Discussion:
Today's Founder Quote: Out from patriots comes unified effort to succeed in victory. Out of factions there comes division in an effort to destroy
(too old to reply)
CB
2003-07-16 17:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Today's Founder Quote:

"Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the
good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to me to
be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
--George Washington
__________________________

"What will conservatives be willing to risk in order to contain the
growth of government, to preserve the traditional understanding
of marriage, to uphold the American national identity? It often
looks like not much, but there are some signs this might be
changing." --James Antle

"One thing is certain: those whoworked and voted for less
government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution,
have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has
been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find
their views no longer matter." --Ron Paul

"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter

CB
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please
everybody.
--- Bill Cosby

Thus the difference between the Impeached One and the Respected One.
Carol Lee Smith
2003-07-16 18:35:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:

> Today's Founder Quote:

> "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the
> good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to me to
> be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> --George Washington
> __________________________

When are you going to acknowledge that quotations without appropriate
attribution are valueless.

> "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
> liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter

Ah, the very same Ann Coulter who "took a licking"

http://www.jsonline.com/Enter/tvradio/jul03/154850.asp

First, there was Michael Savage's firing from his MSNBC TV show after a
homophobic outburst. A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
couple dropped it altogether.

But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking head
Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade Muslim
nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity. This
round of criticism came from her own in response to her book, "Treason,"
which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism."

Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the charge:

"By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals, Coulter
undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them meaningless.
If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make
any moral distinctions?"

You can find the rest at www.andrewsullivan.com.

Far-lefty turned far-righty David Horowitz turned on Coulter on his
frontpagemag.com for a book that tries to canonize Sen. Joe McCarthy.

"She is not willing to concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in
any sense at all, or that that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist
cause," Horowitz writes.

Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz chimed in at
opinionjournal.com:

"Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's
political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's
remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who
executed 86 American POWs," she writes. "The senator charged that the U.S.
Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men."

Rabinowitz sums up by comparing McCarthy - whom she suggests would be a
"political shock jock" today - to Coulter herself. "The senator - who knew
something about the art of outrage merchandising - would have understood
the latest of his public advocates."

Outrage merchant Coulter was back on MSNBC last week talking with Chris
Matthews about "Treason."

"By the way, have you found one person who you think is a traitor in the
Democratic Party?" Matthews asked. "Have you got a name yet? I have been
looking for that name."

"I am refusing to turn this into a personality issue," she answered. "It's
about ideas."

Or book sales.
Server 13
2003-07-16 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
CB wrote:

> "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133202.27358A-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Today's Founder Quote:
>>
>>>"Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for
>
> the
>
>>>good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to
>
> me to
>
>>>be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
>>> --George Washington
>>>__________________________
>>
>>When are you going to acknowledge that quotations without appropriate
>>attribution are valueless.
>
>
> I've told you I take them at face value and editorialize them. If you find
> no value in what I say then so be it. There are those who do.
>
>
>>>"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
>>>liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
>>
>>Ah, the very same Ann Coulter who "took a licking"
>>
>>http://www.jsonline.com/Enter/tvradio/jul03/154850.asp
>>
>>First, there was Michael Savage's firing from his MSNBC TV show after a
>>homophobic outburst.
>
>
> People have different value systems. MSNBC has a social responsibility to
> moral neutrality. They're like the generic taste of all spaghetti sauce you
> find in mediocre restaurants. Hence the sucking sound of mainstream media
> and the popularity of FoxNews.
>
> A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
>
>>couple dropped it altogether.
>
>
> He's alive and well on many stations, including the one I'm tuned into now.
>
>
>>But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking head
>>Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade Muslim
>>nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity. This
>>round of criticism came from her own in response to her book, "Treason,"
>>which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
>>Terrorism."
>
>
> That is taken out of context. It's an attempt to show what radical Islamic
> fundamentalists are doing today! Not what Christianity is doing. You missed
> the irony all together in an attempt to discredit her.
>
>
>>Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the charge:
>>
>>"By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals, Coulter
>>undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them meaningless.
>>If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make
>>any moral distinctions?"
>
>
> Her footnotes back up her facts of "Treason" by Liberal concessions made to
> Terrorism, Fascism, Communism and Socialist theivery of Capitalism. All for
> the Flower Child mentality of getting along for the sake of ostrich peace.
> Sooner or later which leads to the lose of freedom.

Check those footnotes. They're fake and everyone in the country
knows it but you. lol
Gray Shockley
2003-07-16 22:19:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:23:22 -0500, Server 13 wrote
(in message <UtiRa.2465$***@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>):

> CB wrote:
>
>> "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133202.27358A-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Today's Founder Quote:
>>>
>>>> "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for
>>
>> the
>>
>>>> good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to
>>
>> me to
>>
>>>> be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
>>>> --George Washington
>>>> __________________________
>>>
>>> When are you going to acknowledge that quotations without appropriate
>>> attribution are valueless.
>>
>>
>> I've told you I take them at face value and editorialize them. If you find
>> no value in what I say then so be it. There are those who do.
>>
>>
>>>> "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
>>>> liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
>>>
>>> Ah, the very same Ann Coulter who "took a licking"
>>>
>>> http://www.jsonline.com/Enter/tvradio/jul03/154850.asp
>>>
>>> First, there was Michael Savage's firing from his MSNBC TV show after a
>>> homophobic outburst.
>>
>>
>> People have different value systems. MSNBC has a social responsibility to
>> moral neutrality. They're like the generic taste of all spaghetti sauce you
>> find in mediocre restaurants. Hence the sucking sound of mainstream media
>> and the popularity of FoxNews.
>>
>> A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
>>
>>> couple dropped it altogether.
>>
>>
>> He's alive and well on many stations, including the one I'm tuned into now.
>>
>>
>>> But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking head
>>> Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade Muslim
>>> nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity. This
>>> round of criticism came from her own in response to her book, "Treason,"
>>> which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
>>> Terrorism."
>>
>>
>> That is taken out of context. It's an attempt to show what radical Islamic
>> fundamentalists are doing today! Not what Christianity is doing. You missed
>> the irony all together in an attempt to discredit her.
>>
>>
>>> Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the charge:
>>>
>>> "By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals, Coulter
>>> undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them meaningless.
>>> If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make
>>> any moral distinctions?"
>>
>>
>> Her footnotes back up her facts of "Treason" by Liberal concessions made to
>> Terrorism, Fascism, Communism and Socialist theivery of Capitalism. All for
>> the Flower Child mentality of getting along for the sake of ostrich peace.
>> Sooner or later which leads to the lose of freedom.
>
> Check those footnotes. They're fake and everyone in the country
> knows it but you. lol
>

I'm beginning to wonder if Ann Coulter isn't just Pat Buchanan in drag.




Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gray-***@cybercoffee.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US
Carol Lee Smith
2003-07-16 20:44:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:

> and the popularity of FoxNews.

Telling people what they want to hear is what Fox News does. Some people
like that.

> A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
> > couple dropped it altogether.

> He's alive and well on many stations, including the one I'm tuned into now.

> > But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking head
> > Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade Muslim
> > nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity. This
> > round of criticism came from her own in response to her book, "Treason,"
> > which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
> > Terrorism."

> That is taken out of context.

In what context is it OK to promote invading Muslim nations, killing their
leaders and converting the people to Christianity?

Which is, by the way, what has happened in Iraq. Who ever thought Coulter
was prescient?

Right down to the religious organizations poised on the border waiting for
the shooting to stop.

> It's an attempt to show what radical Islamic
> fundamentalists are doing today! Not what Christianity is doing. You missed
> the irony all together in an attempt to discredit her.

I don't think that is the case. If what is being done by Islamic
fundamentalists is wrong, why is it OK for Christian fundamentalists to do
the same thing?

> > Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the charge:

> > "By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals, Coulter
> > undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them meaningless.
> > If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to make
> > any moral distinctions?"

> Her footnotes back up her facts of "Treason" by Liberal concessions made to
> Terrorism, Fascism, Communism and Socialist theivery of Capitalism. All for
> the Flower Child mentality of getting along for the sake of ostrich peace.
> Sooner or later which leads to the lose [sic] of freedom

> > You can find the rest at www.andrewsullivan.com.

> No thanks.

I guess you don't have the gumption to read and consider opinions with
which you don't agree.
CB
2003-07-16 21:16:42 UTC
Permalink
"Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716153849.27358G-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:
>
> > and the popularity of FoxNews.
>
> Telling people what they want to hear is what Fox News does. Some people
> like that.

You're nuts. The Liberal grip on media is no longer true. Truth has a way of
getting out, cable and the web ensure it. You can't handle the truth so you
attempt to disparage the audience rather than the content.

>
> > A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
> > > couple dropped it altogether.
>
> > He's alive and well on many stations, including the one I'm tuned into
now.
>
> > > But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking
head
> > > Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade
Muslim
> > > nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
This
> > > round of criticism came from her own in response to her book,
"Treason,"
> > > which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War
on
> > > Terrorism."
>
> > That is taken out of context.
>
> In what context is it OK to promote invading Muslim nations, killing their
> leaders and converting the people to Christianity?

Show me where the US government (or whacked out Christians) killed 3000
Iraqi civilians out of pure Terror

>
> Which is, by the way, what has happened in Iraq. Who ever thought Coulter
> was prescient?

You are nutzzzz. America thumped a madman who had Justice coming to him.

>
> Right down to the religious organizations poised on the border waiting for
> the shooting to stop.

The caretbagging mullahs from Syria and Iran no doubt.

>
> > It's an attempt to show what radical Islamic
> > fundamentalists are doing today! Not what Christianity is doing. You
missed
> > the irony all together in an attempt to discredit her.
>
> I don't think that is the case. If what is being done by Islamic
> fundamentalists is wrong, why is it OK for Christian fundamentalists to do
> the same thing?

LOL, what a cookoo. There is no moral comparison between Islam's convert or
die and Christians and free choice. America took down the Butcher of Baghdad
who killed at the early age of 10. If anything Saddamn is the Lesson for
punishment for Evil. He should have been held accountable for his first
murder. Instead he was allowed to 'progress' into a monstrous Hitler
wannabee.

>
> > > Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the
charge:
>
> > > "By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals,
Coulter
> > > undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them
meaningless.
> > > If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to
make
> > > any moral distinctions?"
>
> > Her footnotes back up her facts of "Treason" by Liberal concessions made
to
> > Terrorism, Fascism, Communism and Socialist theivery of Capitalism. All
for
> > the Flower Child mentality of getting along for the sake of ostrich
peace.
> > Sooner or later which leads to the lose [sic] of freedom
>
> > > You can find the rest at www.andrewsullivan.com.
>
> > No thanks.
>
> I guess you don't have the gumption to read and consider opinions with
> which you don't agree.
>

Not from nutz who can't tell the difference between Good and Evil, no
Stewart Millen
2003-07-17 15:13:33 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote in
news:bf50nh$1j0$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com:

> I read as far as the Taliban analogy to the GOP. A definite
> sign that Eric Alterman has no sense of proportion, nor any
> moral authority in distinguishing Good from Evil.

I think it's a very apt analogy. Most people are functionally
liberal, but our news media's conservative, and our government
(product of winner-take-all elections, conservative predominance
in that media, and depressed vote turnouts) is likewise more
conservative than the general populace.

It's why we had (until recently) sodomy laws when most people
thought that we shouldn't. Why we throw pot smokers in jail
when most people don't think we ought. Why the anti-abortion
and anti-porn movement is stronger in the government than in
the populace at large.

Besides, the carping about "the liberal media" by conservative
commentators is, like Alternman has described is just an act
of "playing the refs", like football coaches do on the sideline.
Some GOP commentators have even admitted as much.

Stewart
Carol Lee Smith
2003-07-17 18:18:52 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Jul 2003, Stewart Millen wrote:

> It's why we had (until recently) sodomy laws when most people
> thought that we shouldn't.

Do you think that the sodomy mention will be removed from the
approximately dozen state constitutions wherein it resides?

A religious test for public office is unconstitutional, but it still
resides in certain state constitutions.

Even though when tested they are not upheld, it is possible someone else
may have to go through that excercise again.

If the offensive, unconstitutional mentions are removed, that would not be
the case.

I am not holding my breath.
Stewart Millen
2003-07-17 19:22:25 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Carol Lee Smith <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030717131548.24692E-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.
edu:

> On 17 Jul 2003, Stewart Millen wrote:
>
>> It's why we had (until recently) sodomy laws when most
>> people thought that we shouldn't.
>
> Do you think that the sodomy mention will be removed from
> the approximately dozen state constitutions wherein it
> resides?
>
> A religious test for public office is unconstitutional, but
> it still resides in certain state constitutions.
>
> Even though when tested they are not upheld, it is possible
> someone else may have to go through that excercise again.
>
> If the offensive, unconstitutional mentions are removed,
> that would not be the case.
>
> I am not holding my breath.

In addition to what Cary said, I think this reinforces my
the point I was making--these holdovers continue because
the governments that we have don't truly represent the
beliefs of most of the people. This should not be surprising,
given our depressed voter turnouts and conservative media
predominance, that the government at all levels represents
only the interests of a minority of the population.

It makes for a bizzare, and increasingly ludicrous, public
spectacle when most people think law X is silly but politician
Y continues to thunder about how the sky will fall unless
law X is maintained, while being interveiwed approvingly
by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.

Stewart
Bob LeChevalier
2003-07-17 20:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Stewart Millen <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It makes for a bizzare, and increasingly ludicrous, public
>spectacle when most people think law X is silly but politician
>Y continues to thunder about how the sky will fall unless
>law X is maintained, while being interveiwed approvingly
>by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.

I think that the problem with many of these laws is that people don't
think much of there being a law against behavior X, but don't exactly
want to encourage behavior X, and there is the not-unfounded fear that
if a law against X is repealed, some people will respond as if it were
encouragement to do X (not to mention that they are afraid that the
challenge will then proceed to behavior Y which they DO feel should be
wrong: the classic slippery slope).

In short, I think people like to have laws on the books that forbid
behaviors that they would rather not see perceived as normal or good,
for fear that if they were seen as normal, those who want to challenge
the status quo (and this is the norm in teenagers, if no one else)
will go too far.

The other missing factor here, is that, for issues like sodomy most
people don't really care if there are laws (after all, they haven't
actually been hurt or even impaired in their own behaviors by such
laws). The people who are support the laws, however, feel VERY
strongly (religion tends to do that), and those who oppose the laws,
seldom feel equally strongly until they or someone they know suffers
from the law.

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
b***@nospam.net
2003-07-17 19:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Carol Lee Smith <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

>:|On 17 Jul 2003, Stewart Millen wrote:
>:|
>:|> It's why we had (until recently) sodomy laws when most people
>:|> thought that we shouldn't.
>:|
>:|Do you think that the sodomy mention will be removed from the
>:|approximately dozen state constitutions wherein it resides?
>:|
>:|A religious test for public office is unconstitutional, but it still
>:|resides in certain state constitutions.
>:|
>:|Even though when tested they are not upheld, it is possible someone else
>:|may have to go through that excercise again.
>:|
>:|If the offensive, unconstitutional mentions are removed, that would not be
>:|the case.
>:|
>:|I am not holding my breath.

Law acts in many ways as one huge ongoing history book.
Law libraries are full of books that contain court opinions from the
founding of this nation from the founding of this nation to the present.
Some of those opinions are still "good" law. Most of the really old ones
aren't. Most have died as times changed, or were over ruled or just never
mentioned again yet they exist. The "laws they abolished" while never used
anymore probably were never actually removed from the books.

Constitutions are much the same. Until such time as they meet and actually
revise their constitutions most states do not alter them as various court
rule this or that.

Are those clauses or phrases that have been altered, made null and void in
our Constitution by later amendments removed?
Gray Shockley
2003-07-20 05:20:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:13:49 -0500, Coward Boy wrote
(in message <bfc8pv$ssp$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):

> Ultimately that is the goal of Communism, moral decline through
> authoritative challenge and promoting multicultural/faction squabbling.


So you're saying that Red China, Cuba and North Korea are not communist,
right wacko?


You are seriously insane; you're right up there with Lucy "Sweet Thighs"
Knight and WackieJackie except you're beneath them (under the outhouse).


> Today the Democrat Party isn't "out of many one", it's "out of faction,
> blackmail".


"out of many one" is the United States, you stupid, little punk. E pluribus
unum.

You really know nothing whatsoever about anything at all.



You really should commit suicide; you have no reason to live ("and whether
you know it or not, the universe is laughing to your face" - misquote from a
poem not found in Old North Church near the Coop on Harvard Square).
CB
2003-07-20 22:27:35 UTC
Permalink
"Gray Shockley" <gray-***@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:***@news-south.giganews.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:13:49 -0500, Coward Boy wrote
> (in message <bfc8pv$ssp$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):
>

Ultimately the goal of Communism is to undermine morality in America,
undermine authority of teachers, parents and law enforcement and promote
disenfranchised chaos through authoritative challenge and
multicultural/faction squabbling.

McCarthy was right on in describing Communist infiltration within the US
government, harbored by the Democrat Party.

Is that clear enough for you?

>
>
> So you're saying that Red China, Cuba and North Korea are not communist,
> right wacko?

You're either blind, stupid or party of the problem

>
>
> You are seriously insane; you're right up there with Lucy "Sweet Thighs"
> Knight and WackieJackie except you're beneath them (under the outhouse).
>
>
> > Today the Democrat Party isn't "out of many one", it's "out of faction,
> > blackmail".
>
>
> "out of many one" is the United States, you stupid, little punk. E
pluribus
> unum.

The Republican Party, 'is'. The Liberal infested Democrat Party is made up
of warring special interest factions. Each using the threat of pooled votes
as a tool to leverage unprincipled representatives in giving them more of
the pie than they deserve. Where fiscal discipline should be, there is
spending. Where there should alarm with respect to terrorism and the threat
of WMD coming to America's shores there is apathy and finger pointing on 16
words of President Bush's State of the Nation Speech.

The DemocRAT Party is not acting in the best interest of America. People
aren't stupid and voting was the way we set things straight.

>
> You really know nothing whatsoever about anything at all.

I know my vote counted

> You really should commit suicide; you have no reason to live ("and whether
> you know it or not, the universe is laughing to your face" - misquote from
a
> poem not found in Old North Church near the Coop on Harvard Square).


LOL, I love my life enough to defend it from those who take entitlement to
mean what's yours is mine. I also know President Bush loves his country and
the lives which reside therein to bring war to any tin horn with bad (WMD
breath who may threaten those lives.

I respect life enough to defend it. You should know that from being in the
military. Or were you a consciences observer, confused as what was right or
wrong?

You're funny
CB
2003-07-21 11:09:26 UTC
Permalink
"Gray Shockley" <gray-***@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:***@news-south.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:51:07 -0500, CryBaby wrote
> (in message <bfevbu$9pk$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):
>
>
> > Ultimately the goal of Communism is to undermine morality in America,
> > undermine authority of teachers, parents and law enforcement and promote
> > disenfranchised chaos through authoritative challenge and
> > multicultural/faction squabbling.
>
> And you "know" this because?
>
>
> > McCarthy was right on in describing Communist infiltration within the US
> > government, harbored by the Democrat Party.
>
>
> How about a few pertinent quotes from ole "Tailgunner Joe"? (You know
where
> he gotr that nickname, dontcha?)
>
>
> > Is that clear enough for you?
>
>
> Not one little bit.
>
> Your word - Coward Boy - is worth nothing because you're a hollow boy -
you
> seem to exist but lack all substance.
>
> Make it clear to me with something a little less vapid than your rather
> juvenile, half-formed, halfassed wacko opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Republican Party, 'is'. The Liberal infested Democrat Party is made
up
> > of warring special interest factions. Each using the threat of pooled
votes
> > as a tool to leverage unprincipled representatives in giving them more
of
> > the pie than they deserve. Where fical discipline should be, there is
> > spending. Where there should alarm with respect to terrorism and the
threat
> > of WMD coming to America's shores there is apathy and finger pointing on
16
> > words of President Bush's State of the Nation Speech.
> >
> > The DemocRAT Party is not acting in the best interest of America. People
> > aren't stupid and voting was the way we set things straight.
>
>
> [chuckle] I'm not a member of a political party and, in the upcoming
election
> here, I'll prolly vote for quite a few "Independents" as well as - quite
> possibly - members of four political parties.
>
> If you're so stupid that you need to vote a "straight ticket" because you
> can't figure out for whom to vote for yourself, that's your problem and
the
> Publicans' joy.
>
>
> > LOL, I love my life enough to defend it from those who take entitlement
to
> > mean what's yours is mine.
>
> So you don't, anonymous child. You'd have to not be so incredibly ashamed
of
> what you are and, apparently, your shame is forever.
>
>
> > I also know President Bush loves his country and
> > the lives which reside therein to bring war to any tin horn with bad
(WMD
> > breath who may threaten those lives.
>
>
> Was that an affirmation of President Bush or an advertisement for your
brnad
> of mouth gargle?
>
>
> > I respect life enough to defend it.
>
> You don't even have the extremely minimal courage to stand up for yourself
on
> the Internet.
>
> In person, I think you would be crying and crawling within seconds.
>
>
> > You should know that from being in the
> > military. Or were you a consciences observer, confused as what was right
or
> > wrong?
>
> Huh? Are you saying that a conscientious (I guess that is what your
> illiterate blathering of "consciences" was supposed to mean) objector is
> "confused as what was right or wrong"?

I'm talking about you, coward! No one else.

"The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by
an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the
privilege of being neutral."
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 11

Romans 13
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is
the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

America kicks ass. She only brings war as a last resort. Diplomacy is for
civilized nations who respond to moral persuasion. For barbarions,
Babylonian kings and the axis of Evil, I precribe to what John Adams said:

"Neither philosophy, nor religion, nor morality, nor wisdom, nor
interest will ever govern nations or parties against their vanity,
their pride, their resentment or revenge, or their avarice or
ambition. Nothing but force and power and strength can restrain them."
--John Adams

Liberalism is all that.

Clear now?
GilgameshII
2003-07-22 20:09:03 UTC
Permalink
"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:<bf4faa$lot$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716153849.27358G-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB wrote:
> >
> > > and the popularity of FoxNews.
> >
> > Telling people what they want to hear is what Fox News does. Some people
> > like that.
>
> You're nuts. The Liberal grip on media is no longer true. Truth has a way of
> getting out, cable and the web ensure it. You can't handle the truth so you
The media manipulate their viewers all the time, by limiting the range
of opinions presented. In the Detroit area where 4 stations broadcast
to over 2,000,000 homes this limiting viewpoints constitutes control
over the facts. Why is the Oval Office ALWAYS presented in a favorable
or neutral manner on these stations?. Until the recent flap over the
yellow uranium. How many other T.V stations air opinions that would
reccomend that Junior be impeached?
Or show the true nature of efforts to suppress freedom of the press in
Sharon's quasi fascist Israli State? Or present so many of the other
issues that are presented on alt.politics.liberalism?
How many people have access to the Internet? Less the 50%? How many
people read ANY of these newsgroups? Less than 5% of internet users?
What percent of the voting population have access to non-majoritarian
viewpoints or non-majoritarian presentation of the facts?

> attempt to disparage the audience rather than the content.
>
> >
> > > A handful of stations suspended his radio show, and a
> > > > couple dropped it altogether.
>
> > > He's alive and well on many stations, including the one I'm tuned into
> now.
>
> > > > But the most pointed criticism was reserved for veteran TV talking
> head
> > > > Ann Coulter, infamous for her pronouncement that we should invade
> Muslim
> > > > nations, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
> This
> > > > round of criticism came from her own in response to her book,
> "Treason,"
> > > > which she subtitles: "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War
> on
> > > > Terrorism."
>
> > > That is taken out of context.
> >
> > In what context is it OK to promote invading Muslim nations, killing their
> > leaders and converting the people to Christianity?
>
> Show me where the US government (or whacked out Christians) killed 3000
> Iraqi civilians out of pure Terror
Go back a few years; familiar with the plight of the American Indian?
Oh but that was SOOOOOOOO long ago? Read much about what happend in
Vietnam? Start with Gabriel Kolko's book on that war to find out what
'Christians' do to other Christians in the name of exterminating
non-Christians.
>
> >
> > Which is, by the way, what has happened in Iraq. Who ever thought Coulter
> > was prescient?
>
> You are nutzzzz. America thumped a madman who had Justice coming to him.
Waht is Justice?
>
> >
> > Right down to the religious organizations poised on the border waiting for
> > the shooting to stop.
>
> The caretbagging mullahs from Syria and Iran no doubt.
But first, they're just a bunch of little brown skinned guys .
>
> >
> > > It's an attempt to show what radical Islamic
> > > fundamentalists are doing today! Not what Christianity is doing. You
> missed
> > > the irony all together in an attempt to discredit her.
> >
> > I don't think that is the case. If what is being done by Islamic
> > fundamentalists is wrong, why is it OK for Christian fundamentalists to do
> > the same thing?
>
> LOL, what a cookoo. There is no moral comparison between Islam's convert or
> die and Christians and free choice. America took down the Butcher of Baghdad
> who killed at the early age of 10. If anything Saddamn is the Lesson for
> punishment for Evil. He should have been held accountable for his first
> murder. Instead he was allowed to 'progress' into a monstrous Hitler
> wannabee.
Hitler had how many planes, jet fighters, tanks, soldiers, guns and
armed cruisers, battle ships and submarines?
And Saddam had how many and how much of the same? (kids on playgrounds
have more in their pockets these days)
By the way, the approximately 40 other tin Hitlers (who regularly
murder thousands on a pleasant morning) on the planet currently have
no oil in there back yards. Might that not be the whole reason we are
all having this discussion? Are not American soldiers being sent home
in bodybags so the price of gasoline can be kept comfortably low for
gas guzzlers?
>
> >
> > > > Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and conservative thinker, led the
> charge:
>
> > > > "By making huge and sweeping generalizations about all liberals,
> Coulter
> > > > undermines her own arguments and comes close to making them
> meaningless.
> > > > If you condemn good and bad liberals alike, how can you be trusted to
> make
> > > > any moral distinctions?"
>
> > > Her footnotes back up her facts of "Treason" by Liberal concessions made
> to
> > > Terrorism, Fascism, Communism and Socialist theivery of Capitalism. All
> for
> > > the Flower Child mentality of getting along for the sake of ostrich
> peace.
> > > Sooner or later which leads to the lose [sic] of freedom
>
> > > > You can find the rest at www.andrewsullivan.com.
>
> > > No thanks.
> >
> > I guess you don't have the gumption to read and consider opinions with
> > which you don't agree.
> >
>
> Not from nutz who can't tell the difference between Good and Evil, no
And of course you have the skinny on Good, say from a pipeline to God?
O.K then
CB
2003-07-18 02:17:20 UTC
Permalink
"Cary Kittrell" <***@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bf6utm$5pu$***@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <Xns93BB9C636E503StewartMillenhotmailX.133.1.4> Stewart Millen
<***@hotmail.com> writes:
> <
> <Carol Lee Smith <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in
> <news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030717131548.24692E-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.
> <edu:
> <
> <> On 17 Jul 2003, Stewart Millen wrote:
> <>
> <>> It's why we had (until recently) sodomy laws when most
> <>> people thought that we shouldn't.
> <>
> <> Do you think that the sodomy mention will be removed from
> <> the approximately dozen state constitutions wherein it
> <> resides?
> <>
> <> A religious test for public office is unconstitutional, but
> <> it still resides in certain state constitutions.
> <>
> <> Even though when tested they are not upheld, it is possible
> <> someone else may have to go through that excercise again.
> <>
> <> If the offensive, unconstitutional mentions are removed,
> <> that would not be the case.
> <>
> <> I am not holding my breath.
> <
> <In addition to what Cary said, I think this reinforces my
> <the point I was making--these holdovers continue because
> <the governments that we have don't truly represent the
> <beliefs of most of the people. This should not be surprising,
> <given our depressed voter turnouts and conservative media
> <predominance, that the government at all levels represents
> <only the interests of a minority of the population.
> <
> <It makes for a bizzare, and increasingly ludicrous, public
> <spectacle when most people think law X is silly but politician
> <Y continues to thunder about how the sky will fall unless
> <law X is maintained, while being interveiwed approvingly
> <by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
> <
> <Stewart
>
>
> But it rarely is to an elected official's benefit to be
> in the vanguard of making changes in institutions which relate
> to "public morality". It's always wisest to watch for the
> parade first, then loudly assume leadership from the rear.
>
> -- cary

...and take credit for the work of others? How Liberal of the official
CB
2003-07-17 02:43:35 UTC
Permalink
"Gray Shockley" <gray-***@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:***@news-south.giganews.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:17:03 -0500, CB wrote
> (in message <bf48a2$coh$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):
>
> > People have different value systems. MSNBC has a social responsibility
to
> > moral neutrality.
>
>
> Where did you get /that/ idea?
>
> Microsoft has the responsibility to do what Bill Gates tells it to do and
NBC
> has the responsibility to do what its stockholders tell it to do (make
> money).
>
> That "social responsibility" thing was eliminated by various Republican
Party
> operatives, probably most remarkedly starting with the elimination of the
> Fairness Doctrine under President John Poindexter and Vice President Ollie
> North and their flunkie, Ronal "Not to the Best of My Recollection"
Reagan.

The Fairness Doctrine is in direct conflict with the principals of
competitive idea's and Capitalist ideals. Bell Curves in learning, racial
quotas and social promotion is the same concept. It doesn't instill
excellence, it instills mediocrity and results in unqualified people in
places of responsibility.

>
>
>
> The Republican Party has about destroyed anything that ever resembled
> anything to do with the press having "social responsibility".

It's Liberals who've been proven to be "Bias" in media. It's Liberal
cowardice that insists on being detached from moral accountability. That's
why Liberals hate Justice, those who take honor, integrity and vows made to
God as serious as the Boy Scout Creed.

It is CNN who could not say the word, "terrorism" or for reporters to wear
American Flag pins for fear of projecting patriotism. If they had any
courage ot moral authority they'd know which side to root for.

Social Responsibility is doing the right thing and brother Liberalism has so
'progressed' past that into descent

>
>
>
> You pretty much choose between the Republican Party Thugs or the United
> States of America.

I'm on the winning side of history fool. Liberals apposed Desert Storm,
sided with Saddamn and ignored broken UN resolusions Saddamns.

102. Like the modern liberal, Hitler was a socialist, not a fascist.

...

103. Liberals crave the kind of Gestapo "Zero-tolerance" society seen in
modern public schools.

...
104. The liberal worships appetite and disdains self-discipline.

http://www.geocities.com/moydenunique/index1.html

>
>
> Only one - you can't have it both ways.

You're so confused on what moral certainty means, if the devil him self
showed up you'd debate him on the virtues of Evil

That's what Ann Coulter means by;

If there were a goofy cult that prescribed eating your own excrement,
liberals would ponder its
deeper meaning and treat it with respect.
--Ann Coulter
When Johnny Comes Slinking Home
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 13, 2001

Liberal pack animals simply have no moral understanding of goodness vs. Evil
'is'. An empty vessel.


>
>
>
> Gray Shockley
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
Gray Shockley
2003-07-17 04:11:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:43:35 -0500, CB wrote
(in message <bf52gr$2cg$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):

> It's Liberals who've been proven to be "Bias" in media. It's Liberal
> cowardice that insists on being detached from moral accountability. That's
> why Liberals hate Justice, those who take honor, integrity and vows made to
> God as serious as the Boy Scout Creed.

Eagle Scout and God and Country ("Southern" Presbyterian). Patrol Leader,
Scribe, Junior Assistant Scoumaster, Troop 102.

Assistant Scoutmaster, Troop 106

Andrew Jackson Council (Central Mississippi)


And you?????


> It is CNN who could not say the word, "terrorism" or for reporters to wear
> American Flag pins for fear of projecting patriotism. If they had any
> courage ot moral authority they'd know which side to root for.

Sorry, I don't keep up with television news. Have watched less than 24 hours
in the last eight years.


> Social Responsibility is doing the right thing and brother Liberalism has so
> 'progressed' past that into descent

Here in Mississippi, it was "liberal" civil rights activists who resisted
(and died) fighting for rights which the "conservative" Ku Klux Klan and the
conservative Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission and the conservative
White CItizens' Council had decided were only for white males.

And I'm watching Frist and his rip of health care and his fellow
"conservatives" make themselves even richer (you are familiar with Senator
Frist whose Daddy was the founder of the largewst HMO in the United States,
aren't ya, Bubba?).


And I still want to know your military record including your record in
combat, Bubba.


I mean - after all - a loud-mouthed conservative like you (and my Junior
Senator, Trent Lott) sure spent his time in the military and has combat
experience.

Don't you, Bubba?


Heck, I want to know your Boy Scout record.


Have you ever done anything?



Or is my view of you as rather stupid, semi-conscious at best, uneducated, no
military service, no books read, nothing whatsoever but a cowardly, anonymous
pig on the Internet totally correct?

Are you really a nobody with nothing?

Seems . . .




Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gray-***@cybercoffee.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US
Bob LeChevalier
2003-07-17 05:09:38 UTC
Permalink
"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
>The Fairness Doctrine is in direct conflict with the principals of
>competitive idea's and Capitalist ideals. Bell Curves in learning, racial
>quotas and social promotion is the same concept. It doesn't instill
>excellence, it instills mediocrity and results in unqualified people in
>places of responsibility.

It also instills fairness, which some people consider to be a higher
virtue than capitalist ideals much less competitive principals

>> The Republican Party has about destroyed anything that ever resembled
>> anything to do with the press having "social responsibility".
>
>It's Liberals who've been proven to be "Bias" in media. It's Liberal
>cowardice that insists on being detached from moral accountability. That's
>why Liberals hate Justice, those who take honor, integrity and vows made to
>God as serious as the Boy Scout Creed.

What vow to God is made by Boy Scouts?

Much less a serious vow (the percentage of Boy Scouts that take the
words of the Boy Scout Promise seriously are rather few - it takes
maturity that the Scouts try to develop in order to take the words
seriously, but not that high a percentage stays with Scouting long
enough to reach that level of seriousness).

(The Boy Scouts of America does not have a Boy Scout Creed. The
British Boy Scouts use something called the Boy Scout Creed which
contains the elements of the Scout Law and Promise, but it is not
worded as a vow at all.)

>It is CNN who could not say the word, "terrorism" or for reporters to wear
>American Flag pins for fear of projecting patriotism. If they had any
>courage ot moral authority they'd know which side to root for.

Or perhaps they see themselves as a news channel for the world, and
not merely for the United States, and thus try to display journalistic
neutrality.

>Social Responsibility is doing the right thing and brother Liberalism has so
>'progressed' past that into descent

Sometimes doing the "right thing" does lead into "descent"

>> You pretty much choose between the Republican Party Thugs or the United
>> States of America.
>
>I'm on the winning side of history fool.

History has not yet judged the events of the last few decades.

>Liberal pack animals simply have no moral understanding of goodness vs. Evil
>'is'. An empty vessel.

No. They just presume that different cultures have different moral
understandings regarding goodness and Evil, and they don't presume to
be godlike enough to judge others as often as the illiberals, who
presume to judge everyone.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
2003-07-17 14:21:33 UTC
Permalink
"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>What vow to God is made by Boy Scouts?
>
>Hasn't changed much since I took it many years ago. We didn't
>have the narrative which clearly has contemporary verbiage.

The narrative isn't part of the oath. This shows what they are trying
to teach (it doesn't show that the kids actually learn it, or more
importantly believe it).

>I suggest that everyone read it and give it some thought.
>
>http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/advance/boyscout/bsoath.html

Now, what vow to God is made by Boy Scouts?

The only mention of God is in the 6 word phrase:

>. . . To do my duty to God . . .
>
>Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the
>ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the
>wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and
>defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.

Oops. Sounds like liberalism: respecting diversity. But not a vow to
God.

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
CB
2003-07-21 19:55:14 UTC
Permalink
"Larry Smith" <***@charter.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> news:bfh3eg$h2n$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> >
> > Very true, an oath is a pledge to conduct ones behavior in accordance to
a
> > higher authority than ones (sic) own judgment. Left up to those who have
> no higher
> > authority to guide them, one is subject to the fallibility and
> > inappropriate nature of man.
>
> Man is infallible?

Opps...I meant fallible, thanks for pointing it out to me

>
> >
> > Such as the progressive moral decline since the flower generation of the
> > 60's, free love, Dr. Spock and removing spanking as a form of discipline
> > >
>
> And what kind of interspecies miscegenation whelped you?

Catholic nuns. I needed it then and appreciate the loving, compassionate
Biblical discipline now.

>
> On the spanking issue, some of us would be happy to take you out and
> horsewhip YOU.

I'm sure. That's one reason why I pack a peace keeper today. It's for those
who drank to much iced tea and out running to the little boys room when
moral discipline was taught in skoo and have grown up under the theory,
"what's yours is mine". I also carry a peace keeper to denture people who
cannot control their inappropriate 'rage' and resort to violence.

There's a big difference between spanking to correct inappropriate behavior
and inflicting force blunt trauma out of hate, rage, revenge, religion, lack
of morals, vanity, pride, resentment, revenge, avarice or ambition. Wisdom,
nor interest or political philosophy will ever govern nations or parties
that resort to violence to solve issues of conscience. Nothing short of
force, power and strength can restrain them.

Before you say Bush resorted to violence. The State Department exhaustively
tried to bring Saddamn to account for his WMD to no avail. In defense,
American Justice brought an end to the Butcher of Baghdad.

After all the New Testament prescribes a rod for the fool's
> back so some of us would be happy to administer the rod to you.

Out of Biblical loving discipline or out of what John Adams understood?

>
> And, by the way, George Bush, during an Easter address, admitted that
people
> who have no faith at all are good people too.
>
>

I know there are people who when tempted can control their wants, lusts and
rage. Many of us grew up to be healthy heterosexuals who've had other forms
of disciplined guidance.
Bob LeChevalier
2003-07-21 21:13:39 UTC
Permalink
"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
>"Larry Smith" <***@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>> Man is infallible?
>
>Opps...I meant fallible, thanks for pointing it out to me

YOU certainly are fallible.

>> > Such as the progressive moral decline since the flower generation of the
>> > 60's, free love, Dr. Spock and removing spanking as a form of discipline
>>
>> And what kind of interspecies miscegenation whelped you?
>
>Catholic nuns.

Catholic nuns are a different species?

>> On the spanking issue, some of us would be happy to take you out and
>> horsewhip YOU.
>
>I'm sure. That's one reason why I pack a peace keeper today.

You carry a large missile around everywhere? You must be strong!

>It's for those
>who drank to much iced tea and out running to the little boys room when
>moral discipline was taught in skoo and have grown up under the theory,
>"what's yours is mine". I also carry a peace keeper to denture people who
>cannot control their inappropriate 'rage' and resort to violence.

And have you used your peacekeeper for either of these purposes? If
not, why are you sure you need to?

>There's a big difference between spanking to correct inappropriate behavior
>and inflicting force blunt trauma out of hate, rage, revenge, religion, lack
>of morals, vanity, pride, resentment, revenge, avarice or ambition.

Do you use your peacekeeper to spank people? I should think a paddle
would be more effective. Or is it that you wish to use your
peacekeeper to "inflict force blunt trauma out of hate, rage, revenge,
religion, lack of morals, vanity, pride, resentment, revenge, avarice
or ambition". Ah, yes - the latter does sound like you.

>Wisdom,
>nor interest or political philosophy will ever govern nations or parties
>that resort to violence to solve issues of conscience.

The US is the country currently resorting to violence to solve issues
of conscience. After all, criticism of the Iraqi dictator is for his
violation of what our consciences permit (not his).

Therefore you claim that the Iraqi war is not about wisdom, nor
interest, nor political philosophy. Hmm.

>Before you say Bush resorted to violence. The State Department exhaustively
>tried to bring Saddamn to account for his WMD to no avail.

Whether Saddam had or even used WMD is an "issue of conscience". We
used violence to resolve that issue. QED

>In defense, American Justice brought an end to the Butcher of Baghdad.

He still seems to be alive, and is butchering our soldiers - slowly,
but apparently with impunity.

>I know there are people who when tempted can control their wants, lusts and
>rage.

You don't seem to be one of them. After all, you pack a peacekeeper.

>Many of us grew up to be healthy heterosexuals who've had other forms
>of disciplined guidance.

And then there is you.

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
CB
2003-07-22 12:53:20 UTC
Permalink
"Bob LeChevalier" <***@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:

Are you the kind of guy that would argue when alone is really alone Bob?
Carol Lee Smith
2003-07-16 18:43:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB quoted:

> Today's Founder Quote:
>
> "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the
> good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to me to
> be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> --George Washington

Now this out of context quote is a little more interesting than some of
the others you and the federalist.com site have offered.

Why do you suppose the first word in the sentence, "illiberality," was
eliminated?

Don't you or the federalists like the idea what George Washington was
saying about illiberality?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Washington to James Warren

7 Oct. 1785Writings 28:289--91
The war, as you have very justly observed, has terminated most
advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view; but
I confess to you freely, My Dr. Sir, that I do not think we possess wisdom
or Justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, Jealousy, and
local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good
government of the Union. In a word, the confederation appears to me to be
little more than a shadow without the substance; and Congress a nugatory
body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me, it is a solecism
in politics; indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature,
that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the
rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed for
a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action, and
recallable at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they may
be instrumental in producing, sufficient powers to order and direct the
affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government are
clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which was
entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment;
and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the
vale of confusion and darkness.

That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable Nations
upon Earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but
pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and would
keep good faith with the rest of the World: that our resources are ample
and encreasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applyed, or
not applyed at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall sink,
in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.
--------------

Dontcha just love the part which says: "That we have it in our power to
become one of the most respectable Nations upon Earth, admits, in my
humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but pursue a wise, just, and
liberal policy towards one another, and would keep good faith with the
rest of the World"
Shawn
2003-07-16 19:00:10 UTC
Permalink
"Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133901.27358B-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB quoted:
>
> > Today's Founder Quote:
> >
> > "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for
the
> > good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to
me to
> > be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> > --George Washington
>
> Now this out of context quote is a little more interesting than some of
> the others you and the federalist.com site have offered.
>
> Why do you suppose the first word in the sentence, "illiberality," was
> eliminated?
>
> Don't you or the federalists like the idea what George Washington was
> saying about illiberality?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> George Washington to James Warren
>
> 7 Oct. 1785Writings 28:289--91
> The war, as you have very justly observed, has terminated most
> advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view; but
> I confess to you freely, My Dr. Sir, that I do not think we possess wisdom
> or Justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, Jealousy, and
> local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good
> government of the Union. In a word, the confederation appears to me to be
> little more than a shadow without the substance; and Congress a nugatory
> body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me, it is a solecism
> in politics; indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature,
> that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the
> rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed for
> a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action, and
> recallable at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they may
> be instrumental in producing, sufficient powers to order and direct the
> affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government are
> clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which was
> entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment;
> and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the
> vale of confusion and darkness.
>
> That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable Nations
> upon Earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but
> pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and would
> keep good faith with the rest of the World: that our resources are ample
> and encreasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applyed, or
> not applyed at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall sink,
> in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.
> --------------
>
> Dontcha just love the part which says: "That we have it in our power to
> become one of the most respectable Nations upon Earth, admits, in my
> humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but pursue a wise, just, and
> liberal policy towards one another, and would keep good faith with the
> rest of the World"
>

I liked the bit about "a wise, just and LIBERAL policy" :)
CB
2003-07-16 20:01:01 UTC
Permalink
"Shawn" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_ghRa.5151$***@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133901.27358B-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB quoted:
> >
> > > Today's Founder Quote:
> > >
> > > "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils
for
> the
> > > good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to
> me to
> > > be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> > > --George Washington
> >
> > Now this out of context quote is a little more interesting than some of
> > the others you and the federalist.com site have offered.
> >
> > Why do you suppose the first word in the sentence, "illiberality," was
> > eliminated?
> >
> > Don't you or the federalists like the idea what George Washington was
> > saying about illiberality?
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > George Washington to James Warren
> >
> > 7 Oct. 1785Writings 28:289--91
> > The war, as you have very justly observed, has terminated most
> > advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view;
but
> > I confess to you freely, My Dr. Sir, that I do not think we possess
wisdom
> > or Justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, Jealousy, and
> > local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good
> > government of the Union. In a word, the confederation appears to me to
be
> > little more than a shadow without the substance; and Congress a nugatory
> > body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me, it is a solecism
> > in politics; indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in
nature,
> > that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the
> > rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed
for
> > a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action, and
> > recallable at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they
may
> > be instrumental in producing, sufficient powers to order and direct the
> > affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government are
> > clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which
was
> > entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment;
> > and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the
> > vale of confusion and darkness.
> >
> > That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable
Nations
> > upon Earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but
> > pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and would
> > keep good faith with the rest of the World: that our resources are ample
> > and encreasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applyed, or
> > not applyed at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall
sink,
> > in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.
> > --------------
> >
> > Dontcha just love the part which says: "That we have it in our power to
> > become one of the most respectable Nations upon Earth, admits, in my
> > humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but pursue a wise, just, and
> > liberal policy towards one another, and would keep good faith with the
> > rest of the World"
> >
>
> I liked the bit about "a wise, just and LIBERAL policy" :)
>

To bad Leftist DemocRATs have peverted the word. Just like they've perverted
nateral affection.

I liked the bit about "we would but pursue a wise, just, and...policy
towards one another, and would keep good faith with the rest of the World".
The Justice part appeals to me because of what America's role in the world
has become...

"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have
attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their
arts may be more dangerous then their arms. Let us then ... under
God trust our cause to our swords." --Samuel Adams

and...


ROMANS CHAPTER 13

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is
the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

I admit it's hard to love my neighbor when my neighbor is always trying to
get into my pocket and confusing 'liberal' with Liberty.
--
CB
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Shawn
2003-07-16 21:33:05 UTC
Permalink
"CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bf4ase$i6u$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> "Shawn" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_ghRa.5151$***@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133901.27358B-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB quoted:
> > >
> > > > Today's Founder Quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils
> for
> > the
> > > > good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears
to
> > me to
> > > > be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> > > > --George Washington
> > >
> > > Now this out of context quote is a little more interesting than some
of
> > > the others you and the federalist.com site have offered.
> > >
> > > Why do you suppose the first word in the sentence, "illiberality," was
> > > eliminated?
> > >
> > > Don't you or the federalists like the idea what George Washington was
> > > saying about illiberality?
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > George Washington to James Warren
> > >
> > > 7 Oct. 1785Writings 28:289--91
> > > The war, as you have very justly observed, has terminated most
> > > advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view;
> but
> > > I confess to you freely, My Dr. Sir, that I do not think we possess
> wisdom
> > > or Justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, Jealousy,
and
> > > local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good
> > > government of the Union. In a word, the confederation appears to me to
> be
> > > little more than a shadow without the substance; and Congress a
nugatory
> > > body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me, it is a
solecism
> > > in politics; indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in
> nature,
> > > that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the
> > > rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed
> for
> > > a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action,
and
> > > recallable at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they
> may
> > > be instrumental in producing, sufficient powers to order and direct
the
> > > affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government
are
> > > clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which
> was
> > > entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into
astonishment;
> > > and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the
> > > vale of confusion and darkness.
> > >
> > > That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable
> Nations
> > > upon Earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but
> > > pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and would
> > > keep good faith with the rest of the World: that our resources are
ample
> > > and encreasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applyed,
or
> > > not applyed at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall
> sink,
> > > in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > Dontcha just love the part which says: "That we have it in our power
to
> > > become one of the most respectable Nations upon Earth, admits, in my
> > > humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but pursue a wise, just, and
> > > liberal policy towards one another, and would keep good faith with the
> > > rest of the World"
> > >
> >
> > I liked the bit about "a wise, just and LIBERAL policy" :)
> >
>
> To bad Leftist DemocRATs have peverted the word. Just like they've
perverted
> nateral affection.
>
No dumb ass it wasn't the democrats who perverted the word its the
conservative morons like you who keep insisting that leftist is synonimous
with liberal. It is not now nor has it ever been so.
Yes there are some liberals who like big government but there are just as
many who like limited government as well as limited corporate power.
Do not think you can pidgeon hole every liberal into your little strawman
mold.

> I liked the bit about "we would but pursue a wise, just, and...policy
> towards one another, and would keep good faith with the rest of the
World".
> The Justice part appeals to me because of what America's role in the world
> has become...
>
Once again you leave out that thing which you despise.
let me repair it for you.
"a wise, just and LIBERAL policy"
Keeping good faith would also imply keeping ones word and complying with the
treaties we've signed but that doesn't work with the conservative vision of
keeping good faith does it?
Face it you are all about lying and deciet as long as it is to your benifit.

> "Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have
> attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their
> arts may be more dangerous then their arms. Let us then ... under
> God trust our cause to our swords." --Samuel Adams
>
> and...
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the
lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as
religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own
purpose. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813;
from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations,
Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370)

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature
should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of
separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President,
in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury,
Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations,
Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p.
369)

... And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that
religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and
suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political
intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as
bitter and bloody persecutions. ... error of opinion may be tolerated
where reason is left free to combat it. ... I deem the
essential principles of our government . ..[:] Equal and exact justice
to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious
or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and
freedom of person under the protection of the habeas
corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. (Thomas Jefferson,
"First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801. From
Mortimer Adler, ed., The Annals of America: 1797-1820, Domestic
Expansion and Foreign Entanglements, Vol. 4;
Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, pp. 144-145.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the
will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be
rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal
rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate
which would be oppression. (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural
Address," March 4, 1801; from George Seldes, ed.,
The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p.
364.)

"I know," Jefferson had written, ... "that Gouverneur Morris, who
pretended to be in his [George Washington's] secrets
& believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington
believed no more of that system [Christianity] than
he himself did." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,
Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p.
85. Jefferson's comments were written in his journal, Anas, in
February, 1800, according to Boller, p. 80.)

To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the
press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself
to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we
think, the condition of man will proceed in
improvement. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Green Mumford, June
18, 1799. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The
American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a
Free Society, New York: George Braziller,
1965, p. 341.)

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his
abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire
wealth and power by this combination than by deserving
them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever
preached to man into mystery and jargon,
unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their
purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio
Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations,
Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371)

A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution
[the University of Virginia]. (Thomas Jefferson, letter
to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene
Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American
Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 492.)

... Jefferson, who as a careful historian had made a study of the
origin of the maxim [that the common law is inextricably
linked with Christianity], challenged such an assertion. He noted that
"the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons
were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of
Christ pronounced or that such a character
existed .... What a conspiracy this, between Church and State." (Leo
Pfeffer, Religion, State, and the Burger Court,
Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 121.)

... The most revealing writings concerned the commonly repeated maxim
that Christianity was part of the common law.
In two posthumously published writings, an appendix to his Reports of
Cases Determined in the General Court and a
letter to Major John Cartwright, Thomas Jefferson took issue with the
maxim. He traced the erroneous interpretation to
a seventeenth-century law commentator who, Jefferson argued,
misinterpreted a fifteenth-century precedent. He then
traced the error forward to his favorite bte noire, Lord Mansfield,
who wrote that "the essential principles of revealed
religion are part of the common law." Jefferson responded with a
classic, positivistic critique: Mansfield "leaves us at our
peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to
the measures of his foot or his faith, are those
essential principles of revealed religion, obligatory on us as part of
the common law." (Daniel R. Ernst, "Church-State
Issues and the Law: 1607-1870" in John F. Wilson, ed., Church and
State in America: A Bibliographic Guide. The
Colonial and Early National Periods," New York: Greenwood Press, 1986,
p. 337. Ernst gives his source as Thomas
Jefferson, "Whether Christianity is Part of the Common Law?")

I too can quote influencial men to support my case.



<sniped biblical garbage that has no relavance to our secular government.>
>
> I admit it's hard to love my neighbor when my neighbor is always trying to
> get into my pocket and confusing 'liberal' with Liberty.
> --
> CB
> Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
> liberty.
> 2 Corinthians 3:17
>
>
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to
resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their
case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. (Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
From Daniel B. Baker, ed., Political Quotations, Detroit: Gale
Research, Inc., 1990, p. 189.)

Let me explain this one for you since your mind seems rather simplistic.
The essence of this quote is that one should resist the urge to enact
legislation that can be used to oppress or discriminate against others less
those same rules be later used against you by the government.

Does patriot act part 1 and 2 seem oppresive in the powers bequiefed to the
federal government? If not then I suggest that you return your right wing
credencials. Your nothing more than a leftist conservative who is perfectly
happy with large oppressive government so long as it oppresses those with
whom you disagree.

Yet once said powers are established there is no protection to you should
other factions come into power and your views fall out of favour.
Watch your own house there conservative wank. Its the right who is falling
over themselves to shread the constitution and the protections provided to
you by the bill of rights those protections that not only protect those you
hate but are your only protection against oppression as well.
Gray Shockley
2003-07-16 22:04:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:01:01 -0500, CB wrote
(in message <bf4ase$i6u$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):

> I admit it's hard to love my neighbor when my neighbor is always trying to
> get into my pocket and confusing 'liberal' with Liberty.


And you have done exactly what to preserve liberty?


I've asked you quite a few times in what branch of the military you served,
when and doing what.


"CB" doesn't stand for "Coward Boy", now does it, CB?




Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
"Conservative" sure appears - in the last
several decades - to have become
interchaneable with "Coward".
CB
2003-07-16 20:25:14 UTC
Permalink
"Shawn" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_ghRa.5151$***@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <***@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030716133901.27358B-***@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, CB quoted:
> >
> > > Today's Founder Quote:
> > >
> > > "Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils
for
> the
> > > good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to
> me to
> > > be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> > > --George Washington
> >
> > Now this out of context quote is a little more interesting than some of
> > the others you and the federalist.com site have offered.
> >
> > Why do you suppose the first word in the sentence, "illiberality," was
> > eliminated?
> >
> > Don't you or the federalists like the idea what George Washington was
> > saying about illiberality?
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > George Washington to James Warren
> >
> > 7 Oct. 1785Writings 28:289--91
> > The war, as you have very justly observed, has terminated most
> > advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view;
but
> > I confess to you freely, My Dr. Sir, that I do not think we possess
wisdom
> > or Justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, Jealousy, and
> > local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good
> > government of the Union. In a word, the confederation appears to me to
be
> > little more than a shadow without the substance; and Congress a nugatory
> > body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me, it is a solecism
> > in politics; indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in
nature,
> > that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the
> > rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed
for
> > a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action, and
> > recallable at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they
may
> > be instrumental in producing, sufficient powers to order and direct the
> > affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government are
> > clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which
was
> > entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment;
> > and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the
> > vale of confusion and darkness.
> >
> > That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable
Nations
> > upon Earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but
> > pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and would
> > keep good faith with the rest of the World: that our resources are ample
> > and encreasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applyed, or
> > not applyed at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall
sink,
> > in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.
> > --------------
> >
> > Dontcha just love the part which says: "That we have it in our power to
> > become one of the most respectable Nations upon Earth, admits, in my
> > humble opinion, of no doubt; if we would but pursue a wise, just, and
> > liberal policy towards one another, and would keep good faith with the
> > rest of the World"
> >
>
> I liked the bit about "a wise, just and LIBERAL policy" :)
>

To bad Leftist DemocRATs have perverted the word. Just like they've
perverted
natural affection.

I liked the bit about "we would but pursue a wise, just, and...policy
towards one another, and would keep good faith with the rest of the World".
The Justice part appeals to me because of what America's role in the world
has become...

"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have
attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their
arts may be more dangerous then their arms. Let us then ... under
God trust our cause to our swords." --Samuel Adams

and...


ROMANS CHAPTER 13

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is
the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

I admit it's hard to love my neighbor when my neighbor is always trying to
get into my pocket and confusing 'liberal' with Liberty.
--
CB
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Gray Shockley
2003-07-16 19:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:16:15 -0500, CB wrote
(in message <bf417g$pga$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):

> "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
> liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
>
> CB


Instead we have "conservatives" like "CB" and Ann Coulter who worship George
Wallace, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, Orville
Faubus, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. William Pierce, Richard M. Nixon, Admiral
Poindexter, Ollie North, Georges Bush and that tramp down at the 7-11.





Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
CB
2003-07-16 20:27:40 UTC
Permalink
"Gray Shockley" <gray-***@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:***@news-south.giganews.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:16:15 -0500, CB wrote
> (in message <bf417g$pga$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):
>
> > "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
> > liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
> >
> > CB
>
>
> Instead we have "conservatives" like "CB" and Ann Coulter who worship
George
> Wallace, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, Orville
> Faubus, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. William Pierce, Richard M. Nixon, Admiral
> Poindexter, Ollie North, Georges Bush and that tramp down at the 7-11.
>

I have but One Master

>
>
>
> Gray Shockley
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
>

For people who see the glass as half full and see no other way to succeed
other than to take from others what they them selves have not earned
Gray Shockley
2003-07-17 03:07:30 UTC
Permalink
From: Gray Shockley <gray-***@cybercoffee.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.culture.african.american.issues, alt.education

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:27:40 -0500, CB wrote
(in message <bf4cec$jkl$***@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>):

> For people who see the glass as half full and see no other way to succeed
> other than to take from others what they them selves have not earned


You mean like people who want without earning?


What branch of the United States military were you in, boy?


Come on, now, CB - you keep talking about being a "conservative".

Surely you've earned that title, haven't ya, poy?


You're not Pat Buchanan in drag, are you.


Surely you're a patriot and have proudly served in the military to protect
you and yourin, now haven't ya, CB?


I realize that you're probably a decorated war hero, eh?


Where was your combat time, boy?


Come on, CB ("Combat Boy"?), you aren't another Rush Limbaugh, are you?


Come on, CB; what branch of the military and what combat zone?


Or are you one of those horrible "liberals" we've heard so much about?


Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine?







Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
r***@nutty.com
2003-07-16 20:33:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:16:15 -0400, "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
>Today's Founder Quote:

>Thus the difference between the Impeached One and the Respected One.

Tell us the difference (in your screwed-up world) between LYING about selling arms to our
enemies and "fibbing" about sex.

BTW, "impeaching" is an "Allegation"

The "allegation" was UNPROVEN........thus.................>

>>>==================================================

>>Article 1 - Acquitted 55 - 45
>
>>Article 2 - Acquitted 50 - 50
>
>>"The Senate, having tried William Jefferson Clinton,
>president of the United States, upon two articles of
>impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
>Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present
>not having found him guilty of the charges contained
>therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the
>said William Jefferson Clinton be and he hereby is acquitted
>of the charges in the said articles."



====================================================

<***@prayforme.com> wrote like a rightwing scumbag;


Listen you pagan nigger, .................

Note: The only time I call people "niggers" is when they treat me to vulgar
language. Act like a "low down and ugly person" and be called one. Nothing
to do with skin color, everything to do with character.
r***@nutty.com
2003-07-17 16:17:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -0400, "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:


>> Tell us the difference (in your screwed-up world) between LYING about
>selling arms to our
>> enemies and "fibbing" about sex.
>
>LOL, Post Hoc moral equivalence doesn't work commi. Axe yoo homies

What the fuck does the term "post hoc" have to do with you explaining why a LIE (about
treasonous/subversive acts) by someone you agree with is okay, but a "fib" (that has
nothing to do with the function of government) is "impeachable"?

>> BTW, "impeaching" is an "Allegation"
>
>Is that another technicality like what it means to be "alone"?

No, Barta, it's has nothing to do with the meaning

You "impeach" or "accuse" (according to your venerated founders) when there is a "clear
and present danger" or serious crime has committed and evidence shows that "high crimes
and/or other misdemeanors". are threatening the nation.

You "accuse" or "impeach" to stop a dangerous threat to the nation, and do that by using
those "accusations" in a senate trial to remove that threat.

But when you "accuse" (impeach) because your political base is going to "stay home", and
you can't beat your political enemy with ideas, issues, or a ballot, it's not only
unethical, it's immoral and treasonous.

Republicans "impeached" (accused) SOLELY because they were coming into an upcoming
election with their political base (rightwing extremist, homophobes and sham moralists)
were on the verge of revolt.

Not only that, but after one of the most intrusive, invasive, massive personal
investigations of two people by the worlds BEST criminal investigatory agency, they found
NOTHING that could pass the laugh test as being "illegal"

Moreover, the House Republicans were specifically told that if the only allegations of
"wrongdoing" leveled against Clinton were related to "sex" that the senate would Never
vote to convict in a sham impeachment.

They were told a year before, by Lott, Barta. Hyde knew beforehand that an impeachment
would fail.

It failed because there were NO credible "impeachable offenses" (unlike selling arms to
enemies and the ensuing coverup). Does that even register with you Barta? It FAILED
because CLinton did nothing wrong.

>You think
>history books qualify the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton with some
>kind of technical explination? You're to funny commi

The history books are already recording how conservatives, lacking ANY foundation to
impeach, did so for pure political reasons.

You simply aren't smart enough to understand that it's now TWICE that CONSERVATIVES used a
sham impeachment to try a get rid of a political enemy instead of protecting the Nation.

The Johnson impeachment was because conservatives couldn't weaken the reconstruction laws
and clinton was impeached because conservatives lacked the ideas and issues to beat him
politically.

You're simply a mindless idiot, Barta.


>

---------------------------------------------------------
"Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore":
<***@prayforme.com> wrote:


No one wants a foul mouthed nigger working for him, no matter
what skin he wears.
I've owned and sold two landscape businesses for more money
that you'll earn in 20 years. I have employed hundreds if
not thousands of people. I know a nigger after just a
short time hearing him talk, work and complain.
o***@hotmail.com
2003-07-18 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:17:39 -0600, ***@nutty.com wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -0400, "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Tell us the difference (in your screwed-up world) between LYING about
>>selling arms to our
>>> enemies and "fibbing" about sex.
>>
>>LOL, Post Hoc moral equivalence doesn't work commi. Axe yoo homies
>
>What the fuck does the term "post hoc" have to do with you explaining why a LIE (about
>treasonous/subversive acts) by someone you agree with is okay, but a "fib" (that has
>nothing to do with the function of government) is "impeachable"?
>
>>> BTW, "impeaching" is an "Allegation"
>>
>>Is that another technicality like what it means to be "alone"?
>
>No, Barta, it's has nothing to do with the meaning
>
>You "impeach" or "accuse" (according to your venerated founders) when there is a "clear
>and present danger" or serious crime has committed and evidence shows that "high crimes
>and/or other misdemeanors". are threatening the nation.

Isn't sending missiles into many countries to cover up lying about
having an affair a threat?
CB
2003-07-18 02:38:02 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:17:39 -0600, ***@nutty.com wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -0400, "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Tell us the difference (in your screwed-up world) between LYING about
> >>selling arms to our
> >>> enemies and "fibbing" about sex.
> >>
> >>LOL, Post Hoc moral equivalence doesn't work commi. Axe yoo homies
> >
> >What the fuck does the term "post hoc" have to do with you explaining why
a LIE (about
> >treasonous/subversive acts) by someone you agree with is okay, but a
"fib" (that has
> >nothing to do with the function of government) is "impeachable"?
> >
> >>> BTW, "impeaching" is an "Allegation"
> >>
> >>Is that another technicality like what it means to be "alone"?
> >
> >No, Barta, it's has nothing to do with the meaning
> >
> >You "impeach" or "accuse" (according to your venerated founders) when
there is a "clear
> >and present danger" or serious crime has committed and evidence shows
that "high crimes
> >and/or other misdemeanors". are threatening the nation.
>
> Isn't sending missiles into many countries to cover up lying about
> having an affair a threat?
>
>
>

Gary is quick to forget Impeachment was about lying under oath to the Grand
Jury.

Gary's argument is a lie told under oath about blow jobs doesn't rally
count. After all, everyone does it so why hold anyone accountable, even the
president? Because unlike the Impeached one, the Impeachment Managers took
their oath of office seriously, at the risk of Liberal crucifixion.
r***@nutty.com
2003-07-18 03:36:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:38:02 -0400, "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:


> "impeaching" is an "Allegation"

>> >You "impeach" or "accuse" (according to your venerated founders) when
>there is a "clear and present danger" or serious crime has committed and evidence shows
>that "high crimes >and/or other misdemeanors". are threatening the nation.
>>
>> Isn't sending missiles into many countries to cover up lying about
>> having an affair a threat?

Nope

Because there is no truth that he sent missiles to cover up anything. You can't proffer a
claim and have it accept as truth just based on your BELIEFS. In FACT, BARTA, had it been
a provable event, don't you think the rabid right would have done just that?

It is a FACT that he "Sent missiles"

It is NOT a "fact" that it was done for any other reasons except to get Terrorists.


>Gary is quick to forget Impeachment was about lying under oath to the Grand
>Jury.

He didn't. And you cannot find a single cite, quote, or piece of testimony that you can
back up with evidence that he did. BTW, don't feel bad, neither could the FBI, Starr or
Ray.

>Gary's argument is a lie told under oath about blow jobs doesn't rally
>count.

Not as an "impeachable offense"......and particularity when those who accused him
supported a REAL liar who sold arms to our sworn enemies and lied about it...(under oath)

> After all, everyone does it so why hold anyone accountable, even the
>president? Because unlike the Impeached one, the Impeachment Managers took
>their oath of office seriously, at the risk of Liberal crucifixion.

Bullshit. The impeachment managers impeached ONLY because they had 11 votes in the house
to do it. They impeached because Clinton was kicking their ass up around their ears.
They impeached because the rightwing base threatened to "stay home" in the upcoming
elections.

Had the House managers taken their oaths seriously, they would have noticed there was no
"clear and present danger" to America........AT ANY TIME (except when Raygun was
subverting the constitution)

Had the House managers "taken their oaths seriously", they would have predicated their
sham bullshit on REAL evidence, not some off-the-wall bullshit moralistic crap that the
founders never figured would apply.


>-----------------------------------------------------------

>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 16:17:29 -0500, "CB" <***@prayforme.com>
>wrote like a rightwing scumbag;

>Your such a coward. Anyone on USENET that's read your
>posts knows you have nothing good to say that isn't filth.


>Me describing you as a nigger is always in response
>to your foul mouth. When ever you quote me describing
>your character as "nigger", you always leave out what
>you said to earn that stigmata, coward
Carol Lee Smith
2003-07-17 01:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> "CB" <***@prayforme.com> wrote:
> >Today's Founder Quote:
> >
> >"Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the
> >good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to me to
> >be little more than a shadow without the substance...."
> > --George Washington

> Hardly an endorsement of state and local government and a weak Federal
> government. Sounds instead like he wanted a stronger central
> authority less subject to politicking of the sort that the right wing
> loves to engage in.

It's worse than that. This quote left out the first word in the sentence.

My previous post gave more context, including that amazing first word
which CB and the federalists don't want broadcast.
Loading...