Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:48:10
From: larry
Subject: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To
Govern In Wartime
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/29/2006

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and
Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their
jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after
another. Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet
Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of
communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea,
Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away
our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the
central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation
and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally,
the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged
mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border
with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle,
infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil
deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops
attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist
threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would
make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious
man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and
(12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic
nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to
secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be
blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to
the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families
whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli
citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace
has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth
Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in
Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement
this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that
damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's
nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their
current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election
in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the
U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444
days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly
executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or
disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force
commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground
resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines.
The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to
evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal,
and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters
because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced
Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong
military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster
regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off
the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a
working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to
connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid
Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the
appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he
said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage
worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took
over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of
the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to
the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31)
Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter
requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in
fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction
in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on
defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our
government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor . No
wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense
spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR
to the ash heap of history 芒€鈥? an astounding feat no one (except
Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial
conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12%
inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest
since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and
(43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with
Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and
economic policies. They said he wasn't bright 芒€鈥? an "amiable
dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his
tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling
them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War
III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20
nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a
nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical
nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise
retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted 芒€鈥?
a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who
were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel
Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50
million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack
helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream
Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down
incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly
called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital
Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic
boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled
from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57)
oil prices collapsed when 芒€鈥? contrary to warnings from Democrats
芒€鈥? he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through
weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and
perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated
in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in
history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he
demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin
Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The
Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one
key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their
response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets'
nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they
could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or
hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev
threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to
stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it
could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched
thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test
missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry
all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never
work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not
begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected
November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on
Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped
to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained
in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top
trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters.
Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure
from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S.
forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but
the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef,
mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12
American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA
headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon
that would kill on a mass basis 芒€鈥? like Hiroshima. (71) In
November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in
Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel
in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran
and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372
wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida
defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and
intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa
declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American
anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings
carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S.,
Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader
at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning,
consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous
full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last
moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible
collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden
didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar
es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to
fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a
Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours
notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's
army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow
forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left 芒€鈥? no
terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii
house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential
collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a
plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to
capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a
more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan
was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of
defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an
unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert
hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to
act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there
and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know
that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it
was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It
was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian
collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three
opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole
was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to
concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85)
Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville
Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the
three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's
nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3)
(88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened
them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn
there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise
money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North
Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist
country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and
Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved
worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our
money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and
increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin
Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There
were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and
no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too
timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to
make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues 芒€鈥?
from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave
off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover
following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade
with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North
Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for
insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from
Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie
Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the
CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of
important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now
engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in
bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of
the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%.
Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have
blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas
estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept
terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks
against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through
banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners
captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our
troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military
leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would
amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and
create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties.
As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much
difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free,
entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants
if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and
achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take
advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our
economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic
setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
materially increased the danger to our national security and the
safety of all Americans.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:29:13
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

Now it's official. Dems can be trusted because larry said they can't.
Knowing his track record for being just about 180 degrees off the mark,
we take this as a glowing endorsement by the dolt himself finally
admitting the repugs should be ousted.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:23:29
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 1 Nov 2006 22:29:13 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:

>In article <hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com>
>larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>Now it's official. Dems can be trusted because larry said they can't.
>Knowing his track record for being just about 180 degrees off the mark,
>we take this as a glowing endorsement by the dolt himself finally
>admitting the repugs should be ousted.

Lets go a "new direction."

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
back. A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
what?

Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
year. A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda抯 top
dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there
means what?

Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding
planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of
the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the
90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning
which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs
out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his
suitcases in the White

>

Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:17:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bingo! Larry does it, yet again! Gratuitous, OT, neocon drivel posted
without an ounce of thought or filter.

Yup, he's a real credit to the GoP.

William Clark

In article <hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To
> Govern In Wartime
> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
>
> Posted 9/29/2006
>
> Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and
> Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their
> jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after
> another. Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet
> Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of
> communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea,
> Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.
>
>
. . . snip, snip . .
>
> However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
> acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
> only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
> defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
> been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
> materially increased the danger to our national security and the
> safety of all Americans.
>

Date: 02 Nov 2006 04:32:35
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

> Bingo! Larry does it, yet again! Gratuitous, OT, neocon drivel posted
> without an ounce of thought or filter

Please put him on ignore, as I'm putting him back in the box until WED and
maybe later

Where's the Gimp?
--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:28:13
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:17:56 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>Bingo! Larry does it, yet again! Gratuitous, OT, neocon drivel posted
>without an ounce of thought or filter.
>
>Yup, he's a real credit to the GoP.
>
>William Clark
>
>In article <hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To
>> Govern In Wartime
>> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
>>
>> Posted 9/29/2006
>>
>> Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and
>> Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their
>> jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after
>> another. Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet
>> Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of
>> communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea,
>> Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.
>>
>>
> . . . snip, snip . .
>>
>> However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
>> acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
>> only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
>> defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
>> been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
>> materially increased the danger to our national security and the
>> safety of all Americans.

That says exactly what they would do if elected. duhhh.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:05:18
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com...
> However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
> acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
> only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
> defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
> been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
> materially increased the danger to our national security and the
> safety of all Americans.

As opposed to, say, what Bush is doing.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:29:16
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:05:18 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com...
>> However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
>> acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
>> only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
>> defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
>> been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
>> materially increased the danger to our national security and the
>> safety of all Americans.
>
>As opposed to, say, what Bush is doing.

"What Bush is doing" is ensuring that Radical Islam doesn't mount a
successful attack on America "on his watch." Popularity comes
second, history will remember only what happened. I would do exactly
the same thing.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:29:16 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>"What Bush is doing" is ensuring that Radical Islam doesn't mount a
>successful attack on America "on his watch." Popularity comes
>second, history will remember only what happened. I would do exactly
>the same thing.

If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
term.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>term.

What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <qgjkk2p05hsbqqlo0o6ho9l74nnqvn107d@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >term.
>
> What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.

This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
enemy that won't be confronted. Then you are left with the option of
overwhelming (and by its nature indiscriminate) force, guaranteed to
tick everyone in the population off for generations to come, or reaching
some kind of reconciliation and graceful exit.

In Iraq, there is no that we have the capacity to do the former, or the
IQ to do the latter.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:42:16
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
>sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
>those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
>enemy that won't be confronted.

Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
Iraq.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 22:01:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <t17lk21t7akusqiuekp6cdq5nvpf2e0db1@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> >sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> >those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> >enemy that won't be confronted.
>
>
> Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> Iraq.

No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
economic citizens.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:41:19
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-A0719C.22015202112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
> conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
> It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
> lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
> tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
> bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
> point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
> economic citizens.
>
> William Clark

Spot on, William.

I've played a lot of golf with Irishmen in Ireland.
For the past 5 years or so they have all been
hoping that the Northerners stay up in Belfast and
don't come down to Dublin and spoil the party

Alan

Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:38:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <tJSdnYf9QvGbyNbYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@bt.com >,
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-A0719C.22015202112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> > No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
> > conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
> > It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
> > lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
> > tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
> > bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
> > point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
> > economic citizens.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Spot on, William.
>
> I've played a lot of golf with Irishmen in Ireland.
> For the past 5 years or so they have all been
> hoping that the Northerners stay up in Belfast and
> don't come down to Dublin and spoil the party
>
> Alan

Thanks - it's always good to get at least one endorsement on rsg!

WIlliam Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:32:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:42:16 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
><clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
>>This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
>>sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
>>those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
>>enemy that won't be confronted.
>
>
>Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
>up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
>front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
>debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
>any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
>and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
>Iraq.

Yes, ideally. But our enemies simply look at our recent history--
wherein we cut and ran from Vietnam and then Somalia. Both were
referenced by Osama Bin ladin in his communications to his commanders-
predicting that we will leave Iraq under similar conditions, that
America doesn't have the will to stick anything out. All they have to
do is persist and wait. They won in Vietnam when our leftists
screamed so loud they couldn't be ignored politically-- and that is
what they are doing now about Iraq.

But this time the enemy will absolutely follow our troops home if we
leave Iraq-- the homeland attacks may start before the troops return!

We can only hope they attack the home cities of the leftists first--
San Francisco where Nancy Pelosi lives-- and NY where most of the
leftists live. It will be fun to see the conversion.

Larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 12:41:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:32:06 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>>Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
>>up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
>>front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
>>debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
>>any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
>>and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
>>Iraq.
>
>Yes, ideally. But our enemies simply look at our recent history--
>wherein we cut and ran from Vietnam and then Somalia. Both were
>referenced by Osama Bin ladin in his communications to his commanders-
>predicting that we will leave Iraq under similar conditions, that
>America doesn't have the will to stick anything out. All they have to
>do is persist and wait. They won in Vietnam when our leftists
>screamed so loud they couldn't be ignored politically-- and that is
>what they are doing now about Iraq.

What many Americans fail to understand is that what's going on in Iraq
is not a military struggle. It is primarily a political struggle.
This was true in Vietnam and it was true in Northern Ireland. The
North Vietnamese, the IRA and the Iraqi insurgents had/have zero
probability of a military victory. Their only hope is to achieve a
political victory by forcing a withdrawal due to political unrest. It
worked for the North Vietnamese, it didn't work for the IRA and it's
working for the Iraqi insurgents.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:00:05
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:41:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:32:06 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
>>>up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
>>>front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
>>>debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
>>>any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
>>>and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
>>>Iraq.
>>
>>Yes, ideally. But our enemies simply look at our recent history--
>>wherein we cut and ran from Vietnam and then Somalia. Both were
>>referenced by Osama Bin ladin in his communications to his commanders-
>>predicting that we will leave Iraq under similar conditions, that
>>America doesn't have the will to stick anything out. All they have to
>>do is persist and wait. They won in Vietnam when our leftists
>>screamed so loud they couldn't be ignored politically-- and that is
>>what they are doing now about Iraq.
>
>What many Americans fail to understand is that what's going on in Iraq
>is not a military struggle. It is primarily a political struggle.
>This was true in Vietnam and it was true in Northern Ireland. The
>North Vietnamese, the IRA and the Iraqi insurgents had/have zero
>probability of a military victory. Their only hope is to achieve a
>political victory by forcing a withdrawal due to political unrest. It
>worked for the North Vietnamese, it didn't work for the IRA and it's
>working for the Iraqi insurgents.

They are not unintelligent. History is replete with examples of
persistent insurgency winning-- because few democracies can be equally
resolute for years.

But Radical Islam is different than any past enemy the US (or the
Western world) has faced. This enemy is fearless, in fact relishes
death in a war against "non-believers" because they are told their
reward in heaven will be lavish.

This time there are FAR more of them than us-- over a BILLION against
our 300 Million. They have already infiltrated and disabled France
and Spain and likely Turkey and several other countries from the
inside. The UK is tetering on the edge--and will fall too unless they
face down their Muslims. Russia is fighting their Chechens--Those
governments are impotent on the world stage because afraid to rile
their internal Muslim communities. They have been "infected" and the
solution for them is almost hopeless. Once Muslims get into the
government structures-- they take over. Like Mexicans in the
California Legislature.

The Middle East is on the verge of becoming a solid Muslim
block--except fo Israel. They will have total control of 60%+ of the
world's oil. And they will be able to simply cut us off-- because our
liberals have stupidly refused to allow us to become energy
independent with off shore and Alaska exploration. Even if we started
right now in a massive project, production will happen too late.
China, BTW, is drilling oil wells only 50 miles off our coast--
undoubtedly doing "slant" drilling to take our oil. But our
environmental wackos refuse to allow US companies to drill within 100
miles of our coasts.

Iraq is the lynch pin-- if we can hold Iraq for years-- we can stop
them consolidating their hold there.... Why on EARTH do democrats
want us to pull our troops out? They are volunteers-- they went there
willingly-- they stay willingly-- and they would be unemployed if
pulled. Our troops DO NOT want to be pulled out of Iraq.

Larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:39:21
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <fcvmk2do9nj7ch47ab36fp07df5vp2qg4b@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:32:06 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> >>up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> >>front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> >>debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> >>any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> >>and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> >>Iraq.
> >
> >Yes, ideally. But our enemies simply look at our recent history--
> >wherein we cut and ran from Vietnam and then Somalia. Both were
> >referenced by Osama Bin ladin in his communications to his commanders-
> >predicting that we will leave Iraq under similar conditions, that
> >America doesn't have the will to stick anything out. All they have to
> >do is persist and wait. They won in Vietnam when our leftists
> >screamed so loud they couldn't be ignored politically-- and that is
> >what they are doing now about Iraq.
>
> What many Americans fail to understand is that what's going on in Iraq
> is not a military struggle. It is primarily a political struggle.
> This was true in Vietnam and it was true in Northern Ireland. The
> North Vietnamese, the IRA and the Iraqi insurgents had/have zero
> probability of a military victory. Their only hope is to achieve a
> political victory by forcing a withdrawal due to political unrest. It
> worked for the North Vietnamese, it didn't work for the IRA and it's
> working for the Iraqi insurgents.

Actually it will work for the IRA, but not in the way they intended. The
strength of the Irish economy in the context of the EEC is simply
overwhelming the rationale for partition. That, and the generation of
young people that are finally staying in Ireland and becoming
prosperous, has also broken the death grip that the Catholic church used
to have on the South. I think that as a matter of course there is less
and less will for a separate NI Parliament - people are too busy in
their careers to bother with it - and a unification will eventually come.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 20:20:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:39:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>The
>strength of the Irish economy in the context of the EEC is simply
>overwhelming the rationale for partition. That, and the generation of
>young people that are finally staying in Ireland and becoming
>prosperous, has also broken the death grip that the Catholic church used
>to have on the South. I think that as a matter of course there is less
>and less will for a separate NI Parliament - people are too busy in
>their careers to bother with it - and a unification will eventually come.

If you want to believe that the Provo IRA gave up their quest to unite
Ireland because of the EU (which has been around for longer than the
current troubles) and the improved economy in the Irish republic, go
ahead. Personally I think the Brits outlasted them and they knew they
could never win.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:15:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1bqnk251l2kb7caq9jerkobl5f02958e58@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:39:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >The
> >strength of the Irish economy in the context of the EEC is simply
> >overwhelming the rationale for partition. That, and the generation of
> >young people that are finally staying in Ireland and becoming
> >prosperous, has also broken the death grip that the Catholic church used
> >to have on the South. I think that as a matter of course there is less
> >and less will for a separate NI Parliament - people are too busy in
> >their careers to bother with it - and a unification will eventually come.
>
>
> If you want to believe that the Provo IRA gave up their quest to unite
> Ireland because of the EU (which has been around for longer than the
> current troubles) and the improved economy in the Irish republic, go
> ahead. Personally I think the Brits outlasted them and they knew they
> could never win.

No, they (and the same is true of the UDA) gave up the quest because
their base decided that the opportunity to actually make money in
Ireland for once far outweighed the fun of throwing petrol bombs at the
RUC (or PSNI). After all, it always was an economic war, anyway.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:35:49
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <acrmk250rd3ll5jsc04oi8m440vip5i522@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:42:16 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> ><clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> >>sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> >>those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> >>enemy that won't be confronted.
> >
> >
> >Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> >up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> >front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> >debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> >any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> >and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> >Iraq.
>
> Yes, ideally. But our enemies simply look at our recent history--
> wherein we cut and ran from Vietnam and then Somalia. Both were
> referenced by Osama Bin ladin in his communications to his commanders-
> predicting that we will leave Iraq under similar conditions, that
> America doesn't have the will to stick anything out. All they have to
> do is persist and wait. They won in Vietnam when our leftists
> screamed so loud they couldn't be ignored politically-- and that is
> what they are doing now about Iraq.
>
> But this time the enemy will absolutely follow our troops home if we
> leave Iraq-- the homeland attacks may start before the troops return!
>
> We can only hope they attack the home cities of the leftists first--
> San Francisco where Nancy Pelosi lives-- and NY where most of the
> leftists live. It will be fun to see the conversion.
>
> Larry

Well, last I saw a busload of them had split off from the Muirfield
Village group, and were high tailing it to Torrey Pines. They should be
with in time for the weekend tee times.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:46:59
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> >> citizen.
> >
> >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> >powerful or more enlightened nation.
>
> It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
> citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
>
> I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
> give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
> shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
> opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
> because he disagrees with you and Larry?
>
> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> someone like LLLLarry.

If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.

As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
that much, why would I want to live here?

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:24:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162594019.527725.290400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> > >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> > >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> > >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> > >> citizen.
> > >
> > >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> > >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> > >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> > >powerful or more enlightened nation.
> >
> > It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
> > citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
> >
> > I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
> > give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
> > shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
> > opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
> > because he disagrees with you and Larry?
> >
> > I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> > someone like LLLLarry.
>
> If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
>
> As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> that much, why would I want to live here?

You people really are childish about this, aren't you? The reason that I
have such contempt for Dubya and his band of pirates is precisely
because I DO value this country. It infuriates me to see this band of
unprincipled vagabonds destroy what so many previous generations have
built, and often died for. However, if you insist on subscribing to the
Larry "the GoP, right or wrong' philosophy, then go ahead. It is your
children and grandchildren that will really pay tre price for the
devastation Dubya is leaving behind.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:30:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> You people really are childish about this, aren't you? The reason
> that I have such contempt for Dubya and his band of pirates is
> precisely because I DO value this country.

I call bullshit. You have no value for this country whatsoever. You want
USA to do a gun-grab because it was done by other people you admire; the
likes of which include Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler (Godwin Rule not invoked).
You look at the US Constitution and view it as irrelevant; a view you were
taught when you grew up in Europe hearing about how King George was great
and the Americans were unfair. You think we all don't see you parrotting
Alistaire Cook and his views with regard to the two Revolutionary wars
(1776, 1812)?

> It infuriates me to see
> this band of unprincipled vagabonds destroy what so many previous
> generations have built, and often died for.

And yet you never served in a military organization or militia. How the
fuck would you know what it takes to commit your life to a greater cause?

> However, if you insist on
> subscribing to the Larry "the GoP, right or wrong' philosophy, then
> go ahead. It is your children and grandchildren that will really pay
> tre price for the devastation Dubya is leaving behind.

I highly doubt Larry thinks Bushtard is doing a stand-up job. But is
Bushtard doing things any worse than Slick Willy did? You talk about the
3K dead in Iraq; and ignore the 1 million dead in Rwanda. Is one human
life worth more than another? Because if it is; I would say yours is
absolutely worthless.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 13:10:25
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <d743h.1593$GE1.215@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > You people really are childish about this, aren't you? The reason
> > that I have such contempt for Dubya and his band of pirates is
> > precisely because I DO value this country.
>
> I call bullshit. You have no value for this country whatsoever. You want
> USA to do a gun-grab because it was done by other people you admire; the
> likes of which include Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler (Godwin Rule not invoked).
> You look at the US Constitution and view it as irrelevant; a view you were
> taught when you grew up in Europe hearing about how King George was great
> and the Americans were unfair. You think we all don't see you parrotting
> Alistaire Cook and his views with regard to the two Revolutionary wars
> (1776, 1812)?

FIne - but it's Alistair Cooke - please try harder. And you clearly know
much less about my and European history than even I imagined. Rather
sad, really.

>
>
>
> > It infuriates me to see
> > this band of unprincipled vagabonds destroy what so many previous
> > generations have built, and often died for.
>
> And yet you never served in a military organization or militia. How the
> fuck would you know what it takes to commit your life to a greater cause?

So? Neither did Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Albert Schweiter,
and a host of others who have contributed significantly more to Western
society that some screamer on the internet. So your point is? And
remember that Einstein never renounced his Swiss citizenship.
>
>
> > However, if you insist on
> > subscribing to the Larry "the GoP, right or wrong' philosophy, then
> > go ahead. It is your children and grandchildren that will really pay
> > tre price for the devastation Dubya is leaving behind.
>
>
> I highly doubt Larry thinks Bushtard is doing a stand-up job. But is
> Bushtard doing things any worse than Slick Willy did? You talk about the
> 3K dead in Iraq; and ignore the 1 million dead in Rwanda. Is one human
> life worth more than another? Because if it is; I would say yours is
> absolutely worthless.

There we go - stick a pin in a neocon, and out comes the "Clinton did .
. . blah, blah, blah" reflex. It's all they have.

And I would not presume to put a value on your life - I think I can
safely leave that to anyone who reads your posts.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:39:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>> I call bullshit. You have no value for this country whatsoever.
>> You want USA to do a gun-grab because it was done by other people
>> you admire; the likes of which include Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler
>> (Godwin Rule not invoked). You look at the US Constitution and view
>> it as irrelevant; a view you were taught when you grew up in Europe
>> hearing about how King George was great and the Americans were
>> unfair. You think we all don't see you parrotting Alistaire Cook
>> and his views with regard to the two Revolutionary wars (1776, 1812)?
>
> FIne - but it's Alistair Cooke - please try harder. And you clearly
> know much less about my and European history than even I imagined.
> Rather sad, really.

A spelling flame? Are you kidding me, you assnozzle?

http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/spelling-flame.html

>> And yet you never served in a military organization or militia. How
>> the fuck would you know what it takes to commit your life to a
>> greater cause?
>
> So? Neither did Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Albert
> Schweiter, and a host of others who have contributed significantly
> more to Western society that some screamer on the internet.

Chances are you use my patents more than I do any you might have. What
value have you added to Western society, loser? Polluting the minds of
American citizens at OSU? Is that all you have? I would also remind you
that Einstein never once spoke against the Second Ammendment while he was
living in USA; or suggested the Fed should be doing things outside of
Article 1 Section 8.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:01:16
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <g753h.2479$U76.2324@bignews5.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >> I call bullshit. You have no value for this country whatsoever.
> >> You want USA to do a gun-grab because it was done by other people
> >> you admire; the likes of which include Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler
> >> (Godwin Rule not invoked). You look at the US Constitution and view
> >> it as irrelevant; a view you were taught when you grew up in Europe
> >> hearing about how King George was great and the Americans were
> >> unfair. You think we all don't see you parrotting Alistaire Cook
> >> and his views with regard to the two Revolutionary wars (1776, 1812)?
> >
> > FIne - but it's Alistair Cooke - please try harder. And you clearly
> > know much less about my and European history than even I imagined.
> > Rather sad, really.
>
>
> A spelling flame? Are you kidding me, you assnozzle?
>
> http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/spelling-flame.html

Do you have any forms of address that don't involve obscenities? It
doesn't really endorse your claims of high educational achievement.
>
>
> >> And yet you never served in a military organization or militia. How
> >> the fuck would you know what it takes to commit your life to a
> >> greater cause?
> >
> > So? Neither did Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Albert
> > Schweiter, and a host of others who have contributed significantly
> > more to Western society that some screamer on the internet.
>
> Chances are you use my patents more than I do any you might have. What
> value have you added to Western society, loser? Polluting the minds of
> American citizens at OSU? Is that all you have? I would also remind you
> that Einstein never once spoke against the Second Ammendment while he was
> living in USA; or suggested the Fed should be doing things outside of
> Article 1 Section 8.

Nice change of subject.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 21:26:02
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Do you have any forms of address that don't involve obscenities? It
> doesn't really endorse your claims of high educational achievement.

Sez you. But as it turns out; academic accomplishment is not related to
Usenet insults.

> Nice change of subject.

It was only a subject change in your mind; where you are in denial of not
not being completely welcome in USA.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 22:42:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <UYb3h.3737$3L.1907@bignews2.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Do you have any forms of address that don't involve obscenities? It
> > doesn't really endorse your claims of high educational achievement.
>
> Sez you. But as it turns out; academic accomplishment is not related to
> Usenet insults.
>
>
> > Nice change of subject.
>
>
> It was only a subject change in your mind; where you are in denial of not
> not being completely welcome in USA.

Whatever - it would have been better written in comprehensible English,
though.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 19:03:13
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:

> In article <1162594019.527725.290400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> > > >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> > > >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> > > >> citizen.
> > > >
> > > >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> > > >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> > > >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> > > >powerful or more enlightened nation.
> > >
> > > It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
> > > citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
> > >
> > > I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
> > > give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
> > > shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
> > > opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
> > > because he disagrees with you and Larry?
> > >
> > > I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> > > someone like LLLLarry.
> >
> > If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> > As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> > disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> > thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> > aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> > that much, why would I want to live here?
>
> You people really are childish about this, aren't you? The reason that I
> have such contempt for Dubya and his band of pirates is precisely
> because I DO value this country. It infuriates me to see this band of
> unprincipled vagabonds destroy what so many previous generations have
> built, and often died for. However, if you insist on subscribing to the
> Larry "the GoP, right or wrong' philosophy, then go ahead. It is your
> children and grandchildren that will really pay tre price for the
> devastation Dubya is leaving behind.
>
> William Clark

These are the people elected by Americans in a free election. I hardly see
Ireland or Irish as people who haver shown any sense at all with respect to the
selection of national leaders, and most certainly no socialist leader in the
history of the earth has shown any sense in any form...produced nothing but
inequity and war to a far greater extent than any other type of leader. Best
example'; The National Socialist Workers Party in Germany. NExt best, The Soviet
Union. I could go on..Khmer Rouge;......

In light of *ANY* alternative, *ANY* US government is a wonder of intellect and
enlightenment! ..and that's not hyperbole!

Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:58:50
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <454CE20D.E0ED8A7@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
> > In article <1162594019.527725.290400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > > On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and
> > > > >> American
> > > > >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> > > > >> citizen.
> > > > >
> > > > >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> > > > >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> > > > >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> > > > >powerful or more enlightened nation.
> > > >
> > > > It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
> > > > citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
> > > > give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
> > > > shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
> > > > opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
> > > > because he disagrees with you and Larry?
> > > >
> > > > I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> > > > someone like LLLLarry.
> > >
> > > If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> > >
> > > As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> > > disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> > > thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> > > aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> > > that much, why would I want to live here?
> >
> > You people really are childish about this, aren't you? The reason that I
> > have such contempt for Dubya and his band of pirates is precisely
> > because I DO value this country. It infuriates me to see this band of
> > unprincipled vagabonds destroy what so many previous generations have
> > built, and often died for. However, if you insist on subscribing to the
> > Larry "the GoP, right or wrong' philosophy, then go ahead. It is your
> > children and grandchildren that will really pay tre price for the
> > devastation Dubya is leaving behind.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> These are the people elected by Americans in a free election. I hardly see
> Ireland or Irish as people who haver shown any sense at all with respect to
> the
> selection of national leaders, and most certainly no socialist leader in the
> history of the earth has shown any sense in any form...produced nothing but
> inequity and war to a far greater extent than any other type of leader. Best
> example'; The National Socialist Workers Party in Germany. NExt best, The
> Soviet
> Union. I could go on..Khmer Rouge;......
>
> In light of *ANY* alternative, *ANY* US government is a wonder of intellect
> and
> enlightenment! ..and that's not hyperbole!

What in the name of the Lord are you talking about? It is perfectly true
that the people (well, a small minority of them) elected the current
crew. So does that veto anyone expressing the opinion that it was a huge
mistake? No, I thought not. All this stuff about Ireland has nothing to
do with anything, I have no idea why you think it does.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:34:57
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>>
>> >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
>> >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
>> >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
>> >> citizen.
>> >
>> >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
>> >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
>> >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
>> >powerful or more enlightened nation.
>>
>> It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
>> citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
>>
>> I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
>> give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
>> shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
>> opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
>> because he disagrees with you and Larry?
>>
>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
>> someone like LLLLarry.
>
>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
>
>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
>that much, why would I want to live here?

ANd I would say to Clark what Australia says to their unhappy
Muslims--"if you don't like it here--GET OUT!"

Larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:25:34
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <vvnnk2d1hc69r0p8fs0pqp5iqtiiapk6kd@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> >> >> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> >> >> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> >> >> citizen.
> >> >
> >> >If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> >> >US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> >> >enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> >> >powerful or more enlightened nation.
> >>
> >> It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
> >> citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.
> >>
> >> I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
> >> give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
> >> shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
> >> opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
> >> because he disagrees with you and Larry?
> >>
> >> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> >> someone like LLLLarry.
> >
> >If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> >As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> >disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> >thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> >aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> >that much, why would I want to live here?
>
> ANd I would say to Clark what Australia says to their unhappy
> Muslims--"if you don't like it here--GET OUT!"
>
> Larry

How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:34:17
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.

Yet your view is that working Americans should be brutally taxed to create a
huge Federal government full of social programs; in direct opposition to
the US Constitution.

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting
all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.

Selective Service Number 326 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E. Holmes.

Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and
subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) registrant who has failed to
report...remain liable for induction.'

Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,
1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is
INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21,1977, from President
Carter.

Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President
of the United States.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted
by Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised
that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people
in New York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively
cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity.

The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the
Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the
eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be
written.
This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to Recall anything about
past events while under oath.

Sincerely,

Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:59:03
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <oa43h.1595$GE1.29@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> > you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
>
>
> Yet your view is that working Americans should be brutally taxed to create a
> huge Federal government full of social programs; in direct opposition to
> the US Constitution.

Is it? Is,it, really? I don't think you know, or can work out, any such
conclusion from what I have said here. Still, as the Larry-esque
nonsense that follow proves, you don;t need real facts to reach
incontrovertible conclusions.

Have a nice weekend.

William Clark
>
>
>
> Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting
> all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
>
> Selective Service Number 326 46 228.
>
> Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
>
> Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
>
> Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
> Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E. Holmes.
>
> Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
>
> Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
> Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
> Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and
> subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) registrant who has failed to
> report...remain liable for induction.'
>
> Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,
> 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is
> INELIGIBLE!
>
> Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
> under Public Law 90-40.
>
> Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
> fugitive from justice.
>
> Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21,1977, from President
> Carter.
>
> Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President
> of the United States.
>
> All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
> laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted
> by Clinton.
>
> After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised
> that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
> military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
> down and punished.
>
> After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
> and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those
> responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
> and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
> down and punished.
>
> After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
> U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
> and punished.
>
> Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people
> in New York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
>
> AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
> This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
> casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
>
> There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively
> cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity.
>
> The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the
> Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the
> eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?
>
> THINK ABOUT IT!
> It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
> forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be
> written.
> This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to Recall anything about
> past events while under oath.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:22:59
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Is it? Is,it, really? I don't think you know, or can work out, any
> such conclusion from what I have said here.

I can. Easily. You have been a proponent in these threads of many things
including government paid stem cell research, gun control, and some other
things that are either not covered by the USC or are the polar opposite of
the USC.

> Still, as the Larry-esque
> nonsense that follow proves, you don;t need real facts to reach
> incontrovertible conclusions.

The cut/paste I gave just indicated what a dirtball Clinton was. There were
irrefutable facts in that letter, written by a reitred Naval Officer.

> Have a nice weekend.

You too.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 17:50:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <2U43h.2473$U76.304@bignews5.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Is it? Is,it, really? I don't think you know, or can work out, any
> > such conclusion from what I have said here.
>
> I can. Easily. You have been a proponent in these threads of many things
> including government paid stem cell research, gun control, and some other
> things that are either not covered by the USC or are the polar opposite of
> the USC.

No, they are the polar opposite of your narrow-minded views, and that is
what you cannot tolerate.
>
>
> > Still, as the Larry-esque
> > nonsense that follow proves, you don;t need real facts to reach
> > incontrovertible conclusions.
>
> The cut/paste I gave just indicated what a dirtball Clinton was. There were
> irrefutable facts in that letter, written by a reitred Naval Officer.

Larry is the master of the cut and paste. And all the Swift Boat
"signatories" were supposed to be 'retired' military, too.

Now do you see the connection?

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:55:28
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.

If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:48:28
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> Head Shot wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
>
> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.

Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
pushing that kind of philosophy.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:43:38
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
>
> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> pushing that kind of philosophy.

Nice try.

You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
work.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:41:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <lJudnVP73rM3uNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> >> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> >> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> >> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >
> > Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> > leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> > pushing that kind of philosophy.
>
> Nice try.
>
> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> work.

First, the word is 'suits', and then please tell me why anyone should
move out just because YOU say so? Fortunately your ilk represents a
miniscule minority here.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:

>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
>> someone like LLLLarry.
>
>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.

Maybe you should.
>
>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
>that much, why would I want to live here?

So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
those that you admire????

C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
rights as you.
--
___,
\o

Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:38:55
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
>>> someone like LLLLarry.
>>
>>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
>
>Maybe you should.
>>
>>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
>>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
>>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
>>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
>>that much, why would I want to live here?
>
>So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
>state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
>been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
>those that you admire????
>
>C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
>rights as you.

A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
cases because those prisoners have no standing here.

It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
during a nation's political debate.

Larry

Larry
> --
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:28:32
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <23onk29j9l97lnmvet7cadrjssrgj6tudj@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> >>> someone like LLLLarry.
> >>
> >>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> >Maybe you should.
> >>
> >>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> >>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> >>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> >>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> >>that much, why would I want to live here?
> >
> >So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> >state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> >been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> >those that you admire????
> >
> >C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> >rights as you.
>
> A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
> rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
> holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
> battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
> cases because those prisoners have no standing here.
>
> It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
> during a nation's political debate.
>
> Larry

Hey, Larry, put me down for the first one, why don't you? Perhaps one of
those might ex-admirals you are so pally with can help you set it up.
For your information, foreign nationals, as permanent residents, do have
rights - including the right to pay taxes, the right to educate your
young, the right to contribute to the community, as well as plenty of
others.

You want to make it otherwise? Go ahead, I'm hardly quaking in my boots.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 02:13:10
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <23onk29j9l97lnmvet7cadrjssrgj6tudj@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> >>> someone like LLLLarry.
> >>
> >>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> >Maybe you should.
> >>
> >>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> >>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> >>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> >>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> >>that much, why would I want to live here?
> >
> >So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> >state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> >been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> >those that you admire????
> >
> >C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> >rights as you.
>
> A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
> rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
> holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
> battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
> cases because those prisoners have no standing here.

That a foreign national has no rights, is simply, factually, incorrect.

>
> It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
> during a nation's political debate.

This is simply non sequitur.

>
> Larry
>
> Larry
> > --
> > ___,
> > \o
> >

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:29:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <alangbaker-85AD8F.18130703112006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:

> In article <23onk29j9l97lnmvet7cadrjssrgj6tudj@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> > >>> someone like LLLLarry.
> > >>
> > >>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> > >
> > >Maybe you should.
> > >>
> > >>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> > >>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> > >>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> > >>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> > >>that much, why would I want to live here?
> > >
> > >So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> > >state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> > >been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> > >those that you admire????
> > >
> > >C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> > >rights as you.
> >
> > A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
> > rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
> > holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
> > battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
> > cases because those prisoners have no standing here.
>
> That a foreign national has no rights, is simply, factually, incorrect.

Do you honestly think that a small fact like that would deter a bog of
wind like Larry from repeatedly saying so in public?
>
> >
> > It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
> > during a nation's political debate.
>
> This is simply non sequitur.

And simply stupid, too.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 18:50:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:38:55 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:

>>C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
>>rights as you.
>
>A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
>rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
>holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
>battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
>cases because those prisoners have no standing here.
>
>It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
>during a nation's political debate.
>
>Larry

Well Frosty, that obviously means you too. LLLLarrry has spoken.
--
___,
\o

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:53:49
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

larry wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:55 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >>> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> >>> someone like LLLLarry.
> >>
> >>If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> >Maybe you should.
> >>
> >>As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> >>disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> >>thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> >>aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> >>that much, why would I want to live here?
> >
> >So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> >state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> >been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> >those that you admire????
> >
> >C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> >rights as you.
>
> A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
> rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
> holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
> battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
> cases because those prisoners have no standing here.
>
> It would be very polite for any foreign national to just keep quiet
> during a nation's political debate.

You are wrong there Larry, and if you really want that position, than it will
be reflected on US nationals living in other coutnries, like Canada. There
are, for example, professors in Canada who are Americans. I don't have the
same rights in the US that you do, and it should be that way, IMHO, but I do
have all the basic rights anyone would be expected to have in an open
society. It's one of the things that makes countries like The US and Canada
great, IMHO.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 02:13:31
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:38:55 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
>rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
>holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
>battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
>cases because those prisoners have no standing here.

The Constitution doesn't specify. But what do you think of the
following quote?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:01:38
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Nice words without any legal bearing.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:j6rpm2lnk6b2t3kg1ba4e3e0io7a6k4uom@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:38:55 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A foreign national has no "rights" under our constitution. Those
>>rights are for American citizens. Notice that the Military will be
>>holding Courts Martial for the foreign nationals captured on the
>>battlefield of foreign lands. The US courts will NOT be hearing their
>>cases because those prisoners have no standing here.
>
> The Constitution doesn't specify. But what do you think of the
> following quote?
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:47:55
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bobby Knight wrote:

> On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> >> someone like LLLLarry.
> >
> >If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
>
> Maybe you should.
> >
> >As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> >disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> >thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> >aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> >that much, why would I want to live here?
>
> So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> those that you admire????
>
> C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> rights as you.
> --
>

Maybe, but as a fact of law, even if he is a naturalized US citizen, he
doesn't have the same rights as you. In any even, he comes across as a US
hater to me, and begs the question......

Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:46:49
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <454CDE78.DA7CE3D4@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> > On 3 Nov 2006 14:46:59 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> > >> I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
> > >> someone like LLLLarry.
> > >
> > >If something I say is in agreement with LW, so be it. I don't check.
> >
> > Maybe you should.
> > >
> > >As for one's views as a foreign national living in the US? If I
> > >disliked the US as much as Clark, I don't think I'd live here. It's one
> > >thing to be critical of policies, it's another thing to be overly
> > >aggressive in trashing national leaders. If I really disliked the US
> > >that much, why would I want to live here?
> >
> > So, you're saying that a foreign national living in the U.S. can only
> > state opinions that are favorable about our politicians! Haven't you
> > been critical of democratic leaders? That's ok, but don't criticize
> > those that you admire????
> >
> > C'mon Rob. You're not that small. Just say that Clark has the same
> > rights as you.
> > --
> >
>
> Maybe, but as a fact of law, even if he is a naturalized US citizen, he
> doesn't have the same rights as you. In any even, he comes across as a US
> hater to me, and begs the question......

No, I am not a US hater - in fact, it is because I have such a high
opinion of the US that I get so angry a Dubya and his carpetbaggers
trashing it.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:51:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

The_Professor wrote:
> If I really disliked the US
> that much, why would I want to live here?

J-Lo? That's reason enough for anyone to want to be in USA.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 23:30:29
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <DJP2h.310$GU5.247@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> The_Professor wrote:
> > If I really disliked the US
> > that much, why would I want to live here?
>
>
> J-Lo? That's reason enough for anyone to want to be in USA.

Yup, and Dairy Queen.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:17:10
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <qgjkk2p05hsbqqlo0o6ho9l74nnqvn107d@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>> >I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>> >term.
>>
>> What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
>> militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
>
>This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
>sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
>those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
>enemy that won't be confronted. Then you are left with the option of
>overwhelming (and by its nature indiscriminate) force, guaranteed to
>tick everyone in the population off for generations to come, or reaching
>some kind of reconciliation and graceful exit.
>
>In Iraq, there is no that we have the capacity to do the former, or the
>IQ to do the latter.
>
>William Clark

Well, all we can hope is that they attack where you live first. There
is no better conservative than a liberal who has been mugged.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:17:25
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <32vkk2hfv4difvvdk3a4nga8cp9ks781tp@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <qgjkk2p05hsbqqlo0o6ho9l74nnqvn107d@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >> >I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >> >term.
> >>
> >> What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> >> militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
> >
> >This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> >sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> >those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> >enemy that won't be confronted. Then you are left with the option of
> >overwhelming (and by its nature indiscriminate) force, guaranteed to
> >tick everyone in the population off for generations to come, or reaching
> >some kind of reconciliation and graceful exit.
> >
> >In Iraq, there is no that we have the capacity to do the former, or the
> >IQ to do the latter.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Well, all we can hope is that they attack where you live first. There
> is no better conservative than a liberal who has been mugged.
>
> Larry

Yup, I hear they are heading straight for Muirfield Village. A plane
load were spotted leaving Baghdad carrying their golf clubs.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:45:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:17:25 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Yup, I hear they are heading straight for Muirfield Village. A plane
>load were spotted leaving Baghdad carrying their golf clubs.

I'll bet they're good in the sand.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:07:11
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>>term.
>
>What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
>militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.

But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >>term.
> >
> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
>
> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
>
> Larry

Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
and Baltimore, won't it?

God help us.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:19:36
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>> >>term.
>> >
>> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
>> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
>>
>> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
>> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
>> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
>> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
>> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
>> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
>and Baltimore, won't it?
>
>God help us.
>
>William Clark

Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:18:54
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <24vkk21rmlmf000dai5gt4b4ljrgdekf28@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >> >>term.
> >> >
> >> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> >> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
> >>
> >> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
> >> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
> >> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
> >> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
> >> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
> >> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
> >and Baltimore, won't it?
> >
> >God help us.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
> to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
> have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
> world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
> threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.
>
> Larry

"Slowing it down" would be nice. Right now, Georgie boy and his buddies
are accelerating the headlong rush into chaos.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 17:32:29
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:18:54 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <24vkk21rmlmf000dai5gt4b4ljrgdekf28@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>> >> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>> >> >>term.
>> >> >
>> >> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
>> >> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
>> >>
>> >> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
>> >> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
>> >> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
>> >> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
>> >> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
>> >> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
>> >and Baltimore, won't it?
>> >
>> >God help us.
>> >
>> >William Clark
>>
>> Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
>> to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
>> have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
>> world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
>> threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.
>>
>> Larry
>
>"Slowing it down" would be nice. Right now, Georgie boy and his buddies
>are accelerating the headlong rush into chaos.
>
>William Clark

That was happpening before 9/11-- and while GW Bush was governor of
Texas. We had been hit with increasingly large attacks for 10+ years,
yet we seemingly ignored them all--and the obvious trend. That
emboldened Al Queda to escalate the size of the attacks. Their plan
for 9/11 was to use 6 airliners and take out the US Capital and the
White House, in addition to the Pentagon. They intended to kill
50,000 people, mostly professionals in the World Trade Center and our
entire government, all the congressmen (House and Senate).

Their intercepted communications indicate they want to do something
that far surpasses 9/11. When that happens, everything will change--
including your opinion of GW Bush and his sacrifice of his popularity
in order to stop or slow this onslaught.

Larry

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:43:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <im6lk2d48bpv1ld5mvtdmoavtgub24pnsr@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:18:54 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <24vkk21rmlmf000dai5gt4b4ljrgdekf28@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >> >> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >> >> >>term.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> >> >> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
> >> >>
> >> >> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
> >> >> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
> >> >> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
> >> >> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
> >> >> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
> >> >> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
> >> >and Baltimore, won't it?
> >> >
> >> >God help us.
> >> >
> >> >William Clark
> >>
> >> Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
> >> to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
> >> have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
> >> world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
> >> threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >"Slowing it down" would be nice. Right now, Georgie boy and his buddies
> >are accelerating the headlong rush into chaos.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> That was happpening before 9/11-- and while GW Bush was governor of
> Texas. We had been hit with increasingly large attacks for 10+ years,
> yet we seemingly ignored them all--and the obvious trend. That
> emboldened Al Queda to escalate the size of the attacks. Their plan
> for 9/11 was to use 6 airliners and take out the US Capital and the
> White House, in addition to the Pentagon. They intended to kill
> 50,000 people, mostly professionals in the World Trade Center and our
> entire government, all the congressmen (House and Senate).
>
> Their intercepted communications indicate they want to do something
> that far surpasses 9/11. When that happens, everything will change--
> including your opinion of GW Bush and his sacrifice of his popularity
> in order to stop or slow this onslaught.
>
> Larry

Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya as a spoilt frat boy
pretending to be a Southern man of the people. Watching him running
around campaigning when he should be attending to the nation's business
is a true indictment of his Presidency.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:44:52
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <im6lk2d48bpv1ld5mvtdmoavtgub24pnsr@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:18:54 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <24vkk21rmlmf000dai5gt4b4ljrgdekf28@4ax.com>,
>>> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
>>>>> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>> I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>>>>>>>> term.
>>>>>>> What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
>>>>>>> militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
>>>>>> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
>>>>>> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
>>>>>> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
>>>>>> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
>>>>>> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
>>>>>> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>> Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
>>>>> and Baltimore, won't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> God help us.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
>>>> to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
>>>> have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
>>>> world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
>>>> threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>> "Slowing it down" would be nice. Right now, Georgie boy and his buddies
>>> are accelerating the headlong rush into chaos.
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> That was happpening before 9/11-- and while GW Bush was governor of
>> Texas. We had been hit with increasingly large attacks for 10+ years,
>> yet we seemingly ignored them all--and the obvious trend. That
>> emboldened Al Queda to escalate the size of the attacks. Their plan
>> for 9/11 was to use 6 airliners and take out the US Capital and the
>> White House, in addition to the Pentagon. They intended to kill
>> 50,000 people, mostly professionals in the World Trade Center and our
>> entire government, all the congressmen (House and Senate).
>>
>> Their intercepted communications indicate they want to do something
>> that far surpasses 9/11. When that happens, everything will change--
>> including your opinion of GW Bush and his sacrifice of his popularity
>> in order to stop or slow this onslaught.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya as a spoilt frat boy
> pretending to be a Southern man of the people. Watching him running
> around campaigning when he should be attending to the nation's business
> is a true indictment of his Presidency.

Campaigning is the nations business.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:39:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:43:08 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"

>
>Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya

Oh yeah, something would--and that would be when you realize he saved
your butt.

When the books are written you will learn what he knew and knows
now--and the reason he made the decision to completely trash his
popularity in order to save this country. It must be frustrating for
him-- he knows that if Iraq were not on-going he would be 60%+
popular-- our economy is better than at any time in Clinton's 8
years-- But he cannot tell you what he knows without telling
them... He can only hope that most people will "read between the
lines' and realize that a smart politician would not have done this
unless the reasons were compelling--that he had to invade Iraq in
order to save the US from devastating attacks that could kill millions
and devastate our economy.

Figure it out, William. Why on Earth would he have done this to
himself? You can ascribe no motive other than altruism.

Larry

Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:42:05
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William Clark wrote:
> >Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya

Larry spewed:
> Oh yeah, something would--and that would be when you realize he saved
> your butt.
>
> When the books are written you will learn what he knew and knows
> now--and the reason he made the decision to completely trash his
> popularity in order to save this country. It must be frustrating for
> him-- he knows that if Iraq were not on-going he would be 60%+
> popular-- our economy is better than at any time in Clinton's 8
> years-- But he cannot tell you what he knows without telling
> them... He can only hope that most people will "read between the
> lines' and realize that a smart politician would not have done this
> unless the reasons were compelling--that he had to invade Iraq in
> order to save the US from devastating attacks that could kill millions
> and devastate our economy.
<snip >

You obviously failed accounting 101. The debt run up by your little man will
be a drag on the economy.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:22:21
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:42:05 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:

>William Clark wrote:
>> >Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya
>
>Larry spewed:
>> Oh yeah, something would--and that would be when you realize he saved
>> your butt.
>>
>> When the books are written you will learn what he knew and knows
>> now--and the reason he made the decision to completely trash his
>> popularity in order to save this country. It must be frustrating for
>> him-- he knows that if Iraq were not on-going he would be 60%+
>> popular-- our economy is better than at any time in Clinton's 8
>> years-- But he cannot tell you what he knows without telling
>> them... He can only hope that most people will "read between the
>> lines' and realize that a smart politician would not have done this
>> unless the reasons were compelling--that he had to invade Iraq in
>> order to save the US from devastating attacks that could kill millions
>> and devastate our economy.
><snip>
>
>
>You obviously failed accounting 101. The debt run up by your little man will
>be a drag on the economy.

The "debt" is trivial on the scale-- a tiny percentage of our GNP.

The only reason there is a debt and not a surplus is the on-going wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason there are wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan is to keep them from attacking NYC again. Duhhhhh

Larry
>

Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:54:43
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <53fqk2p8crsd33ofhbpie0v07rvr76elcc@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:42:05 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >William Clark wrote:
> >> >Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya
> >
> >Larry spewed:
> >> Oh yeah, something would--and that would be when you realize he saved
> >> your butt.
> >>
> >> When the books are written you will learn what he knew and knows
> >> now--and the reason he made the decision to completely trash his
> >> popularity in order to save this country. It must be frustrating for
> >> him-- he knows that if Iraq were not on-going he would be 60%+
> >> popular-- our economy is better than at any time in Clinton's 8
> >> years-- But he cannot tell you what he knows without telling
> >> them... He can only hope that most people will "read between the
> >> lines' and realize that a smart politician would not have done this
> >> unless the reasons were compelling--that he had to invade Iraq in
> >> order to save the US from devastating attacks that could kill millions
> >> and devastate our economy.
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >You obviously failed accounting 101. The debt run up by your little man will
> >be a drag on the economy.
>
> The "debt" is trivial on the scale-- a tiny percentage of our GNP.
>
> The only reason there is a debt and not a surplus is the on-going wars
> in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason there are wars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan is to keep them from attacking NYC again. Duhhhhh
>
> Larry
> >

Trivial, huh? absurd is more like it.

IOW, we went to war on the cuff (cuff being owned big time by foreign
investors), instead of paying as we go. Of course, we didn't do that so
that the populace wouldn't notice how much it cost.

If we had taxed to pay for this fiasco, we might not have found
ourselves in this mess in Messopotamia...

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:27:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <nprmk2lj3s97eail5ligl7tvg2gv5hbr2m@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:43:08 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>
> >
> >Sorry, nothing will change my opinion of Dubya
>
> Oh yeah, something would--and that would be when you realize he saved
> your butt.
>
> When the books are written you will learn what he knew and knows
> now--and the reason he made the decision to completely trash his
> popularity in order to save this country. It must be frustrating for
> him-- he knows that if Iraq were not on-going he would be 60%+
> popular-- our economy is better than at any time in Clinton's 8
> years-- But he cannot tell you what he knows without telling
> them... He can only hope that most people will "read between the
> lines' and realize that a smart politician would not have done this
> unless the reasons were compelling--that he had to invade Iraq in
> order to save the US from devastating attacks that could kill millions
> and devastate our economy.
>
> Figure it out, William. Why on Earth would he have done this to
> himself? You can ascribe no motive other than altruism.
>
> Larry

Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no fears
that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head that are
bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep one thought in
there and have it come out right. The man is an ignorant fool, a silver
spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a country Texan, i.e. a total
phony.

Oh, yes, and weren't we all pleased to learn that the WH pressed
Negroponte into letting those nuclear documents onto the web, so that
the terrorists and others could learn how to build a nuclear bomb
properly?

WIlliam Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:47:03
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no fears
> that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head that are
> bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep one thought
> in there and have it come out right. The man is an ignorant fool, a
> silver spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a country Texan, i.e. a
> total phony.

You are so myopic at times. Do you really think Bushtard (I and II),
Bubba Clinton, useless Jimbo Carter, Tape Recorder Nixon, the Irish Mafia
Kennedy, or any of the others was anything more than some figurehead who's
sole job was to parrot the Party line? Does the message change whether
it's spewed by a clown like Bushtard that cannot pronounce 'nuclear' or a
philandering, lying scumbag that was given a Rhodes University scholarship?
Both were just messengers. You don't need an IQ of 200 to deliver a message
on cue cards; for chrissake. It's laughable that you two-party idiots
argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value in the
Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill
that these little puppets are just some funnel for their party positions.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 23:13:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <CFP2h.309$GU5.54@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no fears
> > that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head that are
> > bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep one thought
> > in there and have it come out right. The man is an ignorant fool, a
> > silver spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a country Texan, i.e. a
> > total phony.
>
> You are so myopic at times. Do you really think Bushtard (I and II),
> Bubba Clinton, useless Jimbo Carter, Tape Recorder Nixon, the Irish Mafia
> Kennedy, or any of the others was anything more than some figurehead who's
> sole job was to parrot the Party line? Does the message change whether
> it's spewed by a clown like Bushtard that cannot pronounce 'nuclear' or a
> philandering, lying scumbag that was given a Rhodes University scholarship?
> Both were just messengers. You don't need an IQ of 200 to deliver a message
> on cue cards; for chrissake. It's laughable that you two-party idiots
> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value in the
> Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill
> that these little puppets are just some funnel for their party positions.

Dear, oh, dear, at least TRY to get something right. If you are going to
trot out the tired old Clinton line, at least take the trouble to learn
what a Rhodes Scholarship is before you run off at the mouth about it.

Now toddle off and Google, and let us all know what you find.

William Clark

PS: Why would someone be a 'two party idiot' when they do not have a
vote for either one?

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:25:38
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <CFP2h.309$GU5.54@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no
>>> fears that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head
>>> that are bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep
>>> one thought in there and have it come out right. The man is an
>>> ignorant fool, a silver spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a
>>> country Texan, i.e. a total phony.
>>
>> You are so myopic at times. Do you really think Bushtard (I and
>> II), Bubba Clinton, useless Jimbo Carter, Tape Recorder Nixon,
>> the Irish Mafia Kennedy, or any of the others was anything more
>> than some figurehead who's sole job was to parrot the Party line?
>> Does the message change whether it's spewed by a clown like Bushtard
>> that cannot pronounce 'nuclear' or a philandering, lying scumbag
>> that was given a Rhodes University scholarship? Both were just
>> messengers. You don't need an IQ of 200 to deliver a message on cue
>> cards; for chrissake. It's laughable that you two-party idiots
>> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value
>> in the Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked
>> on Capitol Hill that these little puppets are just some funnel for
>> their party positions.
>
> Dear, oh, dear, at least TRY to get something right. If you are going
> to trot out the tired old Clinton line, at least take the trouble to
> learn what a Rhodes Scholarship is before you run off at the mouth
> about it.
>
> Now toddle off and Google, and let us all know what you find.

I don't need google, you coward. Rhodes is a university scholarship that
sends you to Oxford for two years. There are probably many other
particulars to it; but that's good enough for me. It's so funny to watch
you think you know more than others; or boast about your academic
credentials. You don't want to do your "my dick is bigger than your dick"
routine with me, coward. You will just lose. You should go back to
England, coward. Nobody needs chickenshits like you here in USA. This is a
country of patriots; and cowards like you should just stay away. The
fact that you hate USA so much and yet suck down our resources is a
testament to your pathetic life and useless opinions.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 13:01:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <h243h.1588$GE1.1173@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <CFP2h.309$GU5.54@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no
> >>> fears that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head
> >>> that are bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep
> >>> one thought in there and have it come out right. The man is an
> >>> ignorant fool, a silver spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a
> >>> country Texan, i.e. a total phony.
> >>
> >> You are so myopic at times. Do you really think Bushtard (I and
> >> II), Bubba Clinton, useless Jimbo Carter, Tape Recorder Nixon,
> >> the Irish Mafia Kennedy, or any of the others was anything more
> >> than some figurehead who's sole job was to parrot the Party line?
> >> Does the message change whether it's spewed by a clown like Bushtard
> >> that cannot pronounce 'nuclear' or a philandering, lying scumbag
> >> that was given a Rhodes University scholarship? Both were just
> >> messengers. You don't need an IQ of 200 to deliver a message on cue
> >> cards; for chrissake. It's laughable that you two-party idiots
> >> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value
> >> in the Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked
> >> on Capitol Hill that these little puppets are just some funnel for
> >> their party positions.
> >
> > Dear, oh, dear, at least TRY to get something right. If you are going
> > to trot out the tired old Clinton line, at least take the trouble to
> > learn what a Rhodes Scholarship is before you run off at the mouth
> > about it.
> >
> > Now toddle off and Google, and let us all know what you find.
>
>
>
> I don't need google, you coward. Rhodes is a university scholarship that
> sends you to Oxford for two years. There are probably many other
> particulars to it; but that's good enough for me. It's so funny to watch
> you think you know more than others; or boast about your academic
> credentials. You don't want to do your "my dick is bigger than your dick"
> routine with me, coward. You will just lose. You should go back to
> England, coward. Nobody needs chickenshits like you here in USA. This is a
> country of patriots; and cowards like you should just stay away. The
> fact that you hate USA so much and yet suck down our resources is a
> testament to your pathetic life and useless opinions.

Good, so at least we don't have listen to any more "Rhodes University"
nonsense. On this issue, it has clearly been demonstrated that I DO know
more than you. So enjoy the rest of your weekend - it will be more
comfortable if you take the enormous chip off your shoulder first.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:34:44
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Good, so at least we don't have listen to any more "Rhodes University"
> nonsense. On this issue, it has clearly been demonstrated that I DO
> know more than you. So enjoy the rest of your weekend - it will be
> more comfortable if you take the enormous chip off your shoulder
> first.

Nobody ever said there was a place called Rhodes University. All that was
discussed by you and others is that Bubba Clinton was offered a Rhodes
university scholarship. It was not a high school scholarship, and it was
not a porn movie scholarship. With regard to your above slight; I highly
doubt outside of material sciences that you know more than I do. I have the
same academic credentials you do; am as published as you, and additionally
was academically trained in USA schools so I do not have the perverse view
of reality that you idiotic Brits do.

That aside; I don't have a chip on my shoulder - it just pisses me off that
you think Slick Willy Clinton was better than Bushtard. I believe they are
the same animal. The only difference between those two scumbags is that one
was Impeached and the other probably deserves to be. And it further bothers
me that you would even take the position that gun-grabbing is good or that
federal spending beyond the USC is good. Not that you even have a right to
that opinion; since you are not a US Citizen and it does not have any
effect on your life; but since you are living in USA the Constitution
clearly protects you and your First Amendment right to free speech. Of
course it's interesting that you use the First Amendment to minimize or
slander the importance of the Second Amendment.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 17:55:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <3353h.2476$U76.362@bignews5.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Good, so at least we don't have listen to any more "Rhodes University"
> > nonsense. On this issue, it has clearly been demonstrated that I DO
> > know more than you. So enjoy the rest of your weekend - it will be
> > more comfortable if you take the enormous chip off your shoulder
> > first.
>
> Nobody ever said there was a place called Rhodes University. All that was
> discussed by you and others is that Bubba Clinton was offered a Rhodes
> university scholarship. It was not a high school scholarship, and it was
> not a porn movie scholarship. With regard to your above slight; I highly
> doubt outside of material sciences that you know more than I do. I have the
> same academic credentials you do; am as published as you, and additionally
> was academically trained in USA schools so I do not have the perverse view
> of reality that you idiotic Brits do.

Good for you. Care to share those glittering credentials with us? Mine
are out there for anyone to see - I don't feel it necessary to hide
behind a pseudonym.
>
> That aside; I don't have a chip on my shoulder - it just pisses me off that
> you think Slick Willy Clinton was better than Bushtard. I believe they are
> the same animal. The only difference between those two scumbags is that one
> was Impeached and the other probably deserves to be. And it further bothers
> me that you would even take the position that gun-grabbing is good or that
> federal spending beyond the USC is good. Not that you even have a right to
> that opinion; since you are not a US Citizen and it does not have any
> effect on your life; but since you are living in USA the Constitution
> clearly protects you and your First Amendment right to free speech. Of
> course it's interesting that you use the First Amendment to minimize or
> slander the importance of the Second Amendment.

Aaaah, the good old 'you have no right to an opinion because you are not
a citizen' nonsense. How refreshingly original that is. It's remarkable
how this comes out of the woodwork from you and Larry when all argument
fails. I also assume then, that I am excused from paying taxes, too?

And you really need to get over this obsession with guns - it appears to
be clouding your vision of everything else.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 23:27:18
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <24vkk21rmlmf000dai5gt4b4ljrgdekf28@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:42:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <9njkk2pvpj75t3f6v99mg0jb6d1j7r1adk@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:01:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
> >> >>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
> >> >>term.
> >> >
> >> >What is best in the long run is for the US to confront the Islamic
> >> >militants everywhere they can and as soon as they can.
> >>
> >> But since there are a BILLION of them spread around the world (and
> >> undoubtedly in "sleeper" cells here in the US), possibly several
> >> million radicalized by those Madrassa schools. The most efficient way
> >> to fight such people is to concentrate them in one area they MUST
> >> fight to win-- Iraq and Afghanistan. When they gather there, we can
> >> have our professionals kill a whole generation of vermin.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Brilliant! That will really nail the radical fundamentalists in Pakistan
> >and Baltimore, won't it?
> >
> >God help us.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Read a book or two about Islam and this rising threat. We are going
> to be lucky to live out our lives in roughly this style. Our children
> have almost no chance-- even if we wake up and fight them around the
> world-- their numbers and their radical dedication is a different
> threat than we have EVER faced. All we can do is slow it down.
>
> Larry

You are a certified nut job.

--
'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: 04 Nov 2006 14:08:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2006 07:01:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's laughable that you two-party idiots
> >> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value in the
> >> Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill
> >> that these little puppets are just some funnel for their party positions.
> >
> >I've worked on Capitol Hill and that is not clear to me at all. In
> >fact, it's iditotic.
>
> One of the reasons I never get too emotional about politics in the US
> is because it doesn't really matter very much, one way of the other,
> which party is in charge.
>
> For example, a pet political issue for the Democrats is universal
> health care. They've been talking about this issue since the days of
> Harry Truman. Now, if you look at all the years since Truman that the
> Democrats controlled the WH and both Houses of Congress by wide
> margins, you would expect that the US would have universal health care
> decades ago.

Not all Democrats support "universal health care," if I understand
correctly what you mean by that term. We do have universal health care
for the poor (Medicaid) and the for the elderly (Medicare). These are
products of a Democratic administration (LBJ).

Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:16:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 4 Nov 2006 14:08:09 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> One of the reasons I never get too emotional about politics in the US
>> is because it doesn't really matter very much, one way of the other,
>> which party is in charge.
>>
>> For example, a pet political issue for the Democrats is universal
>> health care. They've been talking about this issue since the days of
>> Harry Truman. Now, if you look at all the years since Truman that the
>> Democrats controlled the WH and both Houses of Congress by wide
>> margins, you would expect that the US would have universal health care
>> decades ago.
>
>Not all Democrats support "universal health care," if I understand
>correctly what you mean by that term. We do have universal health care
>for the poor (Medicaid) and the for the elderly (Medicare). These are
>products of a Democratic administration (LBJ).

That's correct, but the reason that universal health care never passed
is because the Democrats are beholden to the special interest groups
that oppose it.

The point I'm making is that most of the big special interest groups
spread their money around on both sides of the isle, so they will get
their way no matter who's in charge.

The major difference between the two parties is their rhetoric, but
when it comes to deeds, there's not a dime's worth of difference
between them, as George Wallace so rightfully pointed out. This is
not to mean that I supported George Wallace, but not everything he
believed was wrong.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:15:53
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <clip>
> >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> >> >>
> >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> >> >
> >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> >> >your account!
> >>
> >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
> >>
> >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> >> subject.
> >
> >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
> >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
> >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
> >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
> >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
> >
> >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
> >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
>
> That would be considered an opinion.
>
> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> citizen.

If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
powerful or more enlightened nation.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:20:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162592153.316781.88330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <clip>
> > >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> > >> >
> > >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> > >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> > >> >your account!
> > >>
> > >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> > >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
> > >>
> > >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> > >> subject.
> > >
> > >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
> > >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
> > >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
> > >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
> > >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
> > >
> > >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
> > >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
> >
> > That would be considered an opinion.
> >
> > Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> > citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> > been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> > citizen.
>
> If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> powerful or more enlightened nation.

Ancient Greece.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:20:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:20:31 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
>> US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
>> enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
>> powerful or more enlightened nation.
>
>Ancient Greece.

Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
enlightened department.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:16:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <r8fpk29h0vvcdk8sv0hfpm8114l71fpgtk@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:20:31 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> >> US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> >> enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> >> powerful or more enlightened nation.
> >
> >Ancient Greece.
>
> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
> enlightened department.

Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
under Genghis Khan.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:52:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:16:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> >Ancient Greece.
>>
>> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
>> enlightened department.
>
>Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
>terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
>under Genghis Khan.
>
>William Clark

But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:02:50
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <mnkpk2d8urt96j76t17ncvvf48o1gdp3el@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:16:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Ancient Greece.
> >>
> >> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
> >> enlightened department.
> >
> >Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
> >terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
> >under Genghis Khan.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.

Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
administration is not long on cultural achievements.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 21:29:10
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> administration is not long on cultural achievements.

What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
message of "philandering is good".

--
___________________________________________________________
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 22:44:34
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <R%b3h.3758$3L.1007@bignews2.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> > administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>
> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
> message of "philandering is good".

Well, we could start with a leader that doesn't commit grievous bodily
harm to the English language every time he tries to use it.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 23:42:45
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <R%b3h.3758$3L.1007@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>>
>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other
>> than the message of "philandering is good".
>
> Well, we could start with a leader that doesn't commit grievous bodily
> harm to the English language every time he tries to use it.

I cannot defend Bushtard. How he butchers the language is the last of my
worries though. That he talks to God and God tells him to do certain
things - well, that kind of concerns me. David Berkowitz heard voices too
and you know how that turned out. But the thing is, just because Bushtard
is insane doesn't make Slick Willy and less contemptible. Well, except to
you gun grabbing liberals. To me, Slick Willy was a philanderer, liar,
and partially responsible for the death of a lot of Tutsis. Of course you
could throw in some other mistakes he made and top it off with an
impeachment; but the Tutsis was probably the worst thing he did.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 20:22:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:02:50 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.
>
>Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
>administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>
>William Clark

If you're looking for cultural achievements in the White House, you
have to go back to Jackie Kennedy. On second thought, didn't Elvis
visit the White House during the Nixon Administration?

Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:45:00
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <pteqk2ld52nltguc1nlkh0osa6ucteds7a@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:02:50 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.
> >
> >Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> >administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> If you're looking for cultural achievements in the White House, you
> have to go back to Jackie Kennedy. On second thought, didn't Elvis
> visit the White House during the Nixon Administration?

True - hard to top that.

William Clark

Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:57:30
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:16:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Ancient Greece.
>>> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
>>> enlightened department.
>> Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
>> terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
>> under Genghis Khan.
>>
>> William Clark
>
> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.

Oh, yes they were enlightened. You should do some research about Genghis
Kahn.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:06:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:57:30 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>>>>> Ancient Greece.
>>>> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
>>>> enlightened department.
>>> Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
>>> terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
>>> under Genghis Khan.
>>>
>>> William Clark
>>
>> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.
>
>Oh, yes they were enlightened. You should do some research about Genghis
>Kahn.

The only thing the Mongols taught the world is that if you conquer a
city and can't stay around to occupy it, then you kill every man woman
and child before you leave.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:11:21
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:57:30 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Ancient Greece.
>>>>> Not a match in the power department. You have an argument in the
>>>>> enlightened department.
>>>> Well, maybe not a match in the technology department, I grant, but in
>>>> terms of global influence? In that vein, there are always the Mongols
>>>> under Genghis Khan.
>>>>
>>>> William Clark
>>> But the Mongols weren't very enlightened.
>> Oh, yes they were enlightened. You should do some research about Genghis
>> Kahn.
>
> The only thing the Mongols taught the world is that if you conquer a
> city and can't stay around to occupy it, then you kill every man woman
> and child before you leave.

Solves a lot of problems doesn't it?

Do some reading and research about Genghis and you will change your mind.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:39:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:11:21 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>> The only thing the Mongols taught the world is that if you conquer a
>> city and can't stay around to occupy it, then you kill every man woman
>> and child before you leave.
>
>Solves a lot of problems doesn't it?
>

No doubt about that and after you do it a few times and the word gets
out, the next city you come to welcomes you like a hero.

>Do some reading and research about Genghis and you will change your mind.

I really can't say that the Mongols left any lasting contributions to
human civilization other than to the art of war. GK's grandson
Kubilai established a dynasty in China which had some accomplishments.

BTW, it's estimated that GK has around 16 million descendents alive
today. That's certainly a contribution.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:27:05
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:11:21 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The only thing the Mongols taught the world is that if you conquer a
>>> city and can't stay around to occupy it, then you kill every man woman
>>> and child before you leave.
>> Solves a lot of problems doesn't it?
>>
>
> No doubt about that and after you do it a few times and the word gets
> out, the next city you come to welcomes you like a hero.
>
>> Do some reading and research about Genghis and you will change your mind.
>
> I really can't say that the Mongols left any lasting contributions to
> human civilization other than to the art of war. GK's grandson
> Kubilai established a dynasty in China which had some accomplishments.

Bureaucracy is one of GK's legacies as well as religious tolerance.

> BTW, it's estimated that GK has around 16 million descendents alive
> today. That's certainly a contribution.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:59:49
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:

> In article <1162592153.316781.88330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <clip>
> > > >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> > > >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> > > >> >your account!
> > > >>
> > > >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> > > >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
> > > >>
> > > >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> > > >> subject.
> > > >
> > > >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
> > > >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
> > > >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
> > > >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
> > > >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
> > > >
> > > >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
> > > >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
> > >
> > > That would be considered an opinion.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
> > > citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
> > > been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
> > > citizen.
> >
> > If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
> > US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
> > enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
> > powerful or more enlightened nation.
>
> Ancient Greece.

Let's see; they had slaves, for example. Any non-Athenian in Athens was subject
to slavery. They were extremely racist and xenophobic. Much moreso than the US.
Next!

Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:36:04
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 14:15:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:

>> Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
>> citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
>> been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
>> citizen.
>
>If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't ask. I'm not critical of the
>US the way Clark is. IMHO the US is the most powerful and most
>enlightened nation in history. If you feel differently, name the more
>powerful or more enlightened nation.

It only matters because LLLLarry has said that if one is not a
citizen of the U.S. they have no voice and shouldn't argue politics.

I agree with you about America, but the question is; will LLLLarry
give your opinions, as a citizen of another country, the same short
shrift as he does Clark? But you're agreeing with that. Why is his
opinion as an alien less than another in the same situation? Only
because he disagrees with you and Larry?

I find it really weird that you find yourself in agreement with
someone like LLLLarry.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 11:36:05
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:18:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:29:16 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"What Bush is doing" is ensuring that Radical Islam doesn't mount a
>>successful attack on America "on his watch." Popularity comes
>>second, history will remember only what happened. I would do exactly
>>the same thing.
>
>If he was concerned with America, then "on his watch" doesn't matter.
>I've got children and grandchildren - I want what is best in the long
>term.

I do also, Howard, and that is the reason we cannot afford to drop our
defenses for a few months or a few years-- in a silly effort to
appease them. A democratic administration now would spell disaster
for this country--all they really need is a little break to allow them
to get their act together-- transfer funds, plan, and gather assets to
purchase WMD.

larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:37:05
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <clip>
> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> >>
> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> >
> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> >your account!
>
> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
>
> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> subject.

I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.

You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:06:40
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <clip>
>> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>> >>
>> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
>> >
>> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
>> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
>> >your account!
>>
>> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
>> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
>>
>> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
>> subject.
>
>I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
>will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
>started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
>line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
>and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
>
>You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
>judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.

Yep. One can go back through all the posts and see that those with
low IQ and/or very liberal viewpoint mostly make personal attacks.
They can't address the premise-- they can't intelligently counter the
arguments, so they just scream personal epithets and throw feces--
like enraged Chimps.

I am just glad I am protected by the cage bars of distance and the
Usenet.

Larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:33:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <2itmk29jms582purgsdb4e4rdi55aqp4ev@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <clip>
> >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> >> >>
> >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> >> >
> >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> >> >your account!
> >>
> >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
> >>
> >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> >> subject.
> >
> >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
> >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
> >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
> >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
> >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
> >
> >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
> >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
>
> Yep. One can go back through all the posts and see that those with
> low IQ and/or very liberal viewpoint mostly make personal attacks.
> They can't address the premise-- they can't intelligently counter the
> arguments, so they just scream personal epithets and throw feces--
> like enraged Chimps.
>
> I am just glad I am protected by the cage bars of distance and the
> Usenet.
>
> Larry

Larry, for you to be casting aspersions on anyone else's intelligence is
truly risible. There is no one on this ng (probably on this planet) who
posts more unfiltered, warmed over, necon garbage than you. And every
time someone calls you on it, you run off into this 'I'm smarter than
you" nonsense (since you are clearly no smarter than a hampster).

Give it up, Larry, give it up.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:30:59
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:33:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <2itmk29jms582purgsdb4e4rdi55aqp4ev@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <clip>
>> >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
>> >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
>> >> >your account!
>> >>
>> >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
>> >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
>> >>
>> >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
>> >> subject.
>> >
>> >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
>> >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
>> >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
>> >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
>> >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
>> >
>> >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
>> >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
>>
>> Yep. One can go back through all the posts and see that those with
>> low IQ and/or very liberal viewpoint mostly make personal attacks.
>> They can't address the premise-- they can't intelligently counter the
>> arguments, so they just scream personal epithets and throw feces--
>> like enraged Chimps.
>>
>> I am just glad I am protected by the cage bars of distance and the
>> Usenet.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Larry, for you to be casting aspersions on anyone else's intelligence is
>truly risible. There is no one on this ng (probably on this planet) who
>posts more unfiltered, warmed over, necon garbage than you. And every
>time someone calls you on it, you run off into this 'I'm smarter than
>you" nonsense (since you are clearly no smarter than a hampster).
>
>Give it up, Larry, give it up.
>
>William Clark

It is not difficult to debate correctly, simply avoid the use of
"you." Talk about the premise, not the person you disagree with. How
can I make this concept simple enough for you?

When you attack others personally, you lose the audience-- and if it
were a real debate you would find yourself standing outside the
room--ignominously disqualified.

Larry

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:19:44
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <pknnk29a13u3g8p6bbml9c5134hos9td68@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:33:41 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <2itmk29jms582purgsdb4e4rdi55aqp4ev@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <clip>
> >> >> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
> >> >> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
> >> >> >your account!
> >> >>
> >> >> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
> >> >> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
> >> >>
> >> >> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
> >> >> subject.
> >> >
> >> >I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
> >> >will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
> >> >started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
> >> >line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
> >> >and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
> >> >
> >> >You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
> >> >judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.
> >>
> >> Yep. One can go back through all the posts and see that those with
> >> low IQ and/or very liberal viewpoint mostly make personal attacks.
> >> They can't address the premise-- they can't intelligently counter the
> >> arguments, so they just scream personal epithets and throw feces--
> >> like enraged Chimps.
> >>
> >> I am just glad I am protected by the cage bars of distance and the
> >> Usenet.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Larry, for you to be casting aspersions on anyone else's intelligence is
> >truly risible. There is no one on this ng (probably on this planet) who
> >posts more unfiltered, warmed over, necon garbage than you. And every
> >time someone calls you on it, you run off into this 'I'm smarter than
> >you" nonsense (since you are clearly no smarter than a hampster).
> >
> >Give it up, Larry, give it up.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> It is not difficult to debate correctly, simply avoid the use of
> "you." Talk about the premise, not the person you disagree with. How
> can I make this concept simple enough for you?
>
> When you attack others personally, you lose the audience-- and if it
> were a real debate you would find yourself standing outside the
> room--ignominously disqualified.
>
> Larry

Larry, you never HAVE a premise - you only have the dregs of Limabugh or
Hannity or their ilk, just cut and pasted into a post. Nothing of
substance to reason with there at all.

So get off your martyred high horse, and try listening to one word that
someone else (other than your sycophants) says. Who knows, you might
even learn something.

And please give up trying to lecture us on the qualities of a 'real
debate'. That is only surpassed for absurdity by your past attempts to
play the expert on English grammar.

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:40:09
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Larry, for you to be casting aspersions on anyone else's intelligence
> is truly risible. There is no one on this ng (probably on this
> planet) who posts more unfiltered, warmed over, necon garbage than
> you. And every time someone calls you on it, you run off into this
> 'I'm smarter than you" nonsense (since you are clearly no smarter
> than a hampster).

Yore stoopider and donut even know it.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 11:05:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 08:37:05 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <clip>
>> >> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>> >>
>> >> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
>> >
>> >I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
>> >express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
>> >your account!
>>
>> You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
>> everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.
>>
>> There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
>> subject.
>
>I know whqat I know, and I have opinions on what I have opinions on. I
>will bet you that I have opinions on less than 50% of the threads
>started on RSG, far less, I suspect. Thus you are going waaay over the
>line with the "...on any subject" statement, which, being all reserved
>and everything, I will call a statement with limited truth to it.
>
>You, OTOH, seem to have few opinions on anything, but rather sit in
>judgement of those who actually do express a viewpoint.

That would be considered an opinion.

Incidentally, for the record, do you hold both Canadian and American
citizenships? That doesn't make any difference to me, but Clark has
been getting some criticism from Larry because he's not an American
citizen.

___,
\o

Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:20:14
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1162830354.111553.104880@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:22 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article <1162769604.120247.190...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "larryrsf" <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > > >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> > > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots
> > > >>>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > > >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > > >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a
> > > >>>>> plane
> > > >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> > > >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me,
> > > >>>> then
> > > >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to
> > > >>>> power
> > > >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> > > >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > > >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you
> > > >>> get
> > > >>> work.
> > > >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> > > >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> > > >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> > > >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> > > >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> > > >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> > > >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> > > >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> > > >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> > > >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> > > >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> > >
> > > >> Larry
> > >
> > > > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
> > >
> > > > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > > > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > > > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.Citizenship has
> > > > its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
> > >
> > > The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> > > guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> > > privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> > > in until you get the US Constitution amended.
> > >
> > > In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> > > you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> > > their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.
> > >
> > > > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.Why,
> > > > because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.-
> > > > Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> >
> > Baker writes from Canada. He is not an American Citzen either.
> >
> > Maybe we should get involved in Canadian politics. Wonder how welcome
> > our opinions would be there? I think I know-- their newspapers would
> > NOT print our letters nor allow us any voice at all. They would not so
> > politely tell us to BUTT OUT!
> >
> > Larry
>
> Then isn't it just too bad that this forum isn't just for Americans, huh
> Larry?
>

There's a guy who calls himself Fairway who pops up occasionally in
these threads. I gather he's a Brit. He's always screaming about
commies and he seems to worship GW Bush. Funny how Larry hasn't told
him to BUTT OUT.

> --
> '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: 04 Nov 2006 07:01:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Because he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I have no fears
> > that little George is keeping any mighty secrets in his head that are
> > bursting to get out - for God's sake, he can't even keep one thought
> > in there and have it come out right. The man is an ignorant fool, a
> > silver spoon preppy frat boy pretending to be a country Texan, i.e. a
> > total phony.
>
> You are so myopic at times. Do you really think Bushtard (I and II),
> Bubba Clinton, useless Jimbo Carter, Tape Recorder Nixon, the Irish Mafia
> Kennedy, or any of the others was anything more than some figurehead who's
> sole job was to parrot the Party line? Does the message change whether
> it's spewed by a clown like Bushtard that cannot pronounce 'nuclear' or a
> philandering, lying scumbag that was given a Rhodes University scholarship?
> Both were just messengers. You don't need an IQ of 200 to deliver a message
> on cue cards; for chrissake. It's laughable that you two-party idiots
> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value in the
> Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill
> that these little puppets are just some funnel for their party positions.

I've worked on Capitol Hill and that is not clear to me at all. In
fact, it's iditotic.
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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 11:31:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 4 Nov 2006 07:01:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> It's laughable that you two-party idiots
>> argue back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush have more value in the
>> Executive Office; when it is clear to anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill
>> that these little puppets are just some funnel for their party positions.
>
>I've worked on Capitol Hill and that is not clear to me at all. In
>fact, it's iditotic.

One of the reasons I never get too emotional about politics in the US
is because it doesn't really matter very much, one way of the other,
which party is in charge.

For example, a pet political issue for the Democrats is universal
health care. They've been talking about this issue since the days of
Harry Truman. Now, if you look at all the years since Truman that the
Democrats controlled the WH and both Houses of Congress by wide
margins, you would expect that the US would have universal health care
decades ago.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:22:11
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:sjakk217oqrtnvds4vqkehfhn9krbomfs0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:05:18 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>>news:hsjhk2de6anv01h8bkv0k76gck53crk8tl@4ax.com...
>>> However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in
>>> acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is
>>> only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the
>>> defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have
>>> been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but
>>> materially increased the danger to our national security and the
>>> safety of all Americans.
>>
>>As opposed to, say, what Bush is doing.
>
> "What Bush is doing" is ensuring that Radical Islam doesn't mount a
> successful attack on America "on his watch." Popularity comes
> second, history will remember only what happened. I would do exactly
> the same thing.

Bwahahahahaha, I have no doubt about that. What a complete jerkoff you are.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:11:07
From: Eric Ramon
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

larry wrote:

> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,

That is a very strange choice of words and says a little too much about
your state of mind.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:41:37
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1162565356.865052.136250@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <t17lk21t7akusqiuekp6cdq5nvpf2e0db1@4ax.com>,
> > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> > > > >sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> > > > >those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> > > > >enemy that won't be confronted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> > > > up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> > > > front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> > > > debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> > > > any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> > > > and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> > > > Iraq.
> > >
> > > No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
> > > conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
> > > It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
> > > lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
> > > tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
> > > bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
> > > point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
> > > economic citizens.
> > >
> >
> > Make up the history as you go along! The fact is the people in general
> > got tired of the thugs...on both sides. If you think the average person
> > in NI drives a BMW, you are living in LaLa land. At the end of the day,
> > Catholics came to *KNOW* the IRA are nothing but murderous thugs and
> > criminals, and stopped supporting them. Same thing for Protestant
> > extremist groups. The average person simply stopped caring about the
> > political extremeism so much. Passions are still there though, but
> > people are more interested in things like raising families and pursuing
> > careers than the latest nutcase socialists great utopian plan for
> > mankind!
> >
> > Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>
> No, try reading the message properly. The BMWs are flourishing in the
> South, you know, the "Celtic Tiger"? As a result, the old traditional
> argument in the North that they needed to protect their relative
> prosperity from what used to be one of the poorest countries in Europe
> has gone out of the window. Add that to the mobility of labour that the
> EEC has imposed, and you now have large numbers of educated Northerners
> living and working happily in (flourishing) the South. Consequence -
> collapse of the base of silent 'support' that the IRA and UDA got from
> the middle class in NI, and also collapse of the support for the
> factional politicians that fed of this. Why else would Paisley and Adams
> even dream of negotiations?
>
> Of course, my family lives in NI . . and mostly works in the South, so
> what do I know?
>

I don't think we disagree, except that I don't think the socio economic
arguement means much. People just got fed up with the whole thing.
Paisley and Adams sought negotiations, IMHO, because it was the only
thing they could do that anyone would care about. IMHO, most people
don't even care about that anymore, or them. They are extremist loons.
The only socio-political comment I can offer up is that the prosperity
*FOLLOWED* the loss of public support for loons like that, which says a
lot if true!

Date: 03 Nov 2006 07:26:26
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> <clip>
> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>
> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.

I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
your account!

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:34:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 07:26:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>> >Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?
>>
>> From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
>
>I have virtually no tenor at all...more fo a baritone...but I will
>express my opinions without any sense that I need to be reserved on
>your account!

You misunderstood me. I really think that you must know almost
everything. LLLLarry can fill in the rest.

There has never been a chance of reserve from you, for anyone, on any
subject.
___,
\o

Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:54:00
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <VJp3h.4529$TX.1173@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> >>> years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> >>> are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> >>> blame it on Clinton?
> >> What has Bushtard done that you would have done differently? You seem to
> >> have a lot of anger, but do you have better solutions than the ones he
> >> made? Also, would Internet Algore have made different decisions?
> >> Finally; what portion of the issues faced by Bushtard were inherited from
> >> Slick Willy? The terrorist issues were inherited; as 9-11-01 was planned
> >> during the Slick Willy administration; so be careful how you position
> >> yourself on that one. I would also argue that the economy is ciclical and
> >> therefore not fully resting on the shoulders of Bushtard. Afghanestan was
> >> inherited as well; and I would remind you that Slick Willy bombed
> >> Afghanestan during his administration.
> >
> > I can't answer for William, but here's a few things I think should have
> > been done differently.
> >
> > 1. Afghanistan - right call, right time. But should have stayed at
> > the top of the heap.
>
> Going to Afghanistan was to spank the Taliban, nothing more and nothing
> less. There is only one product from Afghanistan that is salable on the
> open market and that is heroin and our defeat of the Taliban has allowed
> its trade to reemerge.
>
> > 2. Get BinLaden! He was the reason we went to Afghanistan
>
> Bin Laden has been emasculated and laughable. Every time you hear quit a
> bit about the second in command of Al Qaida a tape, supposedly, from Bin
> Laden makes its way to Al-jezeria and onto the world stage. Bin Laden is
> in constant hiding and doesn't command the organization anymore.

Tell the families of the 3,000 people he killed that he's "laughable."

>
> > 3. Stay out of Iraq! - We had him contained and history tells us if we
> > go in, we get what we have now. Total chaos! Saddam was horrible, and
> > its nice that he's out of power, but he was the Iraqi's problem, they
> > should have been left to deal with it.
>
> We now have a large forward operating country in the middle east.

Oh, great. Now we have a base from which to attack other countries!
What a wonderful asset!

>
> > BTW, Clinton's people left info on a possible terrorist attack for
> > Bush's people. But they were in their 'nothing left by Clinton' mode at
> > the time and chose to ignore it.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:37:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> We now have a large forward operating country in the middle east.
>
> Oh, great. Now we have a base from which to attack other countries!
> What a wonderful asset!

1) If all Middle Eastern countries boycotted selling oil to USA; what (if
any) impact do you project that would have? Give it some serious thought
and post your projections.

2) What do you feel the obligation is that we have for ally countries (if
any). Answer that broadly; and then more granularly with respect to only
Israel.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 08:25:54
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Nov 5, 4:22 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com > wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1162769604.120247.190...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larryrsf" <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> >>> work.
> >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
>
> >> Larry
>
> > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
>
> > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.Citizenship has its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
>
> The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> in until you get the US Constitution amended.
>
> In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.
>
> > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.Why, because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Baker writes from Canada. He is not an American Citzen either.

Maybe we should get involved in Canadian politics. Wonder how welcome
our opinions would be there? I think I know-- their newspapers would
NOT print our letters nor allow us any voice at all. They would not so
politely tell us to BUTT OUT!

Larry

Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:47:38
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162830354.111553.104880@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 4:22 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1162769604.120247.190...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "larryrsf" <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots
> > >>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a
> > >>>>> plane
> > >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> > >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to
> > >>>> power
> > >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> > >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you
> > >>> get
> > >>> work.
> > >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> > >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> > >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> > >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> > >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> > >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> > >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> > >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> > >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> > >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> > >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> >
> > >> Larry
> >
> > > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
> >
> > > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.Citizenship has
> > > its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
> >
> > The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> > guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> > privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> > in until you get the US Constitution amended.
> >
> > In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> > you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> > their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.
> >
> > > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.Why,
> > > because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.-
> > > Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> Baker writes from Canada. He is not an American Citzen either.
>
> Maybe we should get involved in Canadian politics. Wonder how welcome
> our opinions would be there? I think I know-- their newspapers would
> NOT print our letters nor allow us any voice at all. They would not so
> politely tell us to BUTT OUT!
>
> Larry

On the contrary, they would be more than happy to print your
letters.They would confirm every worst caricature of their neighbors to
the South.

William Clark

Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:12:37
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162830354.111553.104880@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 4:22 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1162769604.120247.190...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "larryrsf" <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots
> > >>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a
> > >>>>> plane
> > >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> > >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to
> > >>>> power
> > >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> > >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you
> > >>> get
> > >>> work.
> > >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> > >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> > >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> > >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> > >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> > >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> > >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> > >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> > >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> > >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> > >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> >
> > >> Larry
> >
> > > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
> >
> > > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.Citizenship has
> > > its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
> >
> > The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> > guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> > privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> > in until you get the US Constitution amended.
> >
> > In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> > you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> > their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.
> >
> > > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.Why,
> > > because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.-
> > > Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> Baker writes from Canada. He is not an American Citzen either.
>
> Maybe we should get involved in Canadian politics. Wonder how welcome
> our opinions would be there? I think I know-- their newspapers would
> NOT print our letters nor allow us any voice at all. They would not so
> politely tell us to BUTT OUT!
>
> Larry

Then isn't it just too bad that this forum isn't just for Americans, huh
Larry?

--
'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: 06 Nov 2006 07:39:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1162769604.120247.190360@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> >>> work.
> >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
> >
> > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.
>
> Citizenship has its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
>
> The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> in until you get the US Constitution amended.
>
> In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.

That is absolute horseshit. I lived in Mexico for 3 mos. during a
presidential election (1994). The Mexicans do not throw foreigners in
jail for voicing opinions about Mexican politics. Where on earth did
you get such a ridiculous idea? And even if it were true, are you
holding that up as standard to be admired and emulated here?

>
> > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.
>
> Why, because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:30:10
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
>. I lived in Mexico for 3 mos.

What are your views on donkey shows?

--
___________________________________________________________
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 06:49:17
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <t17lk21t7akusqiuekp6cdq5nvpf2e0db1@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> > >sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> > >those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> > >enemy that won't be confronted.
> >
> >
> > Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> > up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> > front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> > debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> > any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> > and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> > Iraq.
>
> No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
> conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
> It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
> lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
> tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
> bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
> point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
> economic citizens.
>

Make up the history as you go along! The fact is the people in general
got tired of the thugs...on both sides. If you think the average person
in NI drives a BMW, you are living in LaLa land. At the end of the day,
Catholics came to *KNOW* the IRA are nothing but murderous thugs and
criminals, and stopped supporting them. Same thing for Protestant
extremist groups. The average person simply stopped caring about the
political extremeism so much. Passions are still there though, but
people are more interested in things like raising families and pursuing
careers than the latest nutcase socialists great utopian plan for
mankind!

Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?

Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:06:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>Catholics came to *KNOW* the IRA are nothing but murderous thugs and
>criminals, and stopped supporting them.

And I think we can see the same thing happening in the Middle East. If
the US can show the determination of the British, the Muslim's will
see that the militants are doing more harm than good.

Unfortunately, the political divisions in the US give hope to the
terrorists.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:51:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>> No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland -

The IRA's major goal was the unification of Ireland. They gave up the
armed struggle and failed to acheve that goal. The IRA lost and
Britain won. You can try to spin it anyway you want, but NI is still
part of the UK.

Britain won because the political parties remained unified in their
determination to defeat the IRA. Britain payed a terrible price to
keep NI with virtually no pay back. Nevertheless, it was never a
political issue. No political party attempted to take advantage of
what was a very difficult situation.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:37:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162565356.865052.136250@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <t17lk21t7akusqiuekp6cdq5nvpf2e0db1@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:41:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >This is like playing 'whack-a-mole" - there are new cells and groups
> > > >sprouting up every day we continue to offend more and more people in
> > > >those areas. Just like the British in Ireland, you can't confront an
> > > >enemy that won't be confronted.
> > >
> > >
> > > Last time I looked, NI is still part of the UK and the IRA has given
> > > up terrorism. The British won in NI because they maintained a unified
> > > front and never even considered surrender. The issue of NI was never
> > > debated in Britain by the major political parties. The IRA never had
> > > any hope that if Labour got in power that the British would give up
> > > and leave NI. That's the way it should be in the US with the war in
> > > Iraq.
> >
> > No, the British did not 'win' in Ireland - the point of this 30+ year
> > conflict became moot because the Irish economy exploded into a boom.
> > It's hard to rustle up too may discontents prepared to lay down their
> > lives for the cause when they are all busy becoming millionaires and
> > tracking down their next BMW. In fact, the turn of events did more to
> > bring the NI protestants to the negotiation table than the IRA. Not much
> > point screaming their 'loyalty' when they are becoming second class
> > economic citizens.
> >
>
> Make up the history as you go along! The fact is the people in general
> got tired of the thugs...on both sides. If you think the average person
> in NI drives a BMW, you are living in LaLa land. At the end of the day,
> Catholics came to *KNOW* the IRA are nothing but murderous thugs and
> criminals, and stopped supporting them. Same thing for Protestant
> extremist groups. The average person simply stopped caring about the
> political extremeism so much. Passions are still there though, but
> people are more interested in things like raising families and pursuing
> careers than the latest nutcase socialists great utopian plan for
> mankind!
>
> Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?

No, try reading the message properly. The BMWs are flourishing in the
South, you know, the "Celtic Tiger"? As a result, the old traditional
argument in the North that they needed to protect their relative
prosperity from what used to be one of the poorest countries in Europe
has gone out of the window. Add that to the mobility of labour that the
EEC has imposed, and you now have large numbers of educated Northerners
living and working happily in (flourishing) the South. Consequence -
collapse of the base of silent 'support' that the IRA and UDA got from
the middle class in NI, and also collapse of the support for the
factional politicians that fed of this. Why else would Paisley and Adams
even dream of negotiations?

Of course, my family lives in NI . . and mostly works in the South, so
what do I know?

William Clark

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:08:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On 3 Nov 2006 06:49:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

<clip >
>Of course my family is from the region...so what do I know?

From the tenor of your posts...almost everything.
___,
\o

Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:54:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> > administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>
> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
> message of "philandering is good".

what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
office for 6 years?
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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 12:44:23
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> with the last one?

Is it your contention that comparative reasoning a bad thing? That making a
judgment based on past events is not good? You must hate the scientific
method and the concept of testing.

> BUSH is president now, not Clinton.

Now that's a news flash. :-)

> His actions and
> policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.

I believe each administration can be criticized or praised on it's own
merit; or can be compared to the other forty some-odd administrations.

> Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> agreement with your opponent's argument.

Again - comparative reasoning is wrong?

> Why don't you tell somebody
> they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> office for 6 years?

Who is wrong? Only a complete fucktard would say that there is only one
metric for determining the success or failure of a specific administration;
Bushtard's or otherwise. Personally; I believe the Clinton
administration and the Lincoln administration were some of the worst in the
history of our great country. Clinton profited by the massacre of a
million Tutsi's; and Lincoln intimidated and coerced the Supreme Court with
threats to get what he wanted; as well as make a pro-Slavery stand and then
use anti-Slavery as his position to validate his war to his constituents.

>>
>> --
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> 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

--
___________________________________________________________
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
Je

Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:24:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162742077.384290.291910@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> Head Shot wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> > > administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >
> > What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> > comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
> > message of "philandering is good".
>
>
> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
> policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
> Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
> they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> office for 6 years?
> >
> > --
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > 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

Because they have nothing else to stand on. It's just that simple - it
is all they have.

William Clark

Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:42:25
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Because they have nothing else to stand on. It's just that simple - it
> is all they have.

They have positions based on their belief that Bushtard has done some good.
So let's take a top down approach. I will list what I think are the major
issues facing the administration. Feel free to add and subtract. Then you
can share how you would handle each issue as a stand alone and in light of
there being a Republican majority in the Legislative and Judicial Branches.
From there; compare what you would have done to what Bushtard is doing;
and then we can judge objectively his failure or success.

1) With regard to Iraq. Was Saddam a threat to Israel or specific ethinc
groups? Do you believe USA should have been part of an international
force in Iraq? Do you believe there shoud be any international force in
Iraq.

2) Do you believe Saddam may have had WMD's at some point. If so, do you
believe they were moved to Syria between Operation Desert Storm and
Operation Desert Freedom. If you do not believe Saddam ever had WMD's of any
kind; then what do you believe killed all those Kurds? What are your
thoughts on Bloody Friday: http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html As
a parent, what are your thoughts on the man in the first picture that died
with his infant in his arms?

3) Do you believe we should support our ally Israel (weapons and
intelligence) if she decides to attack Syria. What is your position on
Syria and her views on Jews (they teach children that Jews are non-human
tools of the Devil placed on earth).

4) Do you believe Al-Qaida were the architects and implementors of 9-11-01
attacks on WTC, Pentagon, and the failed attempt on Capitol Hill (the
plane that went down in PA)? . Do you further believe Al-Qaida were in
Afghanestan and were protected by Taliban; the standing Afghanestan
government.

5) Do you believe North Korea is a threat to other countries? Do you
believe we have an obligation to be blackmailed into giving them reactors
and other energy to get them to dismantle their weapons program? Do you
believe North Korea's relationship with Iran makes Iran more of a threat?

6) Related to #5, but what is your view on Iran and her statement that
Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth and all Jews exterminated?

7) On the home front; what do you believe should be done about illegal
immigration?

Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:15:26
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
>> message of "philandering is good".
>
>
> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
> policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
> Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
> they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> office for 6 years?

Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
comparisons are vilified.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:59:57
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
>>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
>>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other
>>> than the message of "philandering is good".
>>
>>
>> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this
>> administration with the last one? BUSH is president now, not
>> Clinton. His actions and policies deserve to be criticized on their
>> merits, just as Clinton's were when he was in office and just as the
>> next president's will be. Aside from being pointless, these
>> comparisons represent an indirect agreement with your opponent's
>> argument. Why don't you tell somebody they're wrong, instead of
>> maligning a president who's been out of office for 6 years?
>
> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who
> make comparisons are vilified.

Because liberals are disingenuous? I appreciate his posts - they further
show the lack of integrity of liberals.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 11:26:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <d_qdnYwJO6S4k9PYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> John B. wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> >>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> >> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
> >> message of "philandering is good".
> >
> >
> > what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> > with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
> > policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> > were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
> > Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> > agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
> > they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> > office for 6 years?
>
> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
> comparisons are vilified.

Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
blame it on Clinton?

William Clark

Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:05:47
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> blame it on Clinton?

What has Bushtard done that you would have done differently? You seem to
have a lot of anger, but do you have better solutions than the ones he
made? Also, would Internet Algore have made different decisions?
Finally; what portion of the issues faced by Bushtard were inherited from
Slick Willy? The terrorist issues were inherited; as 9-11-01 was planned
during the Slick Willy administration; so be careful how you position
yourself on that one. I would also argue that the economy is ciclical and
therefore not fully resting on the shoulders of Bushtard. Afghanestan was
inherited as well; and I would remind you that Slick Willy bombed
Afghanestan during his administration.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 12:20:49
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <VJp3h.4529$TX.1173@bignews1.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> > years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> > are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> > blame it on Clinton?
>
> What has Bushtard done that you would have done differently? You seem to
> have a lot of anger, but do you have better solutions than the ones he
> made? Also, would Internet Algore have made different decisions?
> Finally; what portion of the issues faced by Bushtard were inherited from
> Slick Willy? The terrorist issues were inherited; as 9-11-01 was planned
> during the Slick Willy administration; so be careful how you position
> yourself on that one. I would also argue that the economy is ciclical and
> therefore not fully resting on the shoulders of Bushtard. Afghanestan was
> inherited as well; and I would remind you that Slick Willy bombed
> Afghanestan during his administration.

I can't answer for William, but here's a few things I think should have
been done differently.

1. Afghanistan - right call, right time. But should have stayed at
the top of the heap.

2. Get BinLaden! He was the reason we went to Afghanistan

3. Stay out of Iraq! - We had him contained and history tells us if we
go in, we get what we have now. Total chaos! Saddam was horrible, and
its nice that he's out of power, but he was the Iraqi's problem, they
should have been left to deal with it.

BTW, Clinton's people left info on a possible terrorist attack for
Bush's people. But they were in their 'nothing left by Clinton' mode at
the time and chose to ignore it.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:25:31
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <VJp3h.4529$TX.1173@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
>>> years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
>>> are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
>>> blame it on Clinton?
>> What has Bushtard done that you would have done differently? You seem to
>> have a lot of anger, but do you have better solutions than the ones he
>> made? Also, would Internet Algore have made different decisions?
>> Finally; what portion of the issues faced by Bushtard were inherited from
>> Slick Willy? The terrorist issues were inherited; as 9-11-01 was planned
>> during the Slick Willy administration; so be careful how you position
>> yourself on that one. I would also argue that the economy is ciclical and
>> therefore not fully resting on the shoulders of Bushtard. Afghanestan was
>> inherited as well; and I would remind you that Slick Willy bombed
>> Afghanestan during his administration.
>
> I can't answer for William, but here's a few things I think should have
> been done differently.
>
> 1. Afghanistan - right call, right time. But should have stayed at
> the top of the heap.

Going to Afghanistan was to spank the Taliban, nothing more and nothing
less. There is only one product from Afghanistan that is salable on the
open market and that is heroin and our defeat of the Taliban has allowed
its trade to reemerge.

> 2. Get BinLaden! He was the reason we went to Afghanistan

Bin Laden has been emasculated and laughable. Every time you hear quit a
bit about the second in command of Al Qaida a tape, supposedly, from Bin
Laden makes its way to Al-jezeria and onto the world stage. Bin Laden is
in constant hiding and doesn't command the organization anymore.

> 3. Stay out of Iraq! - We had him contained and history tells us if we
> go in, we get what we have now. Total chaos! Saddam was horrible, and
> its nice that he's out of power, but he was the Iraqi's problem, they
> should have been left to deal with it.

We now have a large forward operating country in the middle east.

> BTW, Clinton's people left info on a possible terrorist attack for
> Bush's people. But they were in their 'nothing left by Clinton' mode at
> the time and chose to ignore it.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:02:53
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 1. Afghanistan - right call, right time. But should have stayed at
> the top of the heap.

I believe a larger force should have been used in Afghanistan to find OBL
and further wipe out the Taliban and the opium drug lord farmers.

> 2. Get BinLaden! He was the reason we went to Afghanistan

They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.

> 3. Stay out of Iraq! - We had him contained and history tells us if
> we go in, we get what we have now. Total chaos! Saddam was
> horrible, and its nice that he's out of power, but he was the Iraqi's
> problem, they should have been left to deal with it.

Saddam killed Kurds, and bombed Tel Aviv, Haifa, and invaded Kuwait.
What is the difference between taking out Saddam and taking out Hitler or
Mussolini? * Godwin's Law not invoked.

> BTW, Clinton's people left info on a possible terrorist attack for
> Bush's people. But they were in their 'nothing left by Clinton' mode
> at the time and chose to ignore it.

That is one sided propaganda and is disingenuous. You and I have no idea
what intelligence Bushtard was presented with as artifacts left from
Clinton's administration.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 13:11:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <rzq3h.6995$GU5.5788@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > 1. Afghanistan - right call, right time. But should have stayed at
> > the top of the heap.
>
> I believe a larger force should have been used in Afghanistan to find OBL
> and further wipe out the Taliban and the opium drug lord farmers.
>
> > 2. Get BinLaden! He was the reason we went to Afghanistan
>
> They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.
>
But if we had 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan, he wouldn't be in
Pakistan now.

>
> > 3. Stay out of Iraq! - We had him contained and history tells us if
> > we go in, we get what we have now. Total chaos! Saddam was
> > horrible, and its nice that he's out of power, but he was the Iraqi's
> > problem, they should have been left to deal with it.
>
> Saddam killed Kurds, and bombed Tel Aviv, Haifa, and invaded Kuwait.
> What is the difference between taking out Saddam and taking out Hitler or
> Mussolini? * Godwin's Law not invoked.
>
He was contained well at the time we invaded.

>
> > BTW, Clinton's people left info on a possible terrorist attack for
> > Bush's people. But they were in their 'nothing left by Clinton' mode
> > at the time and chose to ignore it.
>
> That is one sided propaganda and is disingenuous. You and I have no idea
> what intelligence Bushtard was presented with as artifacts left from
> Clinton's administration.

No its not, unfortunately. There is ample evidence to prove it all over
the net.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:13:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:11:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.
>>
>But if we had 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan, he wouldn't be in
>Pakistan now.

Wrong. OBL escaped to Pakistan after Bora Bora, which was well before
the war in Iraq started. The war in Iraq is irrelevant to the capture
of OBL, unless you think the US should have invaded Pakistan to go
after him.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:34:05
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <gc6tk2h956e5kjguhhb3o1rp3a8l5t4tia@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:11:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.
> >>
> >But if we had 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan, he wouldn't be in
> >Pakistan now.
>
> Wrong. OBL escaped to Pakistan after Bora Bora, which was well before
> the war in Iraq started. The war in Iraq is irrelevant to the capture
> of OBL, unless you think the US should have invaded Pakistan to go
> after him.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I think we could have done just that and
gotten away with it. At that time, the world was certainly with us.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:20:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:34:05 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> Wrong. OBL escaped to Pakistan after Bora Bora, which was well before
>> the war in Iraq started. The war in Iraq is irrelevant to the capture
>> of OBL, unless you think the US should have invaded Pakistan to go
>> after him.
>
>Pure conjecture on my part, but I think we could have done just that and
>gotten away with it. At that time, the world was certainly with us.

Once OBL got into the tribal areas of West Pakistan it was too late.
The solution to finding him was then one of intelligence rather than
brute force. The US may get OBL one of these days, but it will likely
be from good intelligence and a small special forces team or a
Predator strike.

In reality, finding OBL, as nice as it would be, wouldn't really
change very much. It isn't worth sending 100,000 troops into
Pakistan.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:34:11
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>> They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.
>>
> But if we had 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan, he wouldn't be in
> Pakistan now.

I am not so sure. I believe OBL is possibly actually in Pakistan.

>> Saddam killed Kurds, and bombed Tel Aviv, Haifa, and invaded
>> Kuwait. What is the difference between taking out Saddam and taking
>> out Hitler or Mussolini? * Godwin's Law not invoked.
>>
> He was contained well at the time we invaded.

I do not understand what message you want to convey. Are you against us
having put ground troops in Iraq to find Saddam and arrest him?

>> That is one sided propaganda and is disingenuous. You and I have
>> no idea what intelligence Bushtard was presented with as artifacts
>> left from Clinton's administration.
>
> No its not, unfortunately. There is ample evidence to prove it all
> over the net.

Hey; I love the net just as much as you do. But you have to be objective
and realize that most of what is on the net is just noise. If you don't
believe me; I challenge you to spend 30 minutes on StormFront.org

--
___________________________________________________________
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 15:56:51
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <N0r3h.7011$GU5.1092@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >> They are working on it. But most Muslims in Pakistan are pro OBL.
> >>
> > But if we had 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan, he wouldn't be in
> > Pakistan now.
>
> I am not so sure. I believe OBL is possibly actually in Pakistan.

Now. That's 'cause we didn't get him then.

>
>
> >> Saddam killed Kurds, and bombed Tel Aviv, Haifa, and invaded
> >> Kuwait. What is the difference between taking out Saddam and taking
> >> out Hitler or Mussolini? * Godwin's Law not invoked.
> >>
> > He was contained well at the time we invaded.
>
> I do not understand what message you want to convey. Are you against us
> having put ground troops in Iraq to find Saddam and arrest him?
>
Yes, I am and was totally against putting ground troops into Iraq.

But IF we decided to do it, which we did, we should have put in the
number of troops needed to get the job done. That we certainly did not
do and the General that said he needed more was forced to retire.

>
> >> That is one sided propaganda and is disingenuous. You and I have
> >> no idea what intelligence Bushtard was presented with as artifacts
> >> left from Clinton's administration.
> >
> > No its not, unfortunately. There is ample evidence to prove it all
> > over the net.
>
>
> Hey; I love the net just as much as you do. But you have to be objective
> and realize that most of what is on the net is just noise. If you don't
> believe me; I challenge you to spend 30 minutes on StormFront.org

I try to be objective when I read the net, I also try to seperate the
wheat from the chaff. Difficult at best, I know.

But the stuff that was there for Bush to take is well documented in both
mainstream and other press. Just look for it, it isn't hard to find.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:06:03
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>> I am not so sure. I believe OBL is possibly actually in Pakistan.
>
> Now. That's 'cause we didn't get him then.

The Russians couldn't get him. The Bubba Clinton Administration couldn't
get him. Now Bushtard can't get him. I'm beginning to wonder if the guy
even exists.

>> I do not understand what message you want to convey. Are you
>> against us having put ground troops in Iraq to find Saddam and
>> arrest him?
>>
> Yes, I am and was totally against putting ground troops into Iraq.

So how did you propose the world dealt with his invasion of Kuwait, the
genocide of the Kurds, him bombing Israel, or him threatening to invade
some other countries after Kuwait? Just let him have at it?

> But IF we decided to do it, which we did, we should have put in the
> number of troops needed to get the job done. That we certainly did
> not do and the General that said he needed more was forced to retire.

It's horrible that we needed 500K troops and only put in 150K. Bushtard
thought less troops would infuriate the political opposition less.

> I try to be objective when I read the net, I also try to seperate the
> wheat from the chaff. Difficult at best, I know.

I have yet to find a way to do that. To err on the side of caution; if
it's not on CNN and BBC I don't give it much weight.

> But the stuff that was there for Bush to take is well documented in
> both mainstream and other press. Just look for it, it isn't hard to
> find.

Bushtard is a figurehead. The Republican Party and his inner circle are as
much to blame as anyone else.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 18:51:19
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <H%u3h.4721$U76.1333@bignews5.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >> I am not so sure. I believe OBL is possibly actually in Pakistan.
> >
> > Now. That's 'cause we didn't get him then.
>
> The Russians couldn't get him. The Bubba Clinton Administration couldn't
> get him. Now Bushtard can't get him. I'm beginning to wonder if the guy
> even exists.
>
>
> >> I do not understand what message you want to convey. Are you
> >> against us having put ground troops in Iraq to find Saddam and
> >> arrest him?
> >>
> > Yes, I am and was totally against putting ground troops into Iraq.
>
> So how did you propose the world dealt with his invasion of Kuwait, the
> genocide of the Kurds, him bombing Israel, or him threatening to invade
> some other countries after Kuwait? Just let him have at it?
>
In case you failed to notice it, he was contained quite well after the
first Gulf War.

>
>
> > But IF we decided to do it, which we did, we should have put in the
> > number of troops needed to get the job done. That we certainly did
> > not do and the General that said he needed more was forced to retire.
>
> It's horrible that we needed 500K troops and only put in 150K. Bushtard
> thought less troops would infuriate the political opposition less.
>
I don't think he thought that at all. Rumsfeld is and was a
'efficiency' freak. He and others in the administration actually
believed the crap they put out about what to expect when we took Saddam
out. You remember the flowers and stuff.

>
> > I try to be objective when I read the net, I also try to seperate the
> > wheat from the chaff. Difficult at best, I know.
>
> I have yet to find a way to do that. To err on the side of caution; if
> it's not on CNN and BBC I don't give it much weight.
>
I look at both those, as well as many others from both sides of the
issue. Straight news I can get anywhere, opinion is of course,
everywhere.

>
> > But the stuff that was there for Bush to take is well documented in
> > both mainstream and other press. Just look for it, it isn't hard to
> > find.
>
>
> Bushtard is a figurehead. The Republican Party and his inner circle are as
> much to blame as anyone else.

I don't think he is a figurehead at all. I truly think that he is a
true believer in the BS he spews and he has surrounded himself with yes
men/women, no naysayers allowed.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:10:19
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>> So how did you propose the world dealt with his invasion of Kuwait,
>> the genocide of the Kurds, him bombing Israel, or him threatening
>> to invade some other countries after Kuwait? Just let him have at
>> it?
>>
> In case you failed to notice it, he was contained quite well after the
> first Gulf War.

He continued to rebuild his armed forces after GW I, and I highly suspect
he fed a lot of WMD's to Syria.

> I don't think he thought that at all. Rumsfeld is and was a
> 'efficiency' freak. He and others in the administration actually
> believed the crap they put out about what to expect when we took
> Saddam out. You remember the flowers and stuff.

I remember clearly this "smaller friendlier army" crap. If they put 500K
troops in Iraq; there would have been a civilian revolt in USA. Not enough
people supported going into IRaq.

> I don't think he is a figurehead at all. I truly think that he is a
> true believer in the BS he spews and he has surrounded himself with
> yes men/women, no naysayers allowed.

Well, Americans learned an important lesson. Do not hire coke whores that
say they speak to God.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 05:48:37
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

"Head Shot" wrote:
> What has Bushtard done that you would have done differently? You seem to
> have a lot of anger, but do you have better solutions than the ones he
> made? Also, would Internet Algore have made different decisions?
<snip >

Please cut, paste and cite the Al Gore "internet" transcript.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:31:29
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <d_qdnYwJO6S4k9PYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
>>>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
>>>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
>>>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
>>>> message of "philandering is good".
>>>
>>> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
>>> with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
>>> policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
>>> were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
>>> Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
>>> agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
>>> they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
>>> office for 6 years?
>> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
>> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
>> comparisons are vilified.
>
> Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> blame it on Clinton?
>
> William Clark

I am going to go play 18, see you later.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:10:10
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <LtqdnbDkkoBtgtPYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <d_qdnYwJO6S4k9PYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> >>>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >>>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> >>>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than
> >>>> the
> >>>> message of "philandering is good".
> >>>
> >>> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> >>> with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
> >>> policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> >>> were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
> >>> Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> >>> agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
> >>> they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> >>> office for 6 years?
> >> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
> >> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
> >> comparisons are vilified.
> >
> > Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> > years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> > are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> > blame it on Clinton?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> I am going to go play 18, see you later.

A much better use of your time. Also a very good way of (yet again)
bucking the direct question.

Hit 'em straight!

William Clark

Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:04:34
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> A much better use of your time.

The way I shot yesterday; I think I am better off in here watching the
Falcons game and yapping with you people. I have that stupid cast on*; so
I shot an 18 over.

* That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 17:11:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <d_qdnYwJO6S4k9PYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
>> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
>> comparisons are vilified.
>
> Conveniently missed the point again. Bush has been in office for six
> years now - plenty long enough to impose his administration on us. Why
> are you so unable to stand on his 'record', and still have to try to
> blame it on Clinton?

It was a nice round. 18 holes at the local muni in 3:40.

Comparisons between the previous administration, Clinton, and the
current administration, Bush, are acceptable. Yours and everyone else's
protestations are nothing more than an attempt to prevent the Clinton
administration from being viewed in a negative light.

During the next administration comparisons will be made between it and
the Bush administration which is quite fair and acceptable.

If you want to dive into the the comparisons of the Clinton
administration and the current administration I will be happy to do so.

Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:57:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> >>>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >>> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> >>> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other
> >>> than the message of "philandering is good".
> >>
> >>
> >> what is the fucking point of continually comparing this
> >> administration with the last one? BUSH is president now, not
> >> Clinton. His actions and policies deserve to be criticized on their
> >> merits, just as Clinton's were when he was in office and just as the
> >> next president's will be. Aside from being pointless, these
> >> comparisons represent an indirect agreement with your opponent's
> >> argument. Why don't you tell somebody they're wrong, instead of
> >> maligning a president who's been out of office for 6 years?
> >
> > Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
> > the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who
> > make comparisons are vilified.
>
>
> Because liberals are disingenuous? I appreciate his posts - they further
> show the lack of integrity of liberals.

I don't know where you came from, but you are certianly the nastiest,
most mean-spirited person posting to these threads. Not only do you
disagree with me, you accuse me of lacking integrity. Thanks a lot.
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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 19:22:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
> I don't know where you came from, but you are certianly the nastiest,
> most mean-spirited person posting to these threads. Not only do you
> disagree with me, you accuse me of lacking integrity. Thanks a lot.

So if I agreed with your insanity; you would think i was the most wonderful
person in the world? Ain't gonna happen, bub. I don't like the job
Clinton did; and I don't like your position on some stuff.

--
___________________________________________________________
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 12:52:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> Hey, you can't have it all. Even you would have to admit that this
> >>> administration is not long on cultural achievements.
> >> What cultural achievements happened in the last administration that
> >> comparitively makes this one seem less than stellar? I mean other than the
> >> message of "philandering is good".
> >
> >
> > what is the fucking point of continually comparing this administration
> > with the last one? BUSH is president now, not Clinton. His actions and
> > policies deserve to be criticized on their merits, just as Clinton's
> > were when he was in office and just as the next president's will be.
> > Aside from being pointless, these comparisons represent an indirect
> > agreement with your opponent's argument. Why don't you tell somebody
> > they're wrong, instead of maligning a president who's been out of
> > office for 6 years?
>
> Why is that the "good" from Clinton's 8 years in office is allowed and
> the bad from Clinton's 8 years in office is dismissed and those who make
> comparisons are vilified.

I haven't seen any posts listing the "good" from the Clinton years, but
if they're being used to deflect an argument rather than address it,
then I would "dismiss" those, too.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:46:14
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > I don't know where you came from, but you are certianly the nastiest,
> > most mean-spirited person posting to these threads. Not only do you
> > disagree with me, you accuse me of lacking integrity. Thanks a lot.
>
>
> So if I agreed with your insanity; you would think i was the most wonderful
> person in the world? Ain't gonna happen, bub. I don't like the job
> Clinton did; and I don't like your position on some stuff.
>
And that makes me insane? And devoid of integrity?
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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 18:34:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> I don't know where you came from, but you are certianly the
>>> nastiest, most mean-spirited person posting to these threads. Not
>>> only do you disagree with me, you accuse me of lacking integrity.
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> So if I agreed with your insanity; you would think i was the most
>> wonderful person in the world? Ain't gonna happen, bub. I don't
>> like the job Clinton did; and I don't like your position on some
>> stuff.
>>
> And that makes me insane? And devoid of integrity?

If you support someone who had *NO* integrity and did not have issue with
things that he did that you feel ar morally wrong; then I most certainly
think your integrity is in question. And that fact that you would support
someone like that makes you insane as well. So I will ask you again if
you find issue with Clinton's involvement with Marc Rich, his involvement
in stalling the UN Security Council when they wanted to save lives in
Rwanda, his lying to Ken Starr, and most importantly (do you agree that
family always comes first?) the long term repeated philandering he did. We
can talk about his positives some other time (there were some); but I am at
a loss to explain why you would support someone that is morally bankrupt.

--
___________________________________________________________
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:
From:
Subject:

Date: 05 Nov 2006 15:33:24
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> >> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> >> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> >> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
>
> > Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> > leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> > pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
>
> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> work.

AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.

Larry

Date: 06 Nov 2006 00:00:46
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162769604.120247.190360@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > > Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Head Shot wrote:
> > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> > >>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > >> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > >> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> > >> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >
> > > Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> > > leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> > > pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> >
> > You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> > work.
>
> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
>
> Larry

You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.

Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.

I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.

--
'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: 05 Nov 2006 19:22:23
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1162769604.120247.190360@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
>>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
>>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
>>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
>>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
>>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
>>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
>>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
>>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
>>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
>>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
>>> work.
>> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
>> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
>> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
>> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
>> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
>> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
>> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
>> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
>> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
>> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
>> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
>>
>> Larry
>
> You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
>
> Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.

Citizenship has its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.

The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
in until you get the US Constitution amended.

In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.

> I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.

Why, because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 01:44:52
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <zPadnZblZ--iHdPYnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1162769604.120247.190360@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> >>>> Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> >>>>>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> >>>>> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> >>>>> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> >>>>> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >>>> Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> >>>> leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> >>>> pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> >>> You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> >>> your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> >>> work.
> >> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> >> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> >> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> >> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> >> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> >> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> >> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> >> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> >> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> >> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> >> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > You are perhaps the biggest asshole I've ever had occasion to read.
> >
> > Because he's not an American citizen, he can't voice his *opinion*?
> > Despite paying taxes, despite contributing to his society in all the
> > normal ways, he is to be denied his right to free speech.
>
> Citizenship has its rights and privileges in every country on this earth.
>
> The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to accept
> in until you get the US Constitution amended.

Perhaps you'd care to quote the passage of the US Constitution that
makes it a transgression for a non-citizen to voice his or her opinion...

>
> In Mexico if you are not a citizen they will throw you in jail for if
> you interfere, which means speak your mind about their candidates or
> their elections. If you don't like it you can leave Mexico.
>
> > I take it back, you're not an asshole. You're a vicious bigot.
>
> Why, because he disagrees with your views? That is very intolerant of you.

Nope. Because he's a vicious bigot. You notice, however, that I don't
suggest that he shouldn't be allowed to speak his mind because of it
however. That would be intolerance.

--
'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: 05 Nov 2006 20:06:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Citizenship has its rights and privileges in every country on this
> earth.
> The fact that someone is here as a non-citizen means that they are a
> guest in this country and they do not have all of the rights and
> privileges of citizenship. You don't have to like it you have to
> accept in until you get the US Constitution amended.

Actually, to my knowledge the US Constitution applies to anyone in the USA;
not to citizens. Someone please cite. Thx.

___________________________________________________________
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:
From:
Subject:

Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:43:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

larryrsf wrote:
> On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > > Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Head Shot wrote:
> > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots like
> > >>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > >> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > >> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a plane
> > >> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> >
> > > Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me, then
> > > leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to power
> > > pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> >
> > You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> > work.
>
> AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
>
> Larry

You're preaching fascism here, Larry, not democracy. Foreign nationals
have every right to say whatever they want while legally residing in
the U.S. Your hatred and jingoism are truly disgusting. If William's
opinions are "unwelcome," then why don't you stop reading his posts?

Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:46:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats cannot be trusted to govern

In article <1162827819.170601.51370@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> larryrsf wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <dLadnTU5zP29f9HYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@comcast.com>,
> > > > Bert Robbins <s...@you.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Head Shot wrote:
> > > >>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > >>>> How truly pathetic. It is not this country I dislike, but idiots
> > > >>>> like
> > > >>>> you that want to subject us all to your brand of totalitarianism.
> > > >> If you don't like it here, in the US of a, there are almost 200 other
> > > >> countries in the world that you may choose to go to. If you need a
> > > >> plane
> > > >> ticket let us know and we will take up a collection for you.
> > >
> > > > Oh, dear, oh, dear. The same tired old "if you don't agree with me,
> > > > then
> > > > leave the country" trash. People like Hitler and Mussolini came to
> > > > power
> > > > pushing that kind of philosophy.Nice try.
> > >
> > > You have your choice of nearly 200 countries, pick one that more suites
> > > your political and social views and go there to live. Write when you get
> > > work.
> >
> > AND, you would have equal standing to criticize the government in
> > France or Turkey or Venzuela as you do here-- i.e. NONE. Your opinion
> > is simply irrelevant--and very unwelcome. It would be very polite to
> > just keep quiet during another nation's national debates. Most foreign
> > nationals here do keep quiet unless asked. You would be not so
> > politely asked to keep quiet in virtually every country in the
> > world--including the UK. SOME of those countries, such as Mexico and
> > Cuba, etc. would take strong exception to your voice and writings about
> > their politicians-- and likely clap you in jail-- and there they would
> > likely clap you with some other stuff. We won't do that here, but I do
> > suggest you just STFU -- as I would do in the UK.
> >
> > Larry
>
> You're preaching fascism here, Larry, not democracy. Foreign nationals
> have every right to say whatever they want while legally residing in
> the U.S. Your hatred and jingoism are truly disgusting. If William's
> opinions are "unwelcome," then why don't you stop reading his posts?

Actually, he said before the weekend that he was going to stop reading
them. I told him he wouldn't be able to - he's drawn to them, and I
guess I was proven right.

William Clark