the
> ballot initiative in Missouri and the Senate race in yland that Fox
> was "involved" in.
Again, your point is . . . ? I think Fox is being perfectly up front in
his position - he supports candidates that endorse stem cell research,
pure and simple, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.
Besides, when the voice of reason supporting the ban on stem cell
research in Missouri is the starting pitcher on a baseball team, then
the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:50:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1162046045.404264.70340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> > >> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> > >> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> > >> at you.
> > >
> > >
> > > He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> > > commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> > > has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> > > symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
> > >
> >
> > Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
> > doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
> > questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
> > just showing their duplicitous stripes.
>
>
> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
> that's been said about him?
Yes, perhaps he can do one of those cuddly Rush Limbaugh impersonations
of Parkinson's Disease symptoms? COme on, call Fox a liar out in the
open and have done with it.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:43:36
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1162046045.404264.70340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>>>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>>>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>>>>> at you.
>>>>
>>>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
>>>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
>>>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
>>>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
>>>>
>>> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
>>> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
>>> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
>>> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
>>
>> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
>> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
>> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
>> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
>> that's been said about him?
>
> Yes, perhaps he can do one of those cuddly Rush Limbaugh impersonations
> of Parkinson's Disease symptoms? COme on, call Fox a liar out in the
> open and have done with it.
Try focusing on the issue and not the personalities.
I'll call Fox a duplicitous idiot to his face.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:16:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <RtudnUQ07NhVC97YnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1162046045.404264.70340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> John B. wrote:
> >>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >>>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >>>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >>>>> at you.
> >>>>
> >>>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> >>>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> >>>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> >>>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
> >>>>
> >>> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
> >>> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
> >>> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
> >>> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
> >>
> >> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
> >> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
> >> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
> >> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
> >> that's been said about him?
> >
> > Yes, perhaps he can do one of those cuddly Rush Limbaugh impersonations
> > of Parkinson's Disease symptoms? COme on, call Fox a liar out in the
> > open and have done with it.
>
> Try focusing on the issue and not the personalities.
>
> I'll call Fox a duplicitous idiot to his face.
Well, that makes you my hero then, doesn't it.
You disgust me.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:46:15
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <RtudnUQ07NhVC97YnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <1162046045.404264.70340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>>>>>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>>>>>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>>>>>>> at you.
>>>>>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
>>>>>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
>>>>>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
>>>>>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
>>>>> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
>>>>> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
>>>>> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
>>>> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
>>>> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
>>>> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
>>>> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
>>>> that's been said about him?
>>> Yes, perhaps he can do one of those cuddly Rush Limbaugh impersonations
>>> of Parkinson's Disease symptoms? COme on, call Fox a liar out in the
>>> open and have done with it.
>> Try focusing on the issue and not the personalities.
>>
>> I'll call Fox a duplicitous idiot to his face.
>
> Well, that makes you my hero then, doesn't it.
>
> You disgust me.
You are granting to the disabled a weightier voice than those who are
not disabled, why?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:52:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <8KOdnei7z7N6mtnYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <RtudnUQ07NhVC97YnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <1162046045.404264.70340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>> John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>>>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >>>>>>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >>>>>>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >>>>>>> at you.
> >>>>>> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> >>>>>> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> >>>>>> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> >>>>>> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
> >>>>> doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
> >>>>> questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
> >>>>> just showing their duplicitous stripes.
> >>>> He's not being scrutinized, he's being assaulted. He is being accused
> >>>> of duplicity in the absence of any evidence to support it. He said he
> >>>> did not skip his meds and he said he was not exagerrating his symptoms.
> >>>> Are you going to call him a liar on top of all the other nasty shit
> >>>> that's been said about him?
> >>> Yes, perhaps he can do one of those cuddly Rush Limbaugh impersonations
> >>> of Parkinson's Disease symptoms? COme on, call Fox a liar out in the
> >>> open and have done with it.
> >> Try focusing on the issue and not the personalities.
> >>
> >> I'll call Fox a duplicitous idiot to his face.
> >
> > Well, that makes you my hero then, doesn't it.
> >
> > You disgust me.
>
> You are granting to the disabled a weightier voice than those who are
> not disabled, why?
No I am not. I am granting to someone disabled the right to use his
influence to get help curing his disease. When avenues to a cure are
being shut off for absurd, doctrinaire reasons of extreme fundamental
Christianity, I too get angry. Furthermore, Fox has already raised (I
believe) over $80M for his cause, so I tend to regard him as something
more than a gadfly. Finally, his TV appearances following the disgusting
Limbaugh attack and aping of his disease, were so mature and dignified,
that I find it easy to know which is the sympathetic figure.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:10:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>When avenues to a cure are
>being shut off for absurd, doctrinaire reasons of extreme fundamental
>Christianity,
I don't know if you want to include the Catholic Church as extreme
Christianity, but they're against embryonic stem cell research.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:22:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <rj9ak2d9832h65i6imn270qtk1nvov19le@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:52:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >When avenues to a cure are
> >being shut off for absurd, doctrinaire reasons of extreme fundamental
> >Christianity,
>
> I don't know if you want to include the Catholic Church as extreme
> Christianity, but they're against embryonic stem cell research.
Well, they are certainly out of touch. It is only recently that
contraceptives could be bought in Ireland, thanks to them.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:19:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:22:53 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>> I don't know if you want to include the Catholic Church as extreme
>> Christianity, but they're against embryonic stem cell research.
>
>Well, they are certainly out of touch. It is only recently that
>contraceptives could be bought in Ireland, thanks to them.
Every sperm is sacred.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:24:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <5orak21oqapcuah7a7u7pe26mov01j9gc1@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:22:53 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know if you want to include the Catholic Church as extreme
> >> Christianity, but they're against embryonic stem cell research.
> >
> >Well, they are certainly out of touch. It is only recently that
> >contraceptives could be bought in Ireland, thanks to them.
>
> Every sperm is sacred.
Thank you, Eric Idle.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:30:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >
> > So, they learned nothing from Nixon? Or Gingrich? Or DeLay?
> >
>
> Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:27:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <4qejqaFmu9a2U1@individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
> >>> What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> >>> had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> >>> the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
> >> The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
> >> look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?
> >
> > The Dow is a nice thing to have high, but it doesn't do squat for the
> > average working man's wages.
>
> It helps to keeps those wages moving into his pockets.
>
> And, it is good for his retirement plan. Money doesn't grow when you
> stick it into a box. No union pension fund lets the money sit in a box,
> it is invested in businesses and government securities.
This is true - anyone with an IRA or a 401k is helped by a bull ket,
assuming they have the money invested in mutual funds, which is what
most people do. But I don't think many people credit the administration
or the party in power for that. I sure don't.
>
> >>> BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> >>> they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> >>> claim.
> >> It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
> >
> > True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
> > they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
> > abortion on demand. No legislation at all.
>
> Time, it just takes time. If an R gets elected to the presidency in 08
> then you will see some movement on the abortion issue.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:28:45
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
>
> True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
> they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
> abortion on demand. No legislation at all.
There is no way the Repugs are gonna kill that puppy. Abortion is the
one issue they can always count on to sway the far right and get them
to the polls. Gay rights is another although they seem to be losing
that battle. There are two women who live together in the house next
to mine. What do I care if they are "ried" or not? I think even
many right-wingers share that view. But they'll always be able to stir
up the shit about abortion, which is precisely the reason that nothing
will be done about it. It's kinda like term limits .... you never hear
about it until election time. Then .... crickets.
I laugh when I hear someone ask the TN Senatorial candidates (Ford &
Corker) their views on abortion. Like, what difference does it make?
They aren't ever gonna vote on it anyway.
Might as well ask them how they feel about 7-woods or hybrids.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 14:35:52
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1161977325.089660.69260@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
> >
> > True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
> > they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
> > abortion on demand. No legislation at all.
>
> There is no way the Repugs are gonna kill that puppy. Abortion is the
> one issue they can always count on to sway the far right and get them
> to the polls. Gay rights is another although they seem to be losing
> that battle. There are two women who live together in the house next
> to mine. What do I care if they are "ried" or not? I think even
> many right-wingers share that view. But they'll always be able to stir
> up the shit about abortion, which is precisely the reason that nothing
> will be done about it. It's kinda like term limits .... you never hear
> about it until election time. Then .... crickets.
>
> I laugh when I hear someone ask the TN Senatorial candidates (Ford &
> Corker) their views on abortion. Like, what difference does it make?
> They aren't ever gonna vote on it anyway.
> Might as well ask them how they feel about 7-woods or hybrids.
I agree. And that is exactly why I asked the question. It is the issue
the repugs will use but not do anything about.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 21:05:45
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <lloydparsons-1E11FE.14355227102006@individual.net >
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
Just shows you how gullible the bush-bots on the evangelical right can
be. They hear abortion or gay riage and they knee jerk, run to the
polls, and look for the first repuglican moron they can pull the lever
for. The book about taking advantage of the bible beating neocons that
just came out was right on the money......as rove laughs his little
flabby, pimply ass off at them. Poor dumb whores (their vote has just
been bought for less than a blow job or int this case, at least hot air)
don't know they're being used and not even getting a return on their vote.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:59:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >>>>>>> stiff,
> >>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Greg
> >>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>>> the show at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>>> ilk are famous for.
> >>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>>
> >>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>>
> >>> Larry
> >> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> >> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> >> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> >> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> >> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> >> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> >> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> >> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> >> consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
> > Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
> > taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
> > pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
> > altogether too fair.
>
> Arlen Spector is actually one of yours, he just puts an R after his name.
>
> > No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> > for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>
> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> mastered it like the Democrats have.
So, they learned nothing from Nixon? Or Gingrich? Or DeLay?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:15:58
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>
> So, they learned nothing from Nixon? Or Gingrich? Or DeLay?
>
Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:09:12
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <4qejqaFmu9a2U1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
> > >
> > > What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> > > had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> > > the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
> >
> > The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
> > look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?
>
> The Dow is a nice thing to have high, but it doesn't do squat for the
> average working man's wages.
>
> > >
> > > BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> > > they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> > > claim.
> >
> > It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
>
> True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
> they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
> abortion on demand. No legislation at all.
What would be the point? There's no way a federal law banning abortion
would be upheld in the courts. Any attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade
would have to come from a state legislature, and it looks like the one
that South Dakota passed might be the one that does it. And Bush may
yet get another opening on the Supreme Court to fill.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:13:35
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <4qejqaFmu9a2U1@individual.net>,
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
>>>> What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
>>>> had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
>>>> the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
>>> The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
>>> look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?
>> The Dow is a nice thing to have high, but it doesn't do squat for the
>> average working man's wages.
>>
>>>> BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
>>>> they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
>>>> claim.
>>> It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
>> True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
>> they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
>> abortion on demand. No legislation at all.
>
> What would be the point? There's no way a federal law banning abortion
> would be upheld in the courts. Any attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade
> would have to come from a state legislature, and it looks like the one
> that South Dakota passed might be the one that does it. And Bush may
> yet get another opening on the Supreme Court to fill.
>
Abortion is not a judicial issue it is a political issue and should be
decided in Congress, where the people have a more direct voice.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:24:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > larry wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Greg
> >>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>> the show at all.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>> ilk are famous for.
> >> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>
> >> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> > your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> > horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> > think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> > did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> > done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> > supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> > without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> > consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
>
> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
>
> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> criticize anything you say.
>
> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> at you.
He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:08:51
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>
>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>> at you.
>
>
> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
>
Fox made a choice to move from issue advocacy to political advocacy. By
doing so his motives and actions come into question and should be
questioned. Anyone who whines and cries about Fox being scrutinized is
just showing their duplicitous stripes.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:20:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1161955444.207684.76040@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > larry wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> larry wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> > >>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> > >>>>>> stiff,
> > >>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> > >>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> > >>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to
> > >>>>>> talk.
> > >>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> > >>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> > >>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Greg
> > >>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there
> > >>> talking
> > >>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> > >>> the show at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> > >>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> > >>> ilk are famous for.
> > >> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> > >> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> > >> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> > >> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> > >>
> > >> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> > >>
> > >> Larry
> > >
> > > Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> > > your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> > > horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> > > think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> > > did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> > > done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> > > supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> > > without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> > > consistently makes me want to puke.
> > >
> >
> > It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> > commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
> >
> > You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> > criticize anything you say.
> >
> > Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> > against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> > you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> > at you.
>
>
> He did not skip his meds. People tape nasty, belligerent political
> commercials every day, but they don't get ganged up on the way MJ Fox
> has, simply because Rush Limbaugh accused him (falsely) of faking his
> symptoms. To say that he deserves this is despicable.
I have to say that Michael Fox's explanation of his condition, and his
reaction to Limbaugh's despicable assault, was much more dignified than
Limbaugh deserved. If Fox, with all he has to deal with, can show such
courtesy and restraint, it is too bad that Limabaugh feels that his
sopinion can still be couched in such dishonest, ignorant, and horrible
terms.
But then, there's one difference between liberals and neocons.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:09:49
From: Doug Reese
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1161931027.447009.204460@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <1161895037.322492.273670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > annika1980 wrote: <brevity snip>
> > > > > Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> > > > > By Daniela Deane
> > > > > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > > > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> > > > > Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> > > > > campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
> > > > >
> > > > > he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> > > > > research.
> > > > >
> > > > > "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> > > > > listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> > > > > commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
> > > > > Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> > > > > act."
> > > >
> > > > > "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> > > > > opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> > > > > that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
> > > > >
> > > > > didn't take his medication or he's acting."
> > > >
> > > > Duh. Limbaugh would have to be an idiot not to have read that Fox went
> > > > off his meds to testify before congress, it was well publicized. I
> > > > imagine the same circumstance applies here. Pure publicity stunt.
> > >
> > > Duh, You would have to be an idiot not to know that the spasms of
> > > Parkinson's Disease are caused BY the medication, not suppressed by it.
> > > Go off the medication, and the entire system slows down. For many public
> > > appearances, it is necessary to stop the medication because the tremors
> > > get too bad with it. Caught between a rock and a hard place, but we
> > > couldn't expect you to know that.
> > > >
> > > > Another idiot quote:
> > > >
> > > > Sean Hannity defended Limbaugh yesterday on "Good Morning America"
> > > > and said the actor deserved to be criticized. "Michael J. Fox admits
> > > > now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before
> > > > congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also
> > > > has a right to be criticized."
> >
> > Actually, Fox said no such thing. The link is Hannity quoting Hannity.
> >
> > I heard Fox say that the reaction was from TAKING the meds, as opposed
> > to not taking them.
> >
> > Doug Reese
> >
> Hey, I didn't write the Hannity drivel - it's gpsman you are after. You
> can't expect then to let actual facts get in the way of neocon hysteria
> now, can you?
Once again . . . you have point :)
Doug Reese
> William Clark
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 23:37:07
From: Doug Reese
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1161895037.322492.273670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > annika1980 wrote: <brevity snip>
> > > Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> > > By Daniela Deane
> > > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
> > >
> > > Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> > > Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> > > campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
> > >
> > > he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> > > research.
> > >
> > > "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> > > listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> > > commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
> > > Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> > > act."
> >
> > > "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> > > opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> > > that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
> > >
> > >
> > > "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
> > >
> > > didn't take his medication or he's acting."
> >
> > Duh. Limbaugh would have to be an idiot not to have read that Fox went
> > off his meds to testify before congress, it was well publicized. I
> > imagine the same circumstance applies here. Pure publicity stunt.
>
> Duh, You would have to be an idiot not to know that the spasms of
> Parkinson's Disease are caused BY the medication, not suppressed by it.
> Go off the medication, and the entire system slows down. For many public
> appearances, it is necessary to stop the medication because the tremors
> get too bad with it. Caught between a rock and a hard place, but we
> couldn't expect you to know that.
> >
> > Another idiot quote:
> >
> > Sean Hannity defended Limbaugh yesterday on "Good Morning America"
> > and said the actor deserved to be criticized. "Michael J. Fox admits
> > now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before
> > congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also
> > has a right to be criticized."
Actually, Fox said no such thing. The link is Hannity quoting Hannity.
I heard Fox say that the reaction was from TAKING the meds, as opposed
to not taking them.
Doug Reese
> > http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=164178
> >
> >
> > He "admits -now-" he went off his meds. Duh.
>
> See above. Duh.
> >
> > It's a common practice these days. Use deceitful tactics to accuse a
> > perfectly honest person of deceit... to stir up the idiots who listen
> > to your show and gain a little press.
>
> Oh, you mean like Swift Boat Veterans? Seems like you guys do it soooo
> much better.
>
> William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:12:40
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 26 Oct 2006 23:37:07 -0700, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com > wrote:
>
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> In article <1161895037.322492.273670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > annika1980 wrote: <brevity snip>
>> > > Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
>> > > By Daniela Deane
>> > > Washington Post Staff Writer
>> > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
>> > >
>> > > Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
>> > > Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
>> > > campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
>> > >
>> > > he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
>> > > research.
>> > >
>> > > "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
>> > > listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
>> > > commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
>> > > Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
>> > > act."
>> >
>> > > "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
>> > > opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
>> > > that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
>> > >
>> > > didn't take his medication or he's acting."
>> >
>> > Duh. Limbaugh would have to be an idiot not to have read that Fox went
>> > off his meds to testify before congress, it was well publicized. I
>> > imagine the same circumstance applies here. Pure publicity stunt.
>>
>> Duh, You would have to be an idiot not to know that the spasms of
>> Parkinson's Disease are caused BY the medication, not suppressed by it.
>> Go off the medication, and the entire system slows down. For many public
>> appearances, it is necessary to stop the medication because the tremors
>> get too bad with it. Caught between a rock and a hard place, but we
>> couldn't expect you to know that.
>> >
>> > Another idiot quote:
>> >
>> > Sean Hannity defended Limbaugh yesterday on "Good Morning America"
>> > and said the actor deserved to be criticized. "Michael J. Fox admits
>> > now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before
>> > congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also
>> > has a right to be criticized."
>
>Actually, Fox said no such thing. The link is Hannity quoting Hannity.
>
>I heard Fox say that the reaction was from TAKING the meds, as opposed
>to not taking them.
The fact remains it was a production commercial on video tape-- what
we saw was the cynical result of a dozen or two dozen takes-- they had
unlmiited opportunity to get the effect "right." And "effect" is the
right word because there are dozens of clips of Fox appearing almost
normal. You were patronized. You may be too stupid to realize it,
but then they count on that.
Larry
>
>Doug Reese
>
>> > http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=164178
>> >
>> >
>> > He "admits -now-" he went off his meds. Duh.
>>
>> See above. Duh.
>> >
>> > It's a common practice these days. Use deceitful tactics to accuse a
>> > perfectly honest person of deceit... to stir up the idiots who listen
>> > to your show and gain a little press.
>>
>> Oh, you mean like Swift Boat Veterans? Seems like you guys do it soooo
>> much better.
>>
>> William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 13:01:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <tpb4k2dkg2vntoqvfb17qd814907apde66@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2006 23:37:07 -0700, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> In article <1161895037.322492.273670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > annika1980 wrote: <brevity snip>
> >> > > Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> >> > > By Daniela Deane
> >> > > Washington Post Staff Writer
> >> > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
> >> > >
> >> > > Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> >> > > Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> >> > > campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
> >> > >
> >> > > he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> >> > > research.
> >> > >
> >> > > "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> >> > > listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> >> > > commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
> >> > > Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> >> > > act."
> >> >
> >> > > "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> >> > > opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> >> > > that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
> >> > >
> >> > > didn't take his medication or he's acting."
> >> >
> >> > Duh. Limbaugh would have to be an idiot not to have read that Fox went
> >> > off his meds to testify before congress, it was well publicized. I
> >> > imagine the same circumstance applies here. Pure publicity stunt.
> >>
> >> Duh, You would have to be an idiot not to know that the spasms of
> >> Parkinson's Disease are caused BY the medication, not suppressed by it.
> >> Go off the medication, and the entire system slows down. For many public
> >> appearances, it is necessary to stop the medication because the tremors
> >> get too bad with it. Caught between a rock and a hard place, but we
> >> couldn't expect you to know that.
> >> >
> >> > Another idiot quote:
> >> >
> >> > Sean Hannity defended Limbaugh yesterday on "Good Morning America"
> >> > and said the actor deserved to be criticized. "Michael J. Fox admits
> >> > now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before
> >> > congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also
> >> > has a right to be criticized."
> >
> >Actually, Fox said no such thing. The link is Hannity quoting Hannity.
> >
> >I heard Fox say that the reaction was from TAKING the meds, as opposed
> >to not taking them.
>
> The fact remains it was a production commercial on video tape-- what
> we saw was the cynical result of a dozen or two dozen takes-- they had
> unlmiited opportunity to get the effect "right." And "effect" is the
> right word because there are dozens of clips of Fox appearing almost
> normal. You were patronized. You may be too stupid to realize it,
> but then they count on that.
>
> Larry
> >
> >Doug Reese
> >
> >> > http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=164178
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > He "admits -now-" he went off his meds. Duh.
> >>
> >> See above. Duh.
> >> >
> >> > It's a common practice these days. Use deceitful tactics to accuse a
> >> > perfectly honest person of deceit... to stir up the idiots who listen
> >> > to your show and gain a little press.
> >>
> >> Oh, you mean like Swift Boat Veterans? Seems like you guys do it soooo
> >> much better.
> >>
> >> William Clark
Yes, Larry, and you are too stupid to comprehend the first thing about
Parkinson's Disease and effect of its medications. No surprise, nor is
your totally unfounded speculation about 'takes' - all innuendo, not one
supporting piece of evidence. Welcome back, Swift Boats.
What next, Larry? Jumping around twitching like Rush did to ridicule
someone with a life changing condition?
Go on, you can do it.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:18:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:01:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:
>Yes, Larry, and you are too stupid to comprehend the first thing about
>Parkinson's Disease and effect of its medications. No surprise, nor is
>your totally unfounded speculation about 'takes' -
Everyone (except you) knows how commercial advertisements are made.
They do repeated "takes" until they achieve the desired effect. They
wanted to make him look sympathetic--even pathetic-- and they achieved
that. We know they went after that effect because there are dozens
of recent video clips of Fox apearing almost normal.
You were fished in. But then that happens to you a lot, right?
Typical liberal, well-intentioned, but just not very bright. "Easily
led" comes to mind.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 14:42:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <r3j4k2hsvqss96ec5mqiasv1h2184pq5ml@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:01:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Yes, Larry, and you are too stupid to comprehend the first thing about
> >Parkinson's Disease and effect of its medications. No surprise, nor is
> >your totally unfounded speculation about 'takes' -
>
> Everyone (except you) knows how commercial advertisements are made.
> They do repeated "takes" until they achieve the desired effect. They
> wanted to make him look sympathetic--even pathetic-- and they achieved
> that. We know they went after that effect because there are dozens
> of recent video clips of Fox apearing almost normal.
>
> You were fished in. But then that happens to you a lot, right?
> Typical liberal, well-intentioned, but just not very bright. "Easily
> led" comes to mind.
>
> Larry
Aaah, so that is it. Another totally unfounded extrapolation, again
based on no actual evidence at all. I heard Fox talking the other day
about how this was shot. I am sure you didn't, but his account bore no
relation to your wishful thinking.
Please drop the stupid patronizing. On the evidence of this ng, I am a
damn sight brighter than you, and perfectly capable of discerning real
from fake. I also know quite a bit about Parkinson's and other
neurological disorders, which you clearly do not. And I can tell the
difference between 'purposely' and 'purposefully' as well.
No, Larry, you're whistling in the wind here. Your simplistic attempts
at stereotyping do no more than reveal the gigantic depth of your
ignorance.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:01:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1161931027.447009.204460@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1161895037.322492.273670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > annika1980 wrote: <brevity snip>
> > > > Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> > > > By Daniela Deane
> > > > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
> > > >
> > > > Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> > > > Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> > > > campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
> > > >
> > > > he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> > > > research.
> > > >
> > > > "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> > > > listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> > > > commercial, which first aired Oct. 21 in St. Louis during a World
> > > > Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> > > > act."
> > >
> > > > "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> > > > opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> > > > that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
> > > >
> > > > didn't take his medication or he's acting."
> > >
> > > Duh. Limbaugh would have to be an idiot not to have read that Fox went
> > > off his meds to testify before congress, it was well publicized. I
> > > imagine the same circumstance applies here. Pure publicity stunt.
> >
> > Duh, You would have to be an idiot not to know that the spasms of
> > Parkinson's Disease are caused BY the medication, not suppressed by it.
> > Go off the medication, and the entire system slows down. For many public
> > appearances, it is necessary to stop the medication because the tremors
> > get too bad with it. Caught between a rock and a hard place, but we
> > couldn't expect you to know that.
> > >
> > > Another idiot quote:
> > >
> > > Sean Hannity defended Limbaugh yesterday on "Good Morning America"
> > > and said the actor deserved to be criticized. "Michael J. Fox admits
> > > now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before
> > > congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also
> > > has a right to be criticized."
>
> Actually, Fox said no such thing. The link is Hannity quoting Hannity.
>
> I heard Fox say that the reaction was from TAKING the meds, as opposed
> to not taking them.
>
> Doug Reese
>
Hey, I didn't write the Hannity drivel - it's gpsman you are after. You
can't expect then to let actual facts get in the way of neocon hysteria
now, can you?
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:58:51
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:09:32 -0700, annika1980 wrote:
>
> > And the party who was once against big government has now made the
> > government more bloated and intrusive than ever.
>
> The current bunch of extremists in Washington are spending money like
> drunken sailors on shore leave, only armed with credit cards instead of
> cash. Hello deficit.
<Shhhhh! > If we ignore it, it hasn't really happened.
"Tree in the woods" syndrome.
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:09:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> > The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
>
As usual you got it assbackwards. The Repugs are the ones who are
against everything from affordable health care to alternative fuels to
alternative lifestyles.
And the party who was once against big government has now made the
government more bloated and intrusive than ever.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 02:50:11
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:09:32 -0700, annika1980 wrote:
> And the party who was once against big government has now made the
> government more bloated and intrusive than ever.
The current bunch of extremists in Washington are spending money like
drunken sailors on shore leave, only armed with credit cards instead of
cash. Hello deficit. It's sad watching these dittoheads on the right
dancing around the obvious: that Clinton did a *way* better job of
controlling spending and the deficit.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:02:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >
> >> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> >
> >> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> >
> >> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >
> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>
> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
> the political wilderness.
>
> Larry
This is what Michael J. Fox said this evening about the accusation that
he had gone off his meds to tape the spot:
NEW YORK - In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush
Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent
political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his
medication for Parkinson's disease.
On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an
interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."
"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding
that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of
medication - not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it
kicks in."
"That's funny - the notion that you could calculate it for effect,"
he said. "Would that we could."
OK, Larry, why don't you and Rush and all the other right-wing thugs
gang up on him again and call him a liar? That would be your style,
wouldn't it? Michael J. Fox has more integrity in his little toe than
you could ever dream of having.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:47:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> > >
> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> > >
> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>
> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >the show at all.
> >
> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >ilk are famous for.
>
> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>
> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>
> Larry
Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
consistently makes me want to puke.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:07:55
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 26 Oct 2006 18:47:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> larry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>> >>
>> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>> >>
>> >> -Greg
>> >
>> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>> >the show at all.
>> >
>> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> >ilk are famous for.
>>
>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>
>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>consistently makes me want to puke.
The 'admirable young man" became just another politician when he
agreed to make that highly partisan commercial-- on behalf of the
democrats-- and knowing the content was deceptive, dishonest,
untruthful. We all feel sorry for Michael, but afflicted or not,
when you enter the arena you gotta expect a fight.
In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
apologizing profusely.
And hey, what is Clooney doing in the US anyhow?? I thought he and
Barbra and a dozen others where going to leave the US if Bush won
again????
larry
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:01:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:07:55 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
>laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
>his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
>the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
>confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
>Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
>apologizing profusely.
And criticism of these unnamed Democrats is perfectly justified. But
noting that "Democrats are as bad as Republicans" is not a valid
defense.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:20:18
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:01:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:07:55 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
>>laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
>>his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
>>the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
>>confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
>>Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
>>apologizing profusely.
>
>And criticism of these unnamed Democrats is perfectly justified. But
>noting that "Democrats are as bad as Republicans" is not a valid
>defense.
Notice the COMPLETE lack of outcry about Charleton Heston, a far more
sympathetic figure-- likely with only months to live. That because
the liberal media hates conservatives.
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:29:38
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> larry wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>
>>>> -Greg
>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>> the show at all.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>> ilk are famous for.
>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>
>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> consistently makes me want to puke.
>
It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
criticize anything you say.
Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
at you.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:35:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > larry wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Greg
> >>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>> the show at all.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>> ilk are famous for.
> >> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>
> >> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> > your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> > horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> > think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> > did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> > done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> > supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> > without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> > consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
>
> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.
>
> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> criticize anything you say.
>
> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> at you.
Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
more important than political prejudice.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 09:53:06
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>> larry wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Greg
>>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>>>> the show at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>>>> ilk are famous for.
>>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>>>
>>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>>> consistently makes me want to puke.
>>>
>> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
>> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
>
> It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
> the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
> it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
> unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.
We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
point.
What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
Fox stepped into the political arena and by doing so he cannot expect
that his positions and who he advocates for will go unchallenged.
>> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
>> criticize anything you say.
>>
>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>> at you.
>
> Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
> more important than political prejudice.
Specter is a Democrat, he just won't admit it and switch aisles.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:53:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> larry wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >>>>>>>> stiff,
> >>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to
> >>>>>>>> talk.
> >>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Greg
> >>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there
> >>>>> talking
> >>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>>>> the show at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>>>> ilk are famous for.
> >>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>>>
> >>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry
> >>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> >>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> >>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> >>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> >>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> >>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> >>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> >>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> >>> consistently makes me want to puke.
> >>>
> >> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> >> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
> >
> > It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
> > the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
> > it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
> > unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.
>
> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
> point.
You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>
> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
bother).
>
> Fox stepped into the political arena and by doing so he cannot expect
> that his positions and who he advocates for will go unchallenged.
>
> >> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> >> criticize anything you say.
> >>
> >> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >> at you.
> >
> > Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
> > more important than political prejudice.
>
> Specter is a Democrat, he just won't admit it and switch aisles.
See above - truly sad.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:57:14
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
>> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
>> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
>> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
>> point.
>
> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
what the medications do and how they work.
>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
>
> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> bother).
He is a Democrat.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:17:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
> >> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
> >> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
> >> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the priy
> >> point.
> >
> > You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> > in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> > tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>
> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
> what the medications do and how they work.
I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
medications work.
>
> >> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> >> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> >> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> >> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
> >
> > Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> > bother).
>
> He is a Democrat.
There you go - pathetic.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:44:50
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
>>> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
>>> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
>> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
>> what the medications do and how they work.
>
> I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
> medications work.
I don't take all of them and Parkinson's is not on my current list or
aflictions. But, the medicines I take I do have a good understanding of
what they do, how they do it and how they really work for me.
>>>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
>>>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
>>>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
>>>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
>>> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
>>> bother).
>> He is a Democrat.
>
> There you go - pathetic.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:55:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <8KOdnem7z7MMmtnYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> >>> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> >>> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
> >> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
> >> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
> >> what the medications do and how they work.
> >
> > I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
> > medications work.
>
> I don't take all of them and Parkinson's is not on my current list or
> aflictions. But, the medicines I take I do have a good understanding of
> what they do, how they do it and how they really work for me.
Then you would understand that Parkinson's Disease medications are
unpredictable in their effect. Sometimes they deal with the symptoms
without inducing serious tremors, others times they induce serious
palsy. No one can predict which it will be, and how long either effect
will last.
>
> >>>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> >>>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> >>>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> >>>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
> >>> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> >>> bother).
> >> He is a Democrat.
> >
> > There you go - pathetic.
>
> The truth hurts doesn't it.
Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:59:55
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
> more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.
I don't think we have even taken the FIRST step to restore sanity in the
Senate. The only way is to get every one of those Democrat and Republican
scumbags out of there and get some honest Americans that can actually
comprehend the US Constitution in there. Jefferson knew this would happen,
which is why he said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Here is a hint - the
Senators and Congressmen are NOT the patriots.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:07:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <wS61h.41486$X11.28676@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
> > more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.
>
> I don't think we have even taken the FIRST step to restore sanity in the
> Senate. The only way is to get every one of those Democrat and Republican
> scumbags out of there and get some honest Americans that can actually
> comprehend the US Constitution in there. Jefferson knew this would happen,
> which is why he said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
> time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Here is a hint - the
> Senators and Congressmen are NOT the patriots.
And you will replace them with - what, exactly?
Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:49:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
country, coward?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:24:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <baa1h.18953$kI6.5623@bignews4.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
>
> I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
> country, coward?
More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:51:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those left wing
idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder you skirted the
subject of military service - you skated and let others protect your
freedom. Coward. May God help your students, idiot. In fact, how
about if we share your idiocy with all of those students? I am sure I can
find a few hundred OSU email addresses right here on Usenet and give them
some links.
William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Associate Dean, Graduate School
250 University Hall
230 N. Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-9490
clark.31@osu.edu
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:27:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <ZMd1h.10002$Bs.6022@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
>
>
> I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those left wing
> idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder you skirted the
> subject of military service - you skated and let others protect your
> freedom. Coward. May God help your students, idiot. In fact, how
> about if we share your idiocy with all of those students? I am sure I can
> find a few hundred OSU email addresses right here on Usenet and give them
> some links.
>
> William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
> Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
> Associate Dean, Graduate School
>
> 250 University Hall
> 230 N. Oval Mall
> Columbus, OH 43210
> (614) 292-9490
> clark.31@osu.edu
Exactly. Now, here I am brave enough to put my name right out in the
open, and here you are, claiming to be such a war hero, but hiding
behind a anonymous sig. like a child behind mother's skirts. SO who's
calling who a coward?
Don't worry about my students, I am honest with them, too, but since I
teach engineering, there is no danger of any political bias.
Next?
William Clark.
PS: By the way, it's a D, Phil. not a Ph. D, and you are rather out of
date on the other details. Please try to keep up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:34:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ZMd1h.10002$Bs.6022@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
>>
>>
>> I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those
>> left wing idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder
>> you skirted the subject of military service - you skated and let
>> others protect your freedom. Coward. May God help your students,
>> idiot. In fact, how about if we share your idiocy with all of
>> those students? I am sure I can find a few hundred OSU email
>> addresses right here on Usenet and give them some links.
>>
>> William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
>> Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
>> Associate Dean, Graduate School
>>
>> 250 University Hall
>> 230 N. Oval Mall
>> Columbus, OH 43210
>> (614) 292-9490
>> clark.31@osu.edu
>
> Exactly. Now, here I am brave enough to put my name right out in the
> open, and here you are, claiming to be such a war hero, but hiding
> behind a anonymous sig. like a child behind mother's skirts. SO who's
> calling who a coward?
I am calling you a coward. My name and address are as readily available as
yours. Now when are you coming to Georgia, coward?
> PS: By the way, it's a D, Phil. not a Ph. D, and you are rather out of
> date on the other details. Please try to keep up.
Take that up with OSU, idiot.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:40:44
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <baa1h.18953$kI6.5623@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
>>
>> I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
>> country, coward?
>
> More than you
I am calling bullshit, liar.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:04:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> larry wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> > >> > >of
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> > >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> > >> > >stiff,
> > >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> > >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> > >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> > >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> > >> > >of
> > >> > >
> > >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> > >>
> > >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> > >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> > >>
> > >> -Greg
> > >
> > >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> > >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> > >the show at all.
> > >
> > >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> > >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> > >ilk are famous for.
> >
> > Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> > Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> > we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> > Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >
> > You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> consistently makes me want to puke.
Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
altogether too fair.
No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
William Clark
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:11:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >> >>
> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >> >
> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
> >>
> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> >> trivia by little people.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
> >
> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> >Democrats, Larry.
>
> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
>
> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
>
> Larry
Gingrich was a philanderer as prolific as Clinton. I'll give him credit
for being more discreet about it, though. He made his wife sign a
divorce agreement on her death bed, so that her heirs couldn't make any
claim to her estate. Yeah, that's just the kind of guy we need in the
White House.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:35:04
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 30 Oct 2006 18:11:41 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John B. wrote:
>> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
>> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
>> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
>> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
>> >>
>> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
>> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
>> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
>> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
>> >> trivia by little people.
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
>> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
>> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
>> >
>> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
>> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
>> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
>> >Democrats, Larry.
>>
>> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
>> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
>> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
>>
>> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
>>
>> Larry
>
>Gingrich was a philanderer as prolific as Clinton. I'll give him credit
>for being more discreet about it, though. He made his wife sign a
>divorce agreement on her death bed, so that her heirs couldn't make any
>claim to her estate. Yeah, that's just the kind of guy we need in the
>White House.
That is wildly inaccurate. But you say it anyhow. Why not check
your facts, then post? Instead you just parrot the DNC lies that were
used to destroy this man.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:16:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <b72fk25sturccadlb02eiaren41ajlutpt@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 18:11:41 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
> >> >>
> >> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> >> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> >> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> >> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> >> >> trivia by little people.
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> >> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> >> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
> >> >
> >> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> >> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> >> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> >> >Democrats, Larry.
> >>
> >> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
> >> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
> >> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
> >>
> >> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Gingrich was a philanderer as prolific as Clinton. I'll give him credit
> >for being more discreet about it, though. He made his wife sign a
> >divorce agreement on her death bed, so that her heirs couldn't make any
> >claim to her estate. Yeah, that's just the kind of guy we need in the
> >White House.
>
> That is wildly inaccurate. But you say it anyhow. Why not check
> your facts, then post? Instead you just parrot the DNC lies that were
> used to destroy this man.
>
> Larry
Whereas you, Larry , . . . .
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:32:51
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> larry wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
>>>>>>> stiff,
>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Greg
>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>>> the show at all.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>>> ilk are famous for.
>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>>
>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>>
>>> Larry
>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>> consistently makes me want to puke.
>
> Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
> taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
> pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
> altogether too fair.
Arlen Spector is actually one of yours, he just puts an R after his name.
> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
mastered it like the Democrats have.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 07:24:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Yeah, people keep dying. Ergo, Clinton is responsible.
>
> Is it your contention that all of those people died of natural causes and
> Clinton had no involvement?
Yes, and I challenge you to provide any facts that prove otherwise.
How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
labeled as a conspiracy loon, while people who suggest that Clinton had
Ron Brown's plane shot down or raped every hooker in Arkansas are just
good Republicans?
You freaks can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was totally
preoccupied with getting head int he Oval Office or he was always out
killing people. He wouldn't have time to do both.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:15:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
> labeled as a conspiracy loon,
Because we all know that hundreds died on those planes. The families of
those people cannot be part of a consipiracy; and those people and planes
would not conspire to hide on some island somewhere and never see their
families again. Would you?
> while people who suggest that Clinton
> had Ron Brown's plane shot down or raped every hooker in Arkansas are
> just good Republicans?
I am not sure what involvement Clinton had in every one of those people that
died of "natural causes" every time they go up against him; but I have
heard the ex head of the Arkansas State Police talk about Clinton's sexual
interests and believe some (if not all) of those stories. Clinton lied
about getting a blowjob; saying it's not sex; so I can't trust his view of
what sex is or is not.
> Either Clinton was totally
> preoccupied with getting head int he Oval Office or he was always out
> killing people. He wouldn't have time to do both.
Oh, he had time to do that and more. And Clinton is too powerful to pull a
trigger. For him the death of an advisary is no more than a two minute
phone call. The only thing he had to be present for was getting head or
sticking it into some ugly whore.
Anyone who defends Buba Clinton as being a good human being is a liar and a
piece of shit. If you want to defend that he did a decent job as
President; I can back you on some of what he did while in office. But
don't waste my fucking time telling me that Bubba Clinton had any semblence
of morality and conscience. By his own admission he lied, cheated on his
wife, betrayed the public trust; and was involved in the death of a million
Tutsi's through lying and inaction.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:29:03
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:6V33h.1584$GE1.1423@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> annika1980 wrote:
>> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>> labeled as a conspiracy loon,
>
> Because we all know that hundreds died on those planes. The families of
> those people cannot be part of a consipiracy; and those people and
> planes > would not conspire to hide on some island somewhere and never
> see their families again. Would you?
>
Hey Head Shot,
WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. It was 2 blocks away
from WTC 1/2 with buildings intervening which did
not collapse. Who did it, why they did it or how they
did it is not known. It is not a conspiracy issue but
surely you owe it to yourself to find an explanation
for why that building collapsed at free-fall speed on
that fatal day. The Governmentment owes you that.
Remember free-fall speed. The laws of physics were
not suspended that day. Do yourself a favour and
demand an explanation for this or give me a reason
why you shouldn't.
Alan.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:55:37
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Alan Murphy wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote in message
> news:6V33h.1584$GE1.1423@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>>> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>>> labeled as a conspiracy loon,
>>
>> Because we all know that hundreds died on those planes. The
>> families of those people cannot be part of a consipiracy; and those
>> people and planes > would not conspire to hide on some island
>> somewhere and never see their families again. Would you?
>>
>
> Hey Head Shot,
>
> WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. It was 2 blocks away
> from WTC 1/2 with buildings intervening which did
> not collapse. Who did it, why they did it or how they
> did it is not known. It is not a conspiracy issue but
> surely you owe it to yourself to find an explanation
> for why that building collapsed at free-fall speed on
> that fatal day.
It may or many not be a conspiracy issue; but I try and refrain from
wearing tin foil hats and pointing to grassy knolls. I do know that people
were on planes calling home when two planes crashed into WTC 1 and WTC 2.
My brother's ex wife died in WTC 1 and I know she existed. I do not believe
that the buildings were destroyed by explosives - I believe people were on
planes and those planes crashed into WTC. I am not an industrial
engineer - my undergraduate degree was electronics engineering technology
and automotive engineering technology. My graduate degree was computer
systems technology and my doctorate was computer science. I have no
academic training in building design, geology, or in heat thermodynamics
and therefore have absolutely no idea what caused the damage to WTC 7.
Perhaps the building was poorly designed. Perhaps the collapse of WTC 1 and
WTC 2 did something to the bedrock supporting WTC 7 and transfered energy to
them. Perhaps the heat and shock wave of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2
did something to WTC 7. I have no idea. I just do not think CIA and NSA
agents snuck into WTC 7 and planted explosives.
> The Governmentment owes you that.
Bullshit. The Government owes me EXACTLY what is in US Constitution Article
1 Section 8. The investigation of WTC 7 is not specifically covered. At
best they were required to confrim it was terrorism in order in support of
the "common defense and general welfare" clause in Section 8.
> Remember free-fall speed. The laws of physics were
> not suspended that day. Do yourself a favour and
> demand an explanation for this or give me a reason
> why you shouldn't.
No laws of physics have been susspended. Although not exactly a
singularity; certain characteristics of the destruction of those buildings
will forever be unavailable to scientists. The energy of the collapse is
something that is incredible; and evidence was destroyed durng that time.
Again; unless you have a doctorate in industrial engineering and one in
newtonian physics; there is no insight you can give me that is not already
publicly available. I am content with the government's assessment of the
event.
.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:26:46
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:Dsq3h.6992$GU5.5047@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote in message
>> news:6V33h.1584$GE1.1423@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>>>> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>>>> labeled as a conspiracy loon,
>>>
>>> Because we all know that hundreds died on those planes. The
>>> families of those people cannot be part of a consipiracy; and those
>>> people and planes > would not conspire to hide on some island
>>> somewhere and never see their families again. Would you?
>>>
>>
>> Hey Head Shot,
>>
>> WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. It was 2 blocks away
>> from WTC 1/2 with buildings intervening which did
>> not collapse. Who did it, why they did it or how they
>> did it is not known. It is not a conspiracy issue but
>> surely you owe it to yourself to find an explanation
>> for why that building collapsed at free-fall speed on
>> that fatal day.
>
> It may or many not be a conspiracy issue; but I try and refrain from
> wearing tin foil hats and pointing to grassy knolls. I do know that
> people were on planes calling home when two planes crashed into WTC 1 and
> WTC 2. My brother's ex wife died in WTC 1 and I know she existed. I do
> not believe that the buildings were destroyed by explosives - I believe
> people were on planes and those planes crashed into WTC. I am not an
> industrial engineer - my undergraduate degree was electronics
> engineering technology and automotive engineering technology. My graduate
> degree was computer systems technology and my doctorate was computer
> science. I have no academic training in building design, geology, or in
> heat thermodynamics and therefore have absolutely no idea what caused the
> damage to WTC 7. Perhaps the building was poorly designed. Perhaps the
> collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 did something to the bedrock supporting WTC 7
> and transfered energy to them. Perhaps the heat and shock wave of the
> collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 did something to WTC 7. I have no idea. I
> just do not think CIA and NSA agents snuck into WTC 7 and planted
> explosives.
>
>
>> The Governmentment owes you that.
>
> Bullshit. The Government owes me EXACTLY what is in US Constitution
> Article 1 Section 8. The investigation of WTC 7 is not specifically
> covered. At best they were required to confrim it was terrorism in order
> in support of the "common defense and general welfare" clause in Section
> 8.
>
>
>> Remember free-fall speed. The laws of physics were
>> not suspended that day. Do yourself a favour and
>> demand an explanation for this or give me a reason
>> why you shouldn't.
>
> No laws of physics have been susspended. Although not exactly a
> singularity; certain characteristics of the destruction of those
> buildings will forever be unavailable to scientists. The energy of the
> collapse is something that is incredible; and evidence was destroyed
> durng that time. Again; unless you have a doctorate in industrial
> engineering and one in newtonian physics; there is no insight you can
> give me that is not already publicly available. I am content with the
> government's assessment of the event.
>
The government has not yet given a final assessment
of this event. NIST are due to make a report in 2007.
>
>
I fully agree that people were killed on those planes.
Similarly the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. But these are
not the issues here. I repeat: WTC7 was a 47 storey
building which was not hit by a plane, was two blocks
away from WTC1&2, and intervening and much closer
buildings did not fall down. Yet WTC7 collapsed at
free-fall speed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like
a duck it usually is a duck. This event certainly bears all
the hallks of a controlled demolition and it doesn't
need advanced degrees to see this, just commonsense
and observation of the excellent visual evidence that
has been preserved and is available to all of us. Come
on, Head Shot, you're in denial and you are obfuscating.
Now tell us what you really think.
Alan
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:46:23
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Alan Murphy wrote:
> I fully agree that people were killed on those planes.
> Similarly the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. But these are
> not the issues here. I repeat: WTC7 was a 47 storey
> building which was not hit by a plane, was two blocks
> away from WTC1&2, and intervening and much closer
> buildings did not fall down. Yet WTC7 collapsed at
> free-fall speed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like
> a duck it usually is a duck. This event certainly bears all
> the hallks of a controlled demolition and it doesn't
> need advanced degrees to see this, just commonsense
> and observation of the excellent visual evidence that
> has been preserved and is available to all of us. Come
> on, Head Shot, you're in denial and you are obfuscating.
> Now tell us what you really think.
I honestly do not have a position on the event. I know that WTC1 and WTC2
collapsed and that a great deal of energy was transferred during that
collapse. I do not know what effect those two major collapses had in
transferring energy to other buildings that were similarly founded on the
same layer of bedrock; or through heat transference during the collapse.
Like I said - I have no knowledge of these matters. I have no opinion other
than to shy away from conspiracy theory; which as I said is a well
documented psychological phenomena.
I architect large scale technology infrastructures for multi billion dollar
enterprise resource implementations for the US Government. That has
absolutely nothing to do with physics. My last physics class was in
graduate school 15 years ago and I assure you we did not cover industrial
engineering catastrophes. That having been said; I witnessed on television
two of the four aircraft impacts. I have friends who witnessed the Pentagon
impact personally. The people who died in those planes were real; and the
people who saw the planes crash are real.
I have personally read websites and seen conspiracy movies claiming those
planes never crashed and were later seen at Cleveland Airport. I am
grouping your WTC7 concerns in with those tin foil hat people who think
there were no planes.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 17:37:31
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:hPP3h.5270$U76.4947@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Alan Murphy wrote:
>> I fully agree that people were killed on those planes.
>> Similarly the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. But these are
>> not the issues here. I repeat: WTC7 was a 47 storey
>> building which was not hit by a plane, was two blocks
>> away from WTC1&2, and intervening and much closer
>> buildings did not fall down. Yet WTC7 collapsed at
>> free-fall speed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like
>> a duck it usually is a duck. This event certainly bears all
>> the hallks of a controlled demolition and it doesn't
>> need advanced degrees to see this, just commonsense
>> and observation of the excellent visual evidence that
>> has been preserved and is available to all of us. Come
>> on, Head Shot, you're in denial and you are obfuscating.
>> Now tell us what you really think.
>
> I honestly do not have a position on the event. I know that WTC1 and
> WTC2 collapsed and that a great deal of energy was transferred during
> that collapse. I do not know what effect those two major collapses had
> in transferring energy to other buildings that were similarly founded on
> the same layer of bedrock; or through heat transference during the
> collapse. Like I said - I have no knowledge of these matters. I have no
> opinion other than to shy away from conspiracy theory; which as I said
> is a well documented psychological phenomena.
>
> I architect large scale technology infrastructures for multi billion
> dollar enterprise resource implementations for the US Government. That
> has absolutely nothing to do with physics. My last physics class was in
> graduate school 15 years ago and I assure you we did not cover industrial
> engineering catastrophes. That having been said; I witnessed on
> television two of the four aircraft impacts. I have friends who
> witnessed the Pentagon impact personally. The people who died in those
> planes were real; and the people who saw the planes crash are real.
>
> I have personally read websites and seen conspiracy movies claiming those
> planes never crashed and were later seen at Cleveland Airport. I am
> grouping your WTC7 concerns in with those tin foil hat people who think
> there were no planes.
>
>
I have been careful to distinguish between the
collapse of WTC7 and the other events of 9-11.
Conspiracy theories do not interest me but the
WTC7 incident has certain features which have not
yet properly been explained. The free-fall nature of
the collapse is the most important. You claim that
your physics isn't sufficient for an understanding of
this. It's hardly rocket science; let me try to explain.
The equation for all falling objects, irrespective of mass,
close to the earth's surface and in a vacuum is:
t = SQR( 2d / g ) where t = time, d = distance and
g = 9.8m/s^2, acceleration due to gravity in SI units.
The height of WTC7 was 576 feet or 176metres.
An apple dropped from the top would reach the ground
in about 6 seconds without wind resistance:
t = SQR ( 2 x 176 ) / 9.8 )) = 5.99
and in about 6.5 to 7 seconds if wind resistance is
factored in using various estimates.
WTC7 was observed to collapse in just over 6 seconds.
It collapsed uniformly into its own footprint at free-fall
speed, characteristics of controlled demolition.
I just find that curious in the extreme.
Alan.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 18:44:00
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Alan Murphy wrote:
> I have been careful to distinguish between the
> collapse of WTC7 and the other events of 9-11.
> Conspiracy theories do not interest me but the
> WTC7 incident has certain features which have not
> yet properly been explained. The free-fall nature of
> the collapse is the most important. You claim that
> your physics isn't sufficient for an understanding of
> this. It's hardly rocket science; let me try to explain.
Conspiracy is conspiracy. If WTC7 had been demolished by controlled
explosives; then whoever did that was also aware of the planes coming in the
next few days.
> The equation for all falling objects, irrespective of mass,
> close to the earth's surface and in a vacuum is:
Um; I have taken newtonian physics. That's not my point. My point is that
I am not an industrial engineer; as I have repeatedly stated. So you
telling me that free fall of the concrete of the building indicates that
there was a controlled demolition means absolutely nothing to me. I have
seen earthquake buildings come straight down. I am a layman - I have no
clue how buildings are supposed to fall after being exposed to heat, a
quarter of the buulding being blown out by debris; and the shock of the
other buildings collapsing.
> I just find that curious in the extreme.
I find it curious that a Big Bang happened, or the first abiogenesis, or
even some of the characteristics of many cosmic events we see with Chandra
or Hubble (or even my 10" Dobsonian for that matter) but I don't associate
that all with some big conspiracy.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:15:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 4 Nov 2006 07:24:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>labeled as a conspiracy loon
I make it a rule never to attack people personally and have respect
for people who hold opinions different from mine. However, anyone who
believes that WTC #1, #2, or #7 was/were brought down by explosive
charges is an idiot.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:20:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2006 07:24:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> How come whenever someone suggests that the WTC (especially #7)
>> buildings came down as the result of demolition explosives they are
>> labeled as a conspiracy loon
>
>
> I make it a rule never to attack people personally and have respect
> for people who hold opinions different from mine. However, anyone who
> believes that WTC #1, #2, or #7 was/were brought down by explosive
> charges is an idiot.
Even idiots don't believe that it was brought down by explosives. Only
paranoid conspiracy theorists think that. And there is a medical diagnosis
for that; so they are just sick people to feel sorry for. If you want to
read up on those tin foil wearing freaks; grab a DSM-IV and look up
Schizotypal personality disorder.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:07:45
From: Jerri Denise
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Luther (Jerry) Parks is my father. Clinton did not have anything to do
with my daddy's murder. My step mother lied about my dads involvement
with Bill Clinton. My dad was murdered Sept 26, 1993, his widow Jane
Parks reried and that husband, was murdered on Father's day this
year (2006). If interested the link to my blog where I am keeping
everyone updated on the murders is http://360.yahoo.com/jerridenise1967
Head Shot wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > Clinton definitely committed felony sexual harassment-- had Monica
> > signed a complaint.
>
> They were both consenting adults, so I don't think he did anything illegal.
> His philandering was immoral, IMHO; but again that's just a personal
> opinion since what he did was not felonious. That having been said; lying
> to Independant Counsel was felonious; and for it he paid the ultimate price
> and was impeached. I believe he also had to give up his license to practice
> law. I am more concerned with the real issues that surrounded Clinton;
> not that he wanted to play hide the salami with someone young enough to be
> his daughter. The real issues surrounding Clinton include foreign policy
> (including Rwanda) and why he pardoned someone who's illegal weapon sales
> were responsible for the deaths of millions and million of people (c
> Rich). And of course all those folks in Clinton's inner circle that keep
> dying of non-natural causes....
>
>
>
> http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodycnt.html
>
> Clinton Casualties
> A "Casualty" is defined as anyone threatened with harm or actually harmed
> because of their knowledge of and/or involvement in one or more of the
> Clinton Scandals.
> The following is a partial list of a large number of persons who who are
> presumed to be "Casualties" of the various Clinton scandals. President
> Clinton has told political supporters in Arkansas he will devote a lot of
> time going after detractors who pursued him on Whitewater and other ethical
> questions. (USA Today, November 8, 1996). It is a partial list because new
> addditions are added regularly and the full extent of being associated with
> Bill Clinton is not completly known.
> The accounting of these mysterious deaths began in 1994 when in a letter to
> congressional leaders, former Rep. William Dannemeyer listed 24 people with
> some connection to Clinton who had died "under other than natural
> circumstances" and called for hearings on the matter. Dannemeyer's list of
> "suspicious deaths" was largely taken from one compiled by Linda Thompson,
> an Indianapolis lawyer, containing the names of 34 people she believed died
> suspiciously and who had ties to the Clinton family.
> Some of the "Casualties" were openly murdered, but many were killed in such
> a way so that their deaths could be ruled accidents or suicides. This was
> especially true if they died in Arkansas where the medical examiners
> routinely rule apparent murders as either accidents or suicides when it
> suits political purposes. In fact, this is so common that it is often
> referred to as "Arkancide" or "Arkansas Suicide".
>
> "An apparent pattern of violence and intimidation has befallen a number of
> men and women with ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, their partners in
> business, law and politics, and people investigating their affairs..." (The
> Arizona Republic, June 7, 1994)
>
> On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson died when the airplane she was flying
> in crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77 was reportedly
> piloted by a suicidal terrorist whose cohorts also crashed planes into the
> World Trade Center in New York city and in Pennsylvania. Barbara served as
> the Republican chief counsel for the congressional committeee investigating
> the Clintons' involvement in Travelgate and Filegate. She also authored two
> books, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," a
> scathing expose of Hillary Clinton, and "The Final Days: A Behind the Scenes
> Look at the Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House."
> I recently read an undocumented and unconfirmed report that yet another
> Clinton connected person has died of an "apparent" suicide. In ch 1999,
> Eric Fox, who served on ine One, was found shot in head after his car
> swerves off road.
> On Sunday, February 22nd, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28 year old son of
> journalist Britt Hume, was reportedly found dead in his Arlington, Virginia
> home. Aside from the statement that this was an "apparent" suicide, there
> remains in place a total media blackout on this story. Hume was a reporter
> for The Hill magazine, a newspaper about Congress for Congress, and had
> broken a major story in 1997 regarding the friction between House Speaker
> Newt Gingrich and a faction led by Representative Paxon (who announced his
> resignation just 24 hours after Hume's death).
> Sandy had a reputation for getting the story that nobody else wanted to look
> at, and at the time of his death there reports that "a reporter" who was
> about to break a story confirming the White House's use of investigators to
> dig up dirt on critics and invstigators.
> The man who performed the as-yet-unreleased autopsy is none other than Dr.
> James C. Beyer, who has a record of concealing homicides behind a ruling of
> suicide.
> Danny Casolaro, a reporter who was investigating several of the Clinton
> Scandals, was found dead in the bathtub of a hotel room in West Virginia on
> Aug. 10, 1991, with his wrists slit. He had earlier warned his family that
> his life was in danger and if he was found dead due to an apparent accident
> or suicide, not to believe it.
> Finishing Casolaro's work, Kenn thomas and Jim Keith wrote, The Octopus :
> The Secret Government and Death of Danny Casolaro. It's a provocative
> analysis of the mysterious death of journalist Danny Casolaro and discusses
> the link between the death and high-level government conspiracy involving
> the Iran-Contra affair, the October Surprise, BCCI, and other political
> scandals and cover-ups.
> On ch 3, 1994, Dr. Ronald Rogers, a dentist from Royal, AR, was killed
> when his twin-engine Cessna crashed near Lawton, OK, in clear weather. He
> was on his way to see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a reporter from the "London
> Sunday Telegraph", to reveal some "dirt" on Clinton.
> John A. Wilson, a Washington, D.C. councilman, "hung himself". He allegedly
> knew a lot about Clinton and was reportedly going to start talking before
> his death made that impossible.
> Gandy Baugh, attorney representing Mr. Lassater in a case concerning alleged
> financial misconduct, died in an alleged suicide on Jan.8, 1994, by jumping
> out of a window of a multi-story building. Mr. Lassater was a close
> associate of Gov. Clinton, and was later indicted on drug related charges,
> among other things. Baugh's law partner was "suicided" one month later on
> Feb. 9, 1994.
> TailGate
> In July 1997, during the pre-trial publicity surrounding the Paula Jones
> lawsuit, and mere days after Newsweek's Mike Isikoff had dropped hints that
> a "former White House staffer" was about to go public with her story of
> sexual harassement at 1600 Pennsylvania, gunmen entered the Starbuck's
> Coffee shop in Georgetown while the crew was cleaning up. y Mahoney, a 25
> year old former White House Intern for Bill Clinton, was working as the
> Assistant Manager. y's two associates, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory
> Evans, 25, were taken to a room and shot. y herself had five bullets in
> her, from at least two different guns, most likely with silencers. A total
> of ten shots were fired; none of them heard by neighbors in the densely
> populated Georgetown section. y was shot in the chest, her face, and in
> the back of the head. No money was taken.
> Suzanne Coleman had an affair with Bill Clinton when he was Attorney General
> in Arkansas. On 15 February 1977, she "committed suicide" with a gunshot to
> the back of the head. No autopsy was performed, but it has been alleged that
> she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant with Clinton's child, although
> never proven.
> Judy Gibbs, who appeared in the December 1979 issue of Penthouse, and her
> sister Sharon were part of a house of prostitution in Fordyce, Arkansas that
> also engaged in blackmail of it's more powerful clients. Linked to Bill
> Clinton by both her own family and by one of Bill's bodyguards, Judy had
> just decided to cooperate with police in an investigation of Arkansas
> cocaine trafficking when she burned to death inside her home from a fire of
> undetermined origin.
> Gary Johnson, an attorney who lived next door to Gennifer Flowers, was
> beaten severely and left for dead by two thugs who broke into his apartment.
> It seems he had videotaped some of Clinton's "visits" and had mentioned the
> existence of the tapes to other people. The intruders made sure THEY TOOK
> THE "CLINTON-FLOWERS" TAPES after they finished the beating.
> Kathy Ferguson, the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, was
> found dead with a gunshot wound to the head, in Sherwood, AR. On May 11,
> 1993, the right-handed Ferguson supposedly shot herself behind the left ear.
> It was labeled a suicide even though much of the forensic evidence does not
> support this finding. She died five days after her ex-husband, was named a
> co-conspirator in the Paula Jones case. Kathy had told friends that Clinton
> had sexually harassed her in a manner similar to that reported by Paula
> Jones. She purportedly had knowledge of Clinton's "regulars" and often
> talked about how Clinton had gotten Danny to bring women to him and stand
> watch while they had sex. Part of Danny's job was to make sure that each
> woman was ready and willing when she and Clinton got together. Kathy said
> she heard that Clinton was really mad when Paula Jones wouldn't "put out".
> Bill Shelton, an Arkansas police officer and boyfriend of Kathy Ferguson at
> the time of her death, was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, in
> Sherwood, AR. He was shot behind the ear which is usually the sign of an
> execution. His death was also labeled a suicide. Shelton was highly critical
> of the conclusion of local police that Kathy had committed suicide and he
> aired his complaints widely.
> Sally Perdue, one of Clinton's "regulars", was offered a $60,000/year
> federal job to keep her mouth shut; or she would have her legs broken. When
> she did come forward, she received a series of threats; but luckily for her,
> the American press mostly ignored her.
> The Dallas Morning News reported that the offices of The American Spectator
> magazine were broken into and ransacked twice in September of 1994 after
> David Brock returned to Washington, DC from Arkansas to write up his
> interview of the Arkansas State Troopers. There was also a September
> break-in at an apartment that the magazine keeps on the upper east side of
> Manhattan. The three break-ins during Sept. of 1994 are the only ones ever
> experienced by the magazine in its 27 year history.
> Whitewater
> People have been beaten and perhaps even killed for trying to expose the
> background of Webster Hubbell and the dealings of the Rose Law Firm of which
> he was a partner. Other famous partners in the firm were Hillary Rodham
> Clinton, and Vincent Foster.
> James McDougal was serving his 3 year sentence for bank fraud at the Fort
> Worth Federal Medical Center in Texas, a facility operated by the federal
> Bureau of Prisons for inmates who need medical attention. Just prior to
> another round of testimony before Kenneth Starr's grand jury, Jim McDougal
> suffered a heart attack while in solitary confinement and died ch 8,
> 1998. When Jim McDougal was taken out of solitary, instead of attempting to
> defibrillate his heart with equipment on hand at the facility, he was driven
> over to John Peter Smith hospital. Not the closest hospital to the Fort
> Worth Federal Medical Center, John Peter Smith hospital is a welfare
> hospital, where (in the words of one local) ,"They let interns practice on
> deadbeats".
> The single most damning fact to come out of the McDougal death was his
> injection with Lasix, a diuretic, to force his giving a urine sample for
> drug testing, even though McDougal was not a known drug case, and Lasix is
> contra-indicated in cases of heart disease. Lasix can cause excessive
> diuresis, blood volume reduction, circulatory collapse, and vascular
> thrombosis, or blood clots. If a matching potassium supplement is not
> administered at the same time, Lasix can kill.
> Vince Foster, a former partner in the Rose Law firm and White House aide,
> had just been served a subpeona and was supposed to testify about
> Whitewater. Instead of testifying, he died on July 20, 1993. A suicide note
> was supposedly found a few days later, torn into several pieces, in his
> briefcase, after his office had been entered by white house staff and
> materials removed. (The "suicide" note has since been revealed to be a
> forgery.) The suicide conclusion does NOT square with the testimony from the
> man who found the body (the Confidential Witness) or much of the forensic
> evidence. For example, the gun which he supposedly used to kill himself was
> reported to be still in his hand, but the person who first found the body
> reports that there was no gun. A signed report of Medical Examiner, Dr.
> Donald Haut was uncovered at the National Archives, proving that Foster had
> a previously unreported gunshot wound to his neck. And, an FBI memo has
> surfaced dated the day after the date of the official autopsy, in which the
> autopsies informs the FBI that there was NO exit wound.
> I'm sure Bill Clinton was relieved when the Supreme Court ruled that the
> attorney-client privilege of confidentiality protects against disclosure of
> the notes even after a client's death. That was the plan, after all, wasn't
> it?
>
> The Associated Press:Vincent Foster: the death investigation that hasn't
> ended.
> Jon Walker, an investigator for the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC),
> mysteriously "fell" to his death from Lincoln Towers, in Arlington, VA. In
> ch 1992, Walker contacted the Kansas City RTC office for information
> concerning the ties between Whitewater and the Clintons. He reportedly was
> looking into a 50 million dollar transfer from an RTC fund in Chicago to
> Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan to cover up a 47 million dollar
> embezzlement.
> Johnny Franklin Laughton, Jr., and a friend hit a telephone pole at a high
> rate of speed, . 29, 1998, after their car had become airborne and left
> the road. They had driven less than 1/4 of a mile at the time of the impact.
> In the spring of 1997, a tornado ripped through some junked cars at Johnny's
> transmission and opened up the trunk of a car that proved to have a box of
> Whitewater records in it, including a copy of a $27,000 cashiers check drawn
> on Madison and payable to Bill Clinton. Johnny Franklin Laughton, Jr.
> realized what he was looking at and turned the box of documents over to the
> FBI.
> Campaign Finance
> The night before White House secretary, Betty Currie, was to testify before
> the Campaign Finance hearing, her brother, Theodore Williams, Jr., was
> severely beaten and hospitalized (see Oregonian January 29, 1998 Page A9).
> Then within one month of her testifying in the Lewinsky Grand Jury her
> sister was killed in a car "accident" in December 1997.
> Ronald Miller died October 12, 1997. Miller is a former co-owner of Creek
> Systems/Gage Corp., an Oklahoma natural gas company that alleged
> discrimination by corrupt utility regulators. A court case that could have
> proved damaging to high-ranking Democrats was averted at the last minute
> when the Lums helped to purchase Gage Corp. and drop the lawsuit. Miller
> tape recorded Gene and Nora Lum and turned those tapes (and other records)
> over to congressional oversight investigators. The Lums were sentenced to
> prison for campaign finance violations, using "straw donors" to conceal the
> size of their contributions to various candidates.
> Reportedly a healthy man, Ron suddenly took ill on October 3rd, and steadily
> worsened until his deah 9 days later. (This pattern fits Ricine poisoning.)
> Owing to the strangeness of the illness, doctors at the Integris Baptist
> Medical Center referred the matter to the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner's
> Office who promptly ran tests on samples of Ron Miller's blood, but has
> refused to release the results or even to confirm that the tests were ever
> completed.
> Ed Willey, the manager of the Clinton presidential campaign finance
> committee, died of a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound in Nov. '93. He was seen
> handling briefcases full of cash during the campaign. Mr. Willey died on the
> same day his wife was allegedly assaulted in the White House by Bill
> Clinton.
> Barbara Alice Wise was employed in the same section of the Commerce
> Department which was the focus of illegal foreign fundraising. She was found
> dead in her office at Commerce's International Trade Administration on
> November 29, 1996.
> Jerry Parks, the owner of a security firm that provided security for
> Clinton's presidential campaign, was gunned down, assassination style, on
> Sept. 26, 1993 in Little Rock. Now the dead man's son, Gary Parks, charges
> that his father, who ran American Contract Services Inc., was killed "to
> save Bill Clinton's political career." Interviewed in the London Telegraph,
> the younger Parks said "my dad was working on Clinton's infidelities for
> about six years, starting in the campaign around 1983," and had compiled two
> name-and-photo-filled files on Mr. Clinton that he kept hidden in his
> bedroom.
> The Clinton campaign had failed to settle an outstanding debt to Parks for
> $81,000 at the time of his death. Parks' wife said her husband threatened to
> go public with his information if Clinton did not pay the bill. Parks' home
> was broken into only hours before he was murdered. THE ONLY THING TAKEN FROM
> HIS HOME WAS THE DOCUMENTATION HE HAD ON CLINTON'S "ACTIVITIES".
> C. Victor Raiser II, the co-chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign
> finance committee, was killed in a plane crash on July 30, 1992 near
> Anchorage, AK, in good weather. With his inside knowledge of the Clinton
> operation, he had become disillusioned by what he had seen and thus became a
> potential liability.
> The Democratic National Committee political director, Paul Tully, died from
> unknown causes in his hotel room in Little Rock on September 24, 1992. The
> Arkansas medical examiner's office ruled the death was because of a massive
> heart attack.
> L.J. Davis, a veteran journalist, was knocked unconscious in a Little Rock
> hotel. Pages were stolen from his notebook that contained information on the
> inner workings of the Rose law firm. He later received threats to back off
> the story. Davis is a contributing editor for Harper's magazine and does
> free-lance writing for many publications. The article, "The Name of Rose,"
> which provides an excellent overview of politics and corruption in Arkansas
> is available from the Electronic Newsstand.
> Herschel Friday, a member of the Clinton presidential campaign finance
> committee, was killed when his plane crashed on . 1, 1994 as he
> approached his private landing strip near his Arkansas home, in a light
> drizzle.
> U.S. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was killed when his plane crashed as it
> approached the Dubrovnik, Croatia airport. Brown had previously been under
> investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Commerce Department's
> Inspector General, the Justice Department, the FDIC, and the House
> Government Reform and Oversight Committee was within two weeks of possibly
> being indicted for an bribe allegedly paid by Dynamic Energy Resources in
> Oklahoma.
> A few years ago, a Vietnamese official accused him of asking for a $700,000
> or so bribe in exchange for using his influence with Clinton to get
> sanctions against Vietnam lifted and to open the country up to U.S. trade
> and investment. After apparently stalling on the issue, the Justice
> Department convened a grand jury to hear evidence, which could have resulted
> in a possible criminal indictment. Veteran investigative journalist Sherman
> Skolnick, commented that "There was jury-tampering by President Clinton and
> his Justice Department. The grand jury proceedings were supposed to be kept
> secret, yet Brown and his confederates were day by day illegally kept
> informed, so they could obstruct justice by bribing or terrorizing grand
> jury witnesses. Brown was not indicted......"
> Brown made sure that Democratic leaders got the message: "I'm too old to go
> to jail. If I go down, I'll take everyone else down with me." That, of
> course, would include the Clintons. Brown's oft-repeated warning was clearly
> heard. Brown's threats may have become his own death warrant.
> Brown's plane was probably relying on Croatian ground beacons for
> navigation. In the minutes before Brown's plane crashed, five other planes
> landed at Dubrovnik without difficulty, and none experienced problems with
> the beacons. But additional questions about the beacons and the crash will
> remain unanswered because, as the Air Force acknowledges, airport
> maintenance chief Niko Junic died by gunshot just three days after the crash
> and before he could be interviewed by investigators. Within a day of his
> death, officials determined the death was a suicide.
> Dying along with Ron Brown on April 3, 1996, was Charles Meissner, Assistant
> Secretay of Commerce. Meissner reportedly had provided special security
> clearance to John Huang.
> Air Force Tech. Sgt. Shelley Kelly, a stewardess, survived the crash for
> some four hours. Kelly and another stewardess had been seated in a jump seat
> at the very rear of the 737. That area was found basically intact after the
> crash. According to the Air Force, she received first aid from Croatian
> rescuers but died on the way to a nearby hospital. Her autopsy report states
> that Kelly died of a broken neck."
> Ron Brown's high level Muslim associate, Mohamed Ferrat was supposed to be
> on Ron Brown's doomed death flight, but he changed plans at the last minute.
> He later died on TWA Flight 800. Coincidence?
> Terry Reed, co-author of, Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA received a
> death threat while signing copies at a Little Rock Wal-t. The book claims
> that Bill Clinton was involved in more than $9 million a week in cash being
> secretly air dropped into Arkansas while he was governor. The threat was
> slipped onto the front seat of his car according to Little Rock Police
> Information Report Number 94-53155.
> Stanley Huggins, a partner in a Memphis law firm, was found dead on June 23,
> 1994 reportedly from viral pneumonia. Huggins headed a 1987 examination into
> the loan practices of Madison Savings & Loan. He produced a 300-400 page
> report that has never been made public.
> Drug Smuggling Operations at Mena
> Paul Wilcher, an attorney, was found dead in his Washington, D.C. home. The
> coroner either could not find or did not report the cause of death. At the
> time of his death, Wilcher was investigating gun-running and the drug
> business in Mena, AR. Shortly before his death he wrote a 105-page letter to
> Attorney General Janet Reno describing evidence that he allegedly had
> concerning Mena. The first page of his letter stated in part; "The lives of
> key participants, other witnesses, and even myself, are now in grave danger
> as a result of my passing this information on to you. If you let this
> information fall into the hands of the wrong persons... some or all of those
> who know the truth ...could well be silenced in the very near future."
> Alder Berriman (Barry) Seal, the head of the cocaine smuggling operation at
> Mena airport, was murdered.
> Florence tin, an accountant who had worked as a sub-contractor for the
> CIA, was found dead in Mabell, TX, the victim of three gunshot wounds to the
> head. She had the documents and paperwork as well as the pin number to an
> account that had been set up in the name of Barry Seal for $1.46 million
> dollars at the Fuji Bank in the Cayman Islands.
> Kevin Ives, a teenager who lived near Mena, AR, was run over by a train
> close to Mena. First ruled a suicide, a later autopsy showed he was murdered
> before he was run over by the train. He may have gotten too curious about
> air drops he had seen in the nearby countryside.
> Don Henry, a friend of Kevin Ives, was also run over by the train on the
> same night. His death was initially ruled a suicide, too, but a later
> autopsy showed he was also murdered before he was run over by the train.
> Keith Coney, an individual who claimed to have information about the deaths
> of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, was fleeing an attacker on his motorcycle, when
> he slammed into the back of a truck. Police ruled it a "traffic fatality".
> Keith McKaskle, another person who claimed to have information about the
> Ives-Henry murders, was brutally stabbed to death in his home. He knew
> someone was after him so he had said goodbye to his friends and family.
> Gregory Collins, another person who claimed to have information about the
> Ives-Henry murders, died from a shotgun blast in the face.
> Jeff Rhodes, another person who claimed to have information about the
> Ives-Henry murders, was shot in the head. His burned body was found in the
> city dump, with his hands, feet, and head partially severed.
> Richard Winters, another person who claimed to have information about the
> Ives-Henry murders, was killed by a man using a sawed-off shotgun.
> Jordan Ketelson, another person who claimed to have information about the
> Ives-Henry murders, died of a shotgun blast to the head.
> Assault on Waco
> Steve Willis - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
> Robert Williams - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
> Conway LeBleu - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
> Todd McKeehan - ATF Agent & Former Clinton bodyguard
> Died on Feb. 28, 1993, or perhaps "executed" by gunfire in the Waco, Texas
> assault on the Branch Davidians. All four were examined by a "private
> doctor" and died from nearly identical wounds to the left temple, so-called
> execution style. According to Linda Thompson, videotapes and other evidence
> indicates that none died from guns fired by Branch Davidians.
>
> In the videotape by the American Justice Federation, "WACO II, the Big Lie
> Continues," Linda Thompson demonstrates that 15 shots were fired from six
> separate weapons into and out of a room into which three of the four agents
> had entered through a window. Four of these shots were fired from an
> overhead helicopter, at least two shots were fired into the room by an agent
> outside the window, firing an MP5 submachine gun, who also threw in a
> concussion grenade. In the autopsies of these agents, three had virtually
> identical wounds to the left temple that exited through the rear of the
> head, execution-style.
>
> In his address to employees of the Treasury Department in the Cash Room on
> ch 18, 1993, Clinton said: "My prayers and I'm sure yours are still with
> the families of all four of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents who
> were killed in WACO -- Todd McKeehan and Conway Le Bleu of New Orleans;
> Steve Willis of Houston, and Robert Williams from my hometown of Little
> Rock. Three of those four were assigned to my security during the course of
> the priy or general election." However, the Little Rock, Arkansas office
> of the ATF confirmed that all four had at one point been bodyguards for Bill
> Clinton, three while he was campaigning for President, and while he had been
> governor of Arkansas.
> Dead Bodyguards
> Maj. Gen. William Robertson - Deputy Commanding General, V Corps, Europe
> Col William Densberger - V Corps Chief of Operations and Plans
> Col. Robert Kelly - V Corps Chief of Intelligence
> Spec. Gary Rhodes - Crew Chief
> All were killed Feb. 23, 1993, when their Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter
> crashed in Weisbaden, Germany. No cause was ever determined. V Corps figured
> prominently in the US Bosnia-Serbia peacekeeping operations, along with the
> carrier Roosevelt. These men, and 8 others associated with Clinton's visit
> to the Roosevelt all died within 4 months of each other.
> Staff Sgt. Brian Haney - Clinton bodyguard
> ine Sgt. Tim Sabel - Clinton bodyguard
> Maj. William Barkley - Clinton bodyguard
> Capt. Scott Reynolds - Clinton bodyguard
> All four men died May 19, 1993 when their helicopter crashed in the woods
> near Quantico, Va. Reporters were barred from the site, and the head of the
> fire department responding to the crash described it by saying, "Security
> was tight," with "lots of ines with guns." A videotape made by a
> firefighter was seized by the ines. All four men had escorted Clinton on
> his flight to the carrier Roosevelt shortly before their deaths.
> Alan G. Whicher oversaw Clinton's Secret Service detail. In October 1994
> Whicher was transferred to the Secret Service field office in the Murrah
> Building in Oklahoma City. Whatever warning was given to the BATF agents in
> that building did not reach Alan Whicher, who died in the bomb blast of
> April 19th 1995.
> Luther Parks, head of Clinton's Gubernatorial security team in Little Rock,
> was gunned down in his car at the intersection of Chanaul Parkway and
> Cantrell Road, near Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 26, 1993. Parks was
> shot through the rear window of his car. The assailant then pulled around to
> the driver's side of Park's car and shot him three more times with a 9mm
> pistol.
> His family reported that shortly before his death, they were being followed
> by unknown persons, and their home had been broken into (despite a top
> quality alarm system). Parks had been compiling a dossier on Clinton's
> illicit activities. The dossier was stolen. When news of the discovery of
> Vincent Foster's body came over the news, Parks is reported to have
> said,"Bill Clinton is cleaning house".
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
> I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
> gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
> Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 19:25:46
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> And of course all those folks in Clinton's inner circle that keep
> dying of non-natural causes....
>
>
>
> http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodycnt.html
>
> Clinton Casualties
> A "Casualty" is defined as anyone threatened with harm or actually harmed
> because of their knowledge of and/or involvement in one or more of the
> Clinton Scandals.
> The following is a partial list of a large number of persons who who are
> presumed to be "Casualties" of the various Clinton scandals. President
> Clinton has told political supporters in Arkansas he will devote a lot of
> time going after detractors who pursued him on Whitewater and other ethical
> questions. (USA Today, November 8, 1996). It is a partial list because new
> addditions are added regularly and the full extent of being associated with
> Bill Clinton is not completly known.
Yeah, people keep dying. Ergo, Clinton is responsible.
Hey, are ya also gonna post a list of the 3000 people who died of
"non-natural causes" on 9/11 on Bush's watch? Why did Bush have those
people killed?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:34:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Alan Murphy wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ob1vk29j98224a6sbggg397fiaipjpmctg@4ax.com...
>
> > This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be
> > developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST
> > also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have
> > played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no
> > evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to
> > determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could
> > have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
> >
> >
> > I think the relevant quote is "NIST has found no evidence of a blast
> > or controlled demolition event"
> >
> I think the relevant quote is, "NIST also is considering
> whether hypothetical blast events could have played a
> role in initiating the collapse". It's there in black and white
> Jack. NIST is considering a controlled demolition scenario.
>
> > I say again, only freaking idiot could believe that the WTC7 collapse
> > was the result of explosive charges.
>
> The building fell at free-fall speed. Only a freaking idiot
> could believe that the WTC7 collapse was not the result
> of explosive charges.
>
> When you're in a hole stop digging. Just slink away with
> your tail between your legs. Even Larry is st enough
> to do that.
>
No, he's not.
> Alan.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 21:55:42
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Yeah, people keep dying. Ergo, Clinton is responsible.
Is it your contention that all of those people died of natural causes and
Clinton had no involvement?
> Hey, are ya also gonna post a list of the 3000 people who died of
> "non-natural causes" on 9/11 on Bush's watch? Why did Bush have those
> people killed?
You should post that list AND the list of 1 million Tutsis that died in
Rwanda because Bubba Clinton said there was no genocide and then instructed
Madeline Albright to stall the security council so they didn't put troops
there until the Hutus could hide anything pointing back to Clinton and c
Rich. And to make sure k Rich didn't talk; he pardoned him and took
$10 million in cash from c Rich's wife to help with his Presidential
Library.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:19:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Sorry, Larry, it's all true.
>
> Post some proof. I will be objective as long as it's not from some
> fringe/loon website.
>
Proof of what? That he was a womanizer? I can't prove that, but it's
pretty well-known on Capitol Hill, where I worked for 17 yrs. That he
coerced his wife to grant him a divorce from her death bed? I can't
prove that either, but it was reported in the press back then.
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
> I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
> gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
> Jefferson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:23:36
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Proof of what? That he was a womanizer? I can't prove that, but it's
> pretty well-known on Capitol Hill, where I worked for 17 yrs. That he
> coerced his wife to grant him a divorce from her death bed? I can't
> prove that either, but it was reported in the press back then.
I think he might be a womanizer; but my point is that I don't think it's
proven. The wife thing - she was not on her death bed. The true story is
that he once wanted to talk to her about the ongoing divorce when she was
recovering from her third surgery. But with regard to the latter - you
and I don't know what the impetus for divorce was. For all we know she was
a really fucked up individual.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:38:15
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 18:11:41 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:12:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <hp4dk2tsqil8oftdk3gec2hr6phm6elpmq@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> > Just wait Gingrich is coming back.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He thinks he's coming back. that guy doesn't have a snowball's chance
> >> >> >> in hell of being nominated for president. I wish he did, because that
> >> >> >> would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I can see it now ..... a Frist / Gingrich ticket.
> >> >> >That's one that everyone can hate.
> >> >>
> >> >> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the stest people in the
> >> >> US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> >> >> of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> >> >> congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> >> >> trivia by little people.
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> >> >intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> >> >statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
> >> >
> >> >You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> >> >Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> >> >and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> >> >Democrats, Larry.
> >>
> >> As I said, "ultimately qualified" and with immense ability. They are
> >> all afraid of his intellect and they should be. He overshadows
> >> everyone in every room-- if you have watched him in any TV interview.
> >>
> >> We need such a person in charge against the current world leaders
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Gingrich was a philanderer as prolific as Clinton. I'll give him credit
> >for being more discreet about it, though. He made his wife sign a
> >divorce agreement on her death bed, so that her heirs couldn't make any
> >claim to her estate. Yeah, that's just the kind of guy we need in the
> >White House.
>
> That is wildly inaccurate. But you say it anyhow. Why not check
> your facts, then post? Instead you just parrot the DNC lies that were
> used to destroy this man.
>
> Larry
Sorry, Larry, it's all true. DNC lies didn't destry him. He destroyed
himself by losing the faith of hos own party. It was Republicans, not
Democrats, who compeled him to quit.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:32:58
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Sorry, Larry, it's all true.
Post some proof. I will be objective as long as it's not from some
fringe/loon website.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:31:43
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >>>>>>> stiff,
> >>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Greg
> >>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>>> the show at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>>> ilk are famous for.
> >>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>>
> >>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>>
> >>> Larry
> >> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> >> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> >> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> >> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> >> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> >> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> >> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> >> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> >> consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
> > Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
> > taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
> > pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
> > altogether too fair.
>
> Arlen Spector is actually one of yours, he just puts an R after his name.
>
> > No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> > for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>
> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> mastered it like the Democrats have.
Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
book on underhand smear tactics.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 09:37:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>
> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> book on underhand smear tactics.
Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:03:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <ZOCdnT0J5oYr4tvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
> >>>>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
> >>>>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
> >>>>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
> >>>>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
> >>>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
> >>>> coffers is banned.
> >>> Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
> >>> but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
> >>> it is being done for profit.
> >> You now admit that it is murder?
> >
> > No, notice the inverted commas intended to show that it is a quote from
> > your side.
> >
> >> The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
> >> and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
> >> it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
> >> peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
> >> questioned.
> >
> > Why? It's all money out of your pocket, and you have no control over how
> > a pharmaceutical company uses money you pay them for a prescription
> > drug. Besides the critical point, that you have taken great pains to
> > avoid, is whether a religious dogma of the far right evangelical
> > persuasion should hold sway on public policy for the entire country,
> > especially since we have a formal separation of church and state.
> > Furthermore, when that dogma is preventing research into finding cures
> > for vile diseases, then it has gone way too far.
>
> Regardless of whether you like the "religious dogma of the far right
> evangelical persuasion" or to whom you attempt to ascribe that faith,
> human life has a value in all of its forms and allowing the government
> to dictate who may life and who may not live is not the direction any
> civilization wants to go.
I assume from this that you oppose capital punishment.
>
> >> I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
> >> involuntary.
> >
> > See above - you cannot tell me how much of your prescription goes for
> > embryonic stem cell research, can you?
>
> My prescription pays the cost of the medicine I need.
>
> Paying for something and having part of your wages confiscated are two
> very different things. One I voluntarily do the other I am compelled to
> do or face civil or criminal penalties.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:54:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >
> > Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> > book on underhand smear tactics.
>
> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>
> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
And your point is . . . ?
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:05:52
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>>
>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
>
> And your point is . . . ?
My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:06:51
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
JJK wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
> > Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> > kind of other types of taxes.
> >
> > I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
> >
> > If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do not
> > want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working to
> > get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
>
>
> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
> provides to its citizens?
Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
Tex
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:33:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 31 Oct 2006 06:06:51 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
>> provides to its citizens?
Legalize drugs, disband the DEA and let all drug offenders out of jail
unless there were extenuating circumstances.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:35:16
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 31-Oct-2006, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
>
> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
Until the 17th Amendment is repealed the States will continue to be
overwhelmed by the BLOB, aka the Fed. govmt.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 14:15:10
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
> > "Bert Robbins" wrote:
> > > Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> > > kind of other types of taxes.
> > >
> > > I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
> > > If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
not
> > > want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
to
> > > get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
> JJK wrote:
> > What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
> > provides to its citizens?
"Tex" wrote:
> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
>
> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
(check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he was
in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic Biology
and human health care or that states would take care of this.
2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't do so
without raising taxes.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 18:32:06
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
JJK wrote:
>>> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
>>>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
>>>> kind of other types of taxes.
>>>>
>>>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
>>>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
> not
>>>> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
> to
>>>> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
>
>> JJK wrote:
>>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
>>> provides to its citizens?
>
> "Tex" wrote:
>> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
>> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
>> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
>>
>> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
>> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
>
>
> While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
> (check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he was
> in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
>
> 1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
> universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic Biology
> and human health care or that states would take care of this.
> 2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't do so
> without raising taxes.
Federal taxes go down and state taxes go up. Then you can pick the state
you like the most. And, if you want a state to change its ways it is
more easily done than trying to convince all of the money grabbing
bastards in the Congress to do the right thing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 00:10:50
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Bert Robbins" wrote:
> >>>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> >>>> kind of other types of taxes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
> >>>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
> > not
> >>>> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
> > to
> >>>> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
> >> JJK wrote:
> >>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal
government
> >>> provides to its citizens?
> > "Tex" wrote:
> >> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
> >> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
> >> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
> >>
> >> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
> >> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
JJK wrote:
> > While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
> > (check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he
was
> > in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
> >
> > 1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
> > universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic
Biology
> > and human health care or that states would take care of this.
> > 2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't
do so
> > without raising taxes.
"Bert Robbins" wrote:
> Federal taxes go down and state taxes go up. Then you can pick the state
> you like the most. And, if you want a state to change its ways it is
> more easily done than trying to convince all of the money grabbing
> bastards in the Congress to do the right thing.
Mere words aren't enough to convince me that eliminating a particular
Federal program and creating many State equivalent ones wouldn't actually
increase the total cost of a program. Complaining about something without
reasonable economic projections is a pointless exercise.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:11:37
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> When Bush came in we were almost blind-- one of the reasons 9/11 was so easy for them to do.
Gee, this is a toughie!
Do I believe Larry or the 9/11 Commission?
Larry blames Clinton (duh).
The 9/11 Commission reported that Bill Clinton briefed Bush personally
about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda, and that Condi Rice was briefed
by both Richard Clarke and George Tenet, but their recommendations were
ignored.
Hmmm...... I think I'll go with the facts on this one. Sorry, Lar.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:39:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 30 Oct 2006 19:11:37 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> When Bush came in we were almost blind-- one of the reasons 9/11 was so easy for them to do.
>
>Gee, this is a toughie!
>Do I believe Larry or the 9/11 Commission?
>
>Larry blames Clinton (duh).
>The 9/11 Commission reported that Bill Clinton briefed Bush personally
>about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda, and that Condi Rice was briefed
>by both Richard Clarke and George Tenet, but their recommendations were
>ignored.
>
>Hmmm...... I think I'll go with the facts on this one. Sorry, Lar.
Oh, lets believe Jamie Gorelich-- and how about Sandy Burglar? The
9/11 commission pointedly ignored the reports that our CIA knew much
about the pending attack and who was planning it-- but was not allowed
to communicate that to the FBI and the State Department so we could
prevent those people coming in-- or deport them if found in the
country. Much of the 9/11 report was so "politically correct" that it
is comedy.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:21:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> >>> book on underhand smear tactics.
> >> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> >> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> >> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> >> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> >> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
> >>
> >> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> >> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
> >
> > And your point is . . . ?
>
> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
blind neocons can't/won't see.
When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:13:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 19:11:37 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> When Bush came in we were almost blind-- one of the reasons 9/11 was so easy for them to do.
> >
> >Gee, this is a toughie!
> >Do I believe Larry or the 9/11 Commission?
> >
> >Larry blames Clinton (duh).
> >The 9/11 Commission reported that Bill Clinton briefed Bush personally
> >about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda, and that Condi Rice was briefed
> >by both Richard Clarke and George Tenet, but their recommendations were
> >ignored.
> >
> >Hmmm...... I think I'll go with the facts on this one. Sorry, Lar.
>
> Oh, lets believe Jamie Gorelich-- and how about Sandy Burglar? The
> 9/11 commission pointedly ignored the reports that our CIA knew much
> about the pending attack and who was planning it-- but was not allowed
> to communicate that to the FBI and the State Department so we could
> prevent those people coming in-- or deport them if found in the
> country. Much of the 9/11 report was so "politically correct" that it
> is comedy.
>
> Larry
You never give up, do you? If the facts don't fit your thesis, well
then the facts are just wrong, damn it! I've read the 9/11 Commission
report. I doubt you have. It is a straighforward account that lends no
favor to any side. To say that it's PC is truly laughable. But then,
what have you ever said that wasn't?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:22:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <1162318385.023419.151890@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2006 19:11:37 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >larry wrote:
> > >> When Bush came in we were almost blind-- one of the reasons 9/11 was so
> > >> easy for them to do.
> > >
> > >Gee, this is a toughie!
> > >Do I believe Larry or the 9/11 Commission?
> > >
> > >Larry blames Clinton (duh).
> > >The 9/11 Commission reported that Bill Clinton briefed Bush personally
> > >about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda, and that Condi Rice was briefed
> > >by both Richard Clarke and George Tenet, but their recommendations were
> > >ignored.
> > >
> > >Hmmm...... I think I'll go with the facts on this one. Sorry, Lar.
> >
> > Oh, lets believe Jamie Gorelich-- and how about Sandy Burglar? The
> > 9/11 commission pointedly ignored the reports that our CIA knew much
> > about the pending attack and who was planning it-- but was not allowed
> > to communicate that to the FBI and the State Department so we could
> > prevent those people coming in-- or deport them if found in the
> > country. Much of the 9/11 report was so "politically correct" that it
> > is comedy.
> >
> > Larry
>
> You never give up, do you? If the facts don't fit your thesis, well
> then the facts are just wrong, damn it! I've read the 9/11 Commission
> report. I doubt you have. It is a straighforward account that lends no
> favor to any side. To say that it's PC is truly laughable. But then,
> what have you ever said that wasn't?
Larry, read? You must be joking. If it can't be cut and pasted then it's
outside Larry's consciousness.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:42:09
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>>>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>>>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>>>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
>>>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
>>>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
>>>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
>>>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
>>>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
>>>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>>>>
>>>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
>>>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
>>> And your point is . . . ?
>> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
>> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
>> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
>
> Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
> explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
> foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
> behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
> Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
> blind neocons can't/won't see.
I am not a neocon, I am a con.
How much have you sent in to Fox's foundation?
> When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:58:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <8KOdne67z7Nsm9nYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely
> >>>>>>> reserved
> >>>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >>>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >>>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >>>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> >>>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
> >>>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> >>>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> >>>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> >>>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> >>>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> >>>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
> >>> And your point is . . . ?
> >> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
> >> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
> >> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
> >
> > Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
> > explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
> > foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
> > behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
> > Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
> > blind neocons can't/won't see.
>
> I am not a neocon, I am a con.
>
> How much have you sent in to Fox's foundation?
More than I am prepared to tell you about in public.
>
> > When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> > indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
>
> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
is that simple.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:29:28
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>
>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>
> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> is that simple.
>
Funny just earlier you said this:
"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
least some understanding of all sides."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:06:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >>
> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >
> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> > is that simple.
> >
> Funny just earlier you said this:
> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> least some understanding of all sides."
Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
as to be incomprehensible.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:37:05
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >>
>> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
>> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant.
>> > It
>> > is that simple.
>> >
>> Funny just earlier you said this:
>> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
>> least some understanding of all sides."
>
> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
> as to be incomprehensible.
>
> William Clark
I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
ignorant".
So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:06:16
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <4qn63jFm0cfiU2@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >>
> >> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >> >
> >> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> >> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> >> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> >> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant.
> >> > It
> >> > is that simple.
> >> >
> >> Funny just earlier you said this:
> >> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> >> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> >> least some understanding of all sides."
> >
> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
> > as to be incomprehensible.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
> ignorant".
>
> So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?
No, they (a small minority sub-group) are imposing a belief that
violates the separation of church and state on the entire population.
And because it is a belief, there is no logic to it, so they have no
interest in discussion. Just like those who want to set creationism (a
belief) against evolution (a scientific theory, well supported by the
available evidence).
That is ignorant.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:34:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-06CBEB.18061630102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4qn63jFm0cfiU2@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
>> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>> >> >
>> >> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the
>> >> > argument
>> >> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> >> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> >> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
>> >> > ignorant.
>> >> > It
>> >> > is that simple.
>> >> >
>> >> Funny just earlier you said this:
>> >> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>> >> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with
>> >> at
>> >> least some understanding of all sides."
>> >
>> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
>> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
>> > expressed
>> > as to be incomprehensible.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>> I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by
>> the
>> ignorant".
>>
>> So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?
>
> No, they (a small minority sub-group) are imposing a belief that
> violates the separation of church and state on the entire population.
> And because it is a belief, there is no logic to it, so they have no
> interest in discussion. Just like those who want to set creationism (a
> belief) against evolution (a scientific theory, well supported by the
> available evidence).
>
> That is ignorant.
>
> William Clark
They must be larger than a "small minority sub-group" otherwise we wouldn't
be talking about this.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:17:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
plain as day.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:41:21
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:17:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
>> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
>> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
>
>Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
>
>And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
>muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
>the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
>plain as day.
Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
your money.
I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
business, never even in management in a business, much less a
risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
the blind teaching the blind.
Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
than democrats have real business experience...
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:08:41
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
larry wrote:
> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
> your money.
I do know that liberals are pro social program and anti gun; but I haven't
really ever seen any statistics on what portion of our Military is Democrat,
Republican, Libertarian, Independant.
> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
> the blind teaching the blind.
That is "sort of" a beef I have with academia; even though I spent a great
deal of time there. Most professors have never been anywhere but in
University. From student to professor - that's their whole life.
> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
> than democrats have real business experience...
Democrats prefer to suck the cash that others earn, whereas Republicans
prefer to keep what they earn.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 16:22:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:08:41 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>larry wrote:
>> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
>> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
>> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
>> your money.
>
>I do know that liberals are pro social program and anti gun; but I haven't
>really ever seen any statistics on what portion of our Military is Democrat,
>Republican, Libertarian, Independant.
I live near Camp Pendleton. Several of my friends are retired
ines-- Generals and Colonels. Several acquaintances are active
duty ines. NOBODY is liberal; everyone is at least as
conservative as me. They stay mad because the White House and
Pentagon won't allow the military to clean the whole Iraq mess up--
sweep them all up and let god sort out the good guys.
>
>
>
>> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
>> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
>> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
>> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
>> the blind teaching the blind.
>
>That is "sort of" a beef I have with academia; even though I spent a great
>deal of time there. Most professors have never been anywhere but in
>University. From student to professor - that's their whole life.
In my opinion that type are not qualified to teach anything but "pure"
physics, math, chemistry, etc. But I don't want them to teach my kids
or grandkids any course that deals with life out here-- political
Science, History, economics, etc. etc. They can't keep their bias
quiet, and with no real life experience, their academic learning is
incomplete. That course could do more harm than good.
>
>
>> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
>> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
>> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
>> than democrats have real business experience...
>
>
>Democrats prefer to suck the cash that others earn, whereas Republicans
>prefer to keep what they earn.
Certainly my observation.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:05:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <o33dk2phjifhj2geempqed88n89odv7h7n@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:17:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
> >William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> >> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> >> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
> >
> >Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
> >
> >And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
> >muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
> >the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
> >plain as day.
>
> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
> your money.
>
> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
> the blind teaching the blind.
>
> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
> than democrats have real business experience...
>
> Larry
Larry, you are so full of crap. I've noticed that damn few of those
Conservatives in congress have managed to do military service, same for
their kids. Conservatives, all talk, no do!
And they seem to like to send those that failed in business to
Washington, too. Like our illustrious President.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:31:06
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Larry, you are so full of crap. I've noticed that damn few of those
> Conservatives in congress have managed to do military service, same
> for their kids. Conservatives, all talk, no do!
What percentage of politicians on Capitol Hill have children doing time in
Iraq or Afghanestan? Also, what percentage of politicians on Capitol Hill
have a net worth under a million? Face it, the culture in America today is
to send the poor to die. All Americans should share in the responsibility
of keeping our country free.
> And they seem to like to send those that failed in business to
> Washington, too. Like our illustrious President.
That's not just Republicans. Clinton and Whitewater. Nuff said.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:06:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <65t1h.14579$Fd7.2913@bignews6.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> > expressed as to be incomprehensible.
>
> Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
>
> And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
> the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
> plain as day.
Whatever.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:51:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:17:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
>> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
>> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
>
>Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
>
<clip >
Do you ascribe that definition to Rob Hamilton, who is on the other
side of the issue?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:58:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>>
>>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>>
>> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
>> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
>> is that simple.
>>
>Funny just earlier you said this:
>"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
>least some understanding of all sides."
MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
much ster folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06101305.html
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:40:39
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <uvlck25n3n7kp0pedn4ikmmd7l72ju4gpq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >>>
> >>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >>
> >> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> >> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> >> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> >> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> >> is that simple.
> >>
> >Funny just earlier you said this:
> >"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> >supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> >least some understanding of all sides."
>
> MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
> know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
> here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
> does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
> much ster folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
> business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-
>
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06101305.html
>
> Larry
What you really mean is that the "pro-life" side is incapable of
distinguishing the cloning of *cells* from the cloning of an entire
human being. The amendments bans the latter while allowing the former.
Or perhaps they're deliberately misrepresenting...
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:03:21
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <alangbaker-069A40.13403730102006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <uvlck25n3n7kp0pedn4ikmmd7l72ju4gpq@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >>>
> > >>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> > >>
> > >> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > >> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > >> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> > >> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> > >> is that simple.
> > >>
> > >Funny just earlier you said this:
> > >"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> > >supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> > >least some understanding of all sides."
> >
> > MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
> > know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
> > here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
> > does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
> > much ster folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
> > business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-
> >
> > http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06101305.html
> >
> > Larry
>
> What you really mean is that the "pro-life" side is incapable of
> distinguishing the cloning of *cells* from the cloning of an entire
> human being. The amendments bans the latter while allowing the former.
>
> Or perhaps they're deliberately misrepresenting...
Actually it's poor old Larry that can't tell the difference. You see, he
never reads the drivel he posts, he just passes it on, warts and all.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 01:19:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On 29-Oct-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
> > The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>
> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> institutes and universities are cut off...
That was his point, federal funding is not ALL funding. There are many
private foundations capable funding this type of research.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:38:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
In article <45455339$0$17454$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
> On 29-Oct-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >
> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > institutes and universities are cut off...
>
> That was his point, federal funding is not ALL funding. There are many
> private foundations capable funding this type of research.
Not to the tune of $100 BN per year, they're aren't. And with federal
funding goes cancer research, cardiac research and the rest.
Good idea.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:42:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:21:52 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
>indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
No avenues have been cut off. In fact, I don't know of any politician
on the left or right who is against stem cell research. The issue is
destroying human embryos in the process. There are lots of people who
regard this as immoral. I don't think that all of them are ignorant.
Personally, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on embryonic
stem cell research, but I'm aware that not everyone feels the same and
I wouldn't call them stupid for feeling that way. Human embryos are
not your average bundle of cells.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:14:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> JJK wrote:
> >>> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
> >>>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> >>>> kind of other types of taxes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
> >>>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
> > not
> >>>> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
> > to
> >>>> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
> >
> >> JJK wrote:
> >>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
> >>> provides to its citizens?
> >
> > "Tex" wrote:
> >> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
> >> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
> >> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
> >>
> >> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
> >> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
> >
> >
> > While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
> > (check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he was
> > in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
> >
> > 1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
> > universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic Biology
> > and human health care or that states would take care of this.
> > 2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't do so
> > without raising taxes.
>
> Federal taxes go down and state taxes go up. Then you can pick the state
> you like the most. And, if you want a state to change its ways it is
> more easily done than trying to convince all of the money grabbing
> bastards in the Congress to do the right thing.
Right, let's play musical states! Just pick the one you like best and
move there. Quit your job, take your kids out of school, say goodbye to
your friends and family. It's all so simple, isn't it?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:21:08
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
John B. wrote:
> Right, let's play musical states! Just pick the one you like best and
> move there. Quit your job, take your kids out of school, say goodbye
> to your friends and family. It's all so simple, isn't it?
I for one moved to a State (Georgia) because I liked their gun laws, lack
of grandparent rights, and the HOPE scholarship. Granted, I am ketable
and can work anywhere; but I left extended family and friends behind to
give my wife and kids a better life.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:35:42
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
I moved to the state of GA for a job in 1992. It's been ok but has not lived
up to expectations. Business bias of the fed and state gov't has worked
against me. Terminated a million dollar pension, etc. I'm not real happy
with the lying suits.
The GA state lottery has fortunately been left to fund school issues
including the Hope scholarship which gives ANY high school graduate the
access to ful
|
|
