"Roe vs Wade" is DEAD! Hip-Hip-Hurrah President Bush!

[Vote Republican!]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Our Great President has just signed into law the
long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of
Congress. Excellent! This means that "pro-killer"
abortion advocates had better run and hide their
pointed little Anti-Xian heads in shame, because
the law of the land now favors what God's immuta-
ble Law clearly states to be fruitful & multiply!

I really like this law because Scott Peterson is
obviously guilty of murdering his wife and child,
so his scumbag criminal defense attorney doesn't
dare draw further attention to his guilty client
such that the Act of Congress signed into law by
President Bush is named after Peterson's victims!

What's Garagos gonna say? "Your honor, my client
can't get a fair trial anywhere in the US, since
Congress--and the President of the United States
of America--enacted this 'Laci & Conner' law, so
all charges against my irrefutably guilty client
should be dismissed, on the grounds of his guilt.
No jury on Earth could assume my guilty client's
innocence until proven guilty, but rather see it
as automatically guilty as will be proved guilty
in a court of law. My client hasn't got a prayer!"

And Roe vs Wade is history too, since any unborn
child is now protected by federal law, Oh my God!
Now we can't even have first trimester abortions,
but will have to teach our children abstinence &
responsibility instead of decadence & irresponsi-
bility like we've routinely done in the past. If
abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have a-
bortions, with rates of sexual promiscuity among
adolescents quickly plummeting. This spells "dis-
aster" for the Hollywood, cable & satellite tele-
vision smut machine, and will make the Hollywood
heathen leftist liberal communists look very bad,
even though they always have looked like dogshit.

Made in America,
Daniel Joseph Min
________________________________________________________

PS be sure to bookmark and visit these websites today:

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly
http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes

*Vietnam Veterans Against Commie Kerry:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

*Commie Kerry's Growing Popularity Among Terrorists:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@posting.google.com

*News Commentary on Commie Kerry's "Lily-White Ass"!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org

*Min's Commentary on Mel Gibson's "Passion":
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org

*Min's Last Word on Homosexual Marriage & Armageddon:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org

*Min's Commentary on Homosexual Marriage:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org

*Min's Newsgroup-Archived Home Page On The World Wide Web:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-frog.org
`
`

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQG3kkZljD7YrHM/nEQJy0QCfXw0/JoNPathEo9riXCLqzgLWTQYAn1CP
6FXiSxyI+e3QaNewCarG8hcB
=J0QM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`
`
`
`

` `
`

` `


`

[Rolavine]

Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her body.
That level of control is not possible you know.

The sides on the abortion debate are absurd, they spend tens of millions
fighting each other. If this money was applied to preventing unwanted
pregnacies, the sides could cut the death toll in half. Both sides of this
debate are the ones that should be ashamed.

Rocky

[Steve T]

***@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

:Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her body.
:That level of control is not possible you know.
:
:The sides on the abortion debate are absurd, they spend tens of millions
:fighting each other. If this money was applied to preventing unwanted
:pregnacies, the sides could cut the death toll in half. Both sides of this
:debate are the ones that should be ashamed.
:
:Rocky
:

Go away.

[Alan Moore]

On 02 Apr 2004 00:33:00 GMT, ***@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

>Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her body.
>That level of control is not possible you know.
>
>The sides on the abortion debate are absurd, they spend tens of millions
>fighting each other. If this money was applied to preventing unwanted
>pregnacies, the sides could cut the death toll in half. Both sides of this
>debate are the ones that should be ashamed.

Yes, but at least one of the two sides doesn't _want_ to prevent
unwanted pregnancies.

Al Moore
DoD 734

[Rolavine]

>Subject: Re: was Roe vs. wade, Bush signs unneded law to appeal to fundies!
>From: Alan Moore ***@comcast.net
>Date: 4/1/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <***@4ax.com>
>
>On 02 Apr 2004 00:33:00 GMT, ***@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:
>
>>Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her
>body.
>>That level of control is not possible you know.
>>
>>The sides on the abortion debate are absurd, they spend tens of millions
>>fighting each other. If this money was applied to preventing unwanted
>>pregnacies, the sides could cut the death toll in half. Both sides of this
>>debate are the ones that should be ashamed.
>
>Yes, but at least one of the two sides doesn't _want_ to prevent
>unwanted pregnancies.
>

What side is that Al? The pro choice side side has been very active in
prevention and advice to avoid pregnancy, heck the other side is not putting
condoms in the high schools. The pro life side has advised abstenance and has
tried to convince pregnant women to have the birth, they have set up adoption
programs for this purpose.

My point is that both sides need to work together rather than just fight each
other.This means the pro choice side has to admit the horror of this thing
while abandioning their paranoia, and the pro life side has to come off their
religious high horse and deal with practical matters.

Not only that, this debate has centered in the US. I read that a started baby
in Russia has a 70% chance of being aborted!

This dog and pony show of a bill, by this most back slapping of admins does not
help a bit. This admin is all about BS and fiddling in Iraq while we burn.

Rocky

[Alan Moore]

On 02 Apr 2004 17:35:06 GMT, ***@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: was Roe vs. wade, Bush signs unneded law to appeal to fundies!
>>From: Alan Moore ***@comcast.net
>>Date: 4/1/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <***@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 02 Apr 2004 00:33:00 GMT, ***@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her
>>body.
>>>That level of control is not possible you know.
>>>
>>>The sides on the abortion debate are absurd, they spend tens of millions
>>>fighting each other. If this money was applied to preventing unwanted
>>>pregnacies, the sides could cut the death toll in half. Both sides of this
>>>debate are the ones that should be ashamed.
>>
>>Yes, but at least one of the two sides doesn't _want_ to prevent
>>unwanted pregnancies.
>>
>
>What side is that Al? The pro choice side side has been very active in
>prevention and advice to avoid pregnancy, heck the other side is not putting
>condoms in the high schools. The pro life side has advised abstenance and has
>tried to convince pregnant women to have the birth, they have set up adoption
>programs for this purpose.
>
>My point is that both sides need to work together rather than just fight each
>other.This means the pro choice side has to admit the horror of this thing
>while abandioning their paranoia, and the pro life side has to come off their
>religious high horse and deal with practical matters.
>
>Not only that, this debate has centered in the US. I read that a started baby
>in Russia has a 70% chance of being aborted!
>
Yes, Russia entered the 20th century a long time ago. Much of the
United States remains backwards in this area unfortunately. I was
lucky enough to be born and raised in California, where Roe v. Wade
made no noticeable difference.

The only reason I get excited about abortion issues is that I've known
people who needed them, and were, fortunately, able to get them. I'd
hate to see that change.

>This dog and pony show of a bill, by this most back slapping of admins does not
>help a bit. This admin is all about BS and fiddling in Iraq while we burn.
>
Indeed!

Al Moore
DoD 734

[Joe]

> Oh yeah sure, it's morality to demand that a women grow something in her
body.

If the men and women didn't let "something else" into her body in the first
place, the secondary worries would be non-existent.

...and don't give me the rape / abuse argument. The ratio is too
overwhelming to justify a procedure for the extremely low % of those who are
in this situation. there are other options.

Sorry... don't mean to vent on this subject or this forum, but this is
something I feel strongly about. I've got a brother-in-law who was born at
5 months... Legally, he could have been aborted. He's all the proof I need
that it is a baby and not a "fetus" to be discarded after a lack of self
control.
--



Joe - V#8013 - '86 VN750 - joe @ yunx .com
Northern, NJ
Ask me about "The Ride" on July 31, '04:
http://www.youthelate.com/the_ride.htm

Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...

Wanna ride yer motorcycle on Saturday, April 24th? eMail me...

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:30:58 -0500, "Joe" <***@yunx.com> wrote:

>Sorry... don't mean to vent on this subject or this forum, but this is
>something I feel strongly about. I've got a brother-in-law who was born at
>5 months... Legally, he could have been aborted.

Preemie technology will eventually advance to the point where we'll
have artifical uterii which allow fertilized eggs to be carried out to
term minus the woman. Mighty convenient in these busybusybusy times.
Corporations should love the obsoletion of the family leave act!

So, how do we define medical ethics? According to the current state of
the art? According to established legal precedent or according to
religious morality?

Many pro-lifers currently call birth control pills murder since they
occasionaly prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. I wonder what
kind of laws will be signed when said embryo could have been carried
to term artificially instead of being tossed into a toilet.

I for one love the implosions of logic amongst the mystic types as
science continues to push the limits of human reality. The fetus would
no longer need the woman's body to develop, so a significant hurdle
would be eliminated. Specifically the issue of controlling another
person's body.

What will happen then? Will some pro-lifers drop out, their fantasy of
women being enslaved by their reproductive organs once again a dashed
reality? Or will the new battle be whether or not the government has
the right to forcibly remove a developing fetus from the uterus to
save it from abortion?

Perhaps, since we are apparently establishing the precedent of an
embryo having full human rights ALL developing babies need to be
plucked from the womb and raised in artificial wombs ala Brave New
World. After all the mother might not only be attacked, she might
smoke, drink or consume drugs during term. THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
CHILD ARE AT STAKE! Anything that happens to the embryo, whether
accidental or intentional could endager it.


Of course law is ultimately irrelevant. Only sheep allow legislation
to control their lives and if somebody is stupid enough to be
controlled by such I feel bad for the unwanted child these morons are
going to raise. Abortion will always be a reality, afforded to
whomever wants it badly enough.

[Coby]

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores wrote:
> Of course law is ultimately irrelevant. Only sheep allow legislation
> to control their lives and if somebody is stupid enough to be
> controlled by such I feel bad for the unwanted child these morons are
> going to raise. Abortion will always be a reality, afforded to
> whomever wants it badly enough.

I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten. Sure, kids are cute,
but are they really people?

--
Coby
'69 Z28 '99 XX '01 FLSTF '01 XX '72 710M '03 Tiger

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:24:51 GMT, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> wrote:

>I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten.


Ah yes, the old "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" way of looking at kids. ;)

BOMBS AWAY!

http://costofwar.com/

[keith s.]

>
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:24:51 GMT, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> wrote:
>
>>I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten.
>
>
>Ah yes, the old "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" way of looking at kids. ;)
>
>BOMBS AWAY!

Hmmph wimps I support retroactive abortions to any age. Some people just need
to be removed from the world.


Nefarious Necrologist 42nd class
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<:(3 )3~~ <:(3 )3~~

[sleazy rider]

On 02 Apr 2004 22:16:52 GMT, ***@aol.comnilfeces (keith s.)
wrote:

>>
>>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:24:51 GMT, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> wrote:
>>
>>>I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten.
>>
>>
>>Ah yes, the old "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" way of looking at kids. ;)
>>
>>BOMBS AWAY!
>
>Hmmph wimps I support retroactive abortions to any age. Some people just need
>to be removed from the world.
>

I thought that was called adding chlorine to the gene pool and I
totally agree with ya on that one.
sleazy

95 Trophy 1200 - Limey Bean

[Alan Moore]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:47:33 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<***@casaputana.it> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:24:51 GMT, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> wrote:
>
>>I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten.
>
>
>Ah yes, the old "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" way of looking at kids. ;)
>
>BOMBS AWAY!
>
>http://costofwar.com/

Hey, neat link. I note the presence there of my home town of many
years, Palo Alto, CA. Cost of the Iraq war to Palo Altans: $42,735,185
as I write. Palo Alto is a small but well-to-do college town, also
home to the international headquarters of a number of techie firms,
like H-P, for instance...

Al Moore
DoD 734

[Hank]

Coby wrote:

> I support the right of abortion up to the age of ten.
> Sure, kids are cute, but are they really people?

Unless the parents are right wing extremists, in
which case there should be no age limit for retractive
abortions. In fact, I would perform that much needed
service free of charge.


--


http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

[Chuck Rhode]

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <***@casaputana.it> wrote this on
Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:39:14 +0000. My reply is below.
>
> Preemie technology will eventually advance to the point where we'll
> have artifical uterii which allow fertilized eggs to be carried out to
> term minus the woman. Mighty convenient in these busybusybusy times.
> Corporations should love the obsoletion of the family leave act!

Dem, you have a career in sci-fi if you can come up with original plot
concepts. Unfortunately, the great Robt Heinlein treated this one at
length in his 1963 novel, PODKAYNE OF MARS.

In his tale of interplanetary travel, Poddy Fries' upwardly mobile
parents unexpectedly are saddled with raising several embryos that
they had banked years earlier in their salad days. Eager to be rid of
a portion of their burden of child care, they send her and her brat
brother on the Grand Tour in the custody of a diplomat-uncle. She is
about to become emotionally involved with royalty on Venus when she is
kid-napped by terrorists with tragic results. It's not a happy story,
and I never liked it much, but it haunts me like better stories do. I
ponder whether her downfall is fated by her personality or by
externalities, which conspire against her. She had her proponents who
might have defended her. The other characters (her brother, her
uncle, her boyfriend) are all very sorry about the outcome, of course.

Oh, btw, I regret not leaping up to shower you with sympathy. It's a
foible of mine. Here's the best I can manage: <empathy> I hope you
are awarded sizeable judicial settlements for crashing due to poor
design and shoddy materials. </empathy> Will that do?

--
... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI
... 1979 Honda Goldwing GL1000 (Geraldine)
... http://www.excel.net/~compren/RockyGnashtoothsWeather/
... 54°F. Wind N 14 mph. Clear.

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:57:15 -0600, Chuck Rhode <***@excel.net>
wrote:

>Dem, you have a career in sci-fi if you can come up with original plot
>concepts.

Does this mean I can be the next William Shatner?

>Oh, btw, I regret not leaping up to shower you with sympathy.

Too late. I already have you on the graveyard shift at the salt mines.
Altering the schedules now would mean having to bump hundreds of
minions. Not cost effective.

We'll see if we can get you into one of the heated shafts. It gets
pretty damn cold in Uranus.

> It's a foible of mine. Here's the best I can manage: <empathy> I hope you
>are awarded sizeable judicial settlements for crashing due to poor
>design and shoddy materials. </empathy> Will that do?

Nope. If this turns out to be a common issue I want...

<Schwarzenegger>
TOTAL RECALL!
</Schwarzenegger>

[Chuck Rhode]

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <***@casaputana.it> wrote this on
Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:23:22 +0000. My reply is below.
>
> Does this mean I can be the next William Shatner?

Ack! Pfft!

--
... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI
... 1979 Honda Goldwing GL1000 (Geraldine)
... http://www.excel.net/~compren/RockyGnashtoothsWeather/
... 39°F. Wind NNE 15 mph. Cloudy.

[StephG]

On 02 Apr 2004, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <***@casaputana.it>
smacked the keyboard and out came
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:30:58 -0500, "Joe" <***@yunx.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry... don't mean to vent on this subject or this forum, but this is
>>something I feel strongly about. I've got a brother-in-law who was born
>>at 5 months... Legally, he could have been aborted.
>
> Preemie technology will eventually advance to the point where we'll
> have artifical uterii which allow fertilized eggs to be carried out to
> term minus the woman. Mighty convenient in these busybusybusy times.
> Corporations should love the obsoletion of the family leave act!
>
> So, how do we define medical ethics? According to the current state of
> the art? According to established legal precedent or according to
> religious morality?

In the land of unintended consequences, unborn rights amount to
deligitimizing *birth* dates. That means in the future, it could be
legally argued that you're eligible to vote, drink, retire, etc., 9 months
earlier, since you were considered a person from the moment of conception.

The real costs of such an action are staggering. Who's going to pay? More
importantly, who is going to vote for more taxes to pay for all those
accumulated months of additional benefits?

This sort of thing is a huge jump in legislative precedent, one that has
never been considered necessary in any society, even ones where they
desperately needed to enlarge the population. Nothing like this comes
without unforseen consequences that are usually not what was originally
intended.

I can just see the lawsuits coming down the pike now.

--
StephG

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
<***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"

It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
that'll vote for George Bush III.

[Tom McDonald]

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
> <***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>
>
> It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
> trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
> that'll vote for George Bush III.

George the Third? Why? George W. is relatively young; they
can vote for him, if he allows elections.

Tom McDonald

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:00:15 -0600, Tom McDonald <***@charter.net>
wrote:

>Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores wrote:
>
>> On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
>> <***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>>
>>
>> It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>> trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>> that'll vote for George Bush III.
>
> George the Third? Why? George W. is relatively young; they
>can vote for him, if he allows elections.
>
>Tom McDonald

No. In another 18 years he will have used up the remaining brain cells and not
even human blood will keep Cheney alive any more. :-)

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Richard Hunter]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:08:57 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the
Gladiatores <***@casaputana.it> coughed and sputtered, and
managed to choke out these words:

>On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
><***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>
>It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>that'll vote for George Bush III.

Jenna's going into politics?

david

[Charles Perrin]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:12:51 GMT, Richard Hunter pontificated at
length:

>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:08:57 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the
>Gladiatores coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke
>out these words:

>>It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>>trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>>that'll vote for George Bush III.

>Jenna's going into politics?

Since it is well-known that all children reject the views of their
parents, he was actually talking about the Chelsea Clinton for
President Campaign, sometime around 2028. <grin/duck>

--
"So many sneakers, not enough feet."
http://sneakers.pair.com/

[Ben Kaufman]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:08:57 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<***@casaputana.it> wrote:

>On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
><***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>
>It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>that'll vote for George Bush III.

Ah, and this is probably the reason he's against Gay marriage. What kid raised
by gay/lesbian parents is going to be a Republican?


Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[StephG]

On 02 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
smacked the keyboard and out came
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:08:57 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
><***@casaputana.it> wrote:
>
>>On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
>><***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>>
>>It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>>trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>>that'll vote for George Bush III.
>
> Ah, and this is probably the reason he's against Gay marriage. What kid
> raised by gay/lesbian parents is going to be a Republican?

This kind:
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

--
StephG

[Ben Kaufman]

On 3 Apr 2004 02:02:17 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 02 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>smacked the keyboard and out came
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:08:57 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
>><***@casaputana.it> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 Apr 2004 22:17:15 -0000, Vote Republican!
>>><***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote:
>>>
>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>>Our Great President has just signed into law the
>>>>long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
>>>
>>>It's part of the latest strategy to expand the GOP base. Unwanted
>>>trailer trash babies will eventually grow up into the kind of morons
>>>that'll vote for George Bush III.
>>
>> Ah, and this is probably the reason he's against Gay marriage. What kid
>> raised by gay/lesbian parents is going to be a Republican?
>
>This kind:
>http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

OK, 6 people, big deal :-)

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[StephG]

On 02 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
smacked the keyboard and out came news:81ns609im4s6flpfklaoea8d5tlhvpf070@
4ax.com:

>>> Ah, and this is probably the reason he's against Gay marriage. What kid
>>> raised by gay/lesbian parents is going to be a Republican?
>>
>>This kind:
>>http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html
>
> OK, 6 people, big deal :-)

Never ceases to amaze me how many people put their wallets before every other
consideration in politics.

I had a girlfriend who was an ardent feminist, had an abortion at one time
and would do it again if necessary, and she was a Republican. Why? Because
Democrats are "anti-business" and "pro-tax".

Oh and she was rich, and had an MBA too. From Pepperdine University, home of
Arthur Laffer.

Her political hypocricy was one reason I couldn't see us in a long term
relationship.

I know so many Republicans who don't agree with the social agenda of the
Republicans, but support them purely for the money. Talk about selling your
soul to the devil. Hell, the only thing I agree with when it comes to the
Democrats is Choice, and treating people sort of fair. I'm only semi fond of
their environmental support. The rest of their agenda they could and should
flush down the toilet. I really hate both parties catering to insurance
interests and lawyers lobbies.

--
StephG

[Coby]

StephG wrote:
> Never ceases to amaze me how many people put their wallets before
> every other consideration in politics.
>
> I had a girlfriend who was an ardent feminist, had an abortion at one
> time and would do it again if necessary, and she was a Republican.
> Why? Because Democrats are "anti-business" and "pro-tax".
>
> Oh and she was rich, and had an MBA too. From Pepperdine University,
> home of Arthur Laffer.
>
> Her political hypocricy was one reason I couldn't see us in a long
> term relationship.

According to your standards, wouldn't she have been a hypocrite either way?

> I know so many Republicans who don't agree with the social agenda of
> the Republicans, but support them purely for the money. Talk about
> selling your soul to the devil.

Why is supporting one of the two parties for "social" reasons okay but
supporting the other one for "economic" reasons is not? One man's social
issue might be another man's economic issue, don't you think?

--
Coby
'69 Z28 '99 XX '01 FLSTF '01 XX '72 710M '03 Tiger

[StephG]

On 03 Apr 2004, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> smacked the keyboard and out
came news:31Bbc.64541$***@attbi_s01:

> StephG wrote:
>> Never ceases to amaze me how many people put their wallets before
>> every other consideration in politics.
>>
>> I had a girlfriend who was an ardent feminist, had an abortion at one
>> time and would do it again if necessary, and she was a Republican.
>> Why? Because Democrats are "anti-business" and "pro-tax".
>>
>> Oh and she was rich, and had an MBA too. From Pepperdine University,
>> home of Arthur Laffer.
>>
>> Her political hypocricy was one reason I couldn't see us in a long
>> term relationship.
>
> According to your standards, wouldn't she have been a hypocrite either
way?

The Republicans at the time used to talk about getting the government out
of people's lives. Of course they were only talking about business.

But if she'd been forced to bring a child to term, she wouldn't have been
able to continue studying in school, particularly a somewhat religious one
at that (which also wasn't *her* religion anyway), she wouldn't have had
the career that she was very happy with and proud of. Or all the money that
she felt necessitated being a Republican "trickle downer".

>> I know so many Republicans who don't agree with the social agenda of
>> the Republicans, but support them purely for the money. Talk about
>> selling your soul to the devil.
>
> Why is supporting one of the two parties for "social" reasons okay but
> supporting the other one for "economic" reasons is not? One man's social
> issue might be another man's economic issue, don't you think?

Not really. When it comes down to it, abortion is economically efficient.
Unwanted children, particularly from poor young women, tend to grow up to
be a problem for society later. End that problem, and the woman can
continue her studies, learn to respect education, and when it comes time to
have planned children, give them a better shot at a middle class life.
Everyone wins economically.

Unwanted children are costly to society. It is economically inconsistent to
force women to bring children to term when they don't want to.

But the religious conservatives feel that they are *socially* bound to
prevent this, as much as liberals seem to feel *socially* bound to support
unwanted children of poor families.

I think morally, if you're going to want to force someone to bring a new
human into the world, than you should also put the meat into that
philosophy and obligate society to pay for that child's upbringing so they
become productive members of society and not a drain on society (i.e.
through the prison system).

--
StephG

[Dale Peterson]

As usual done in a back door sneaky underhand way......... :)
Dale P

[Ben Kaufman]

On 3 Apr 2004 20:37:58 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 03 Apr 2004, "Coby" <c-***@comgo.fish> smacked the keyboard and out
>came news:31Bbc.64541$***@attbi_s01:
>
>> StephG wrote:
>>> Never ceases to amaze me how many people put their wallets before
>>> every other consideration in politics.
>>>
>>> I had a girlfriend who was an ardent feminist, had an abortion at one
>>> time and would do it again if necessary, and she was a Republican.
>>> Why? Because Democrats are "anti-business" and "pro-tax".
>>>
>>> Oh and she was rich, and had an MBA too. From Pepperdine University,
>>> home of Arthur Laffer.
>>>
>>> Her political hypocricy was one reason I couldn't see us in a long
>>> term relationship.
>>
>> According to your standards, wouldn't she have been a hypocrite either
>way?
>
>The Republicans at the time used to talk about getting the government out
>of people's lives. Of course they were only talking about business.
>
>But if she'd been forced to bring a child to term, she wouldn't have been
>able to continue studying in school, particularly a somewhat religious one
>at that (which also wasn't *her* religion anyway), she wouldn't have had
>the career that she was very happy with and proud of. Or all the money that
>she felt necessitated being a Republican "trickle downer".
>
>>> I know so many Republicans who don't agree with the social agenda of
>>> the Republicans, but support them purely for the money. Talk about
>>> selling your soul to the devil.
>>
>> Why is supporting one of the two parties for "social" reasons okay but
>> supporting the other one for "economic" reasons is not? One man's social
>> issue might be another man's economic issue, don't you think?
>
>Not really. When it comes down to it, abortion is economically efficient.
>Unwanted children, particularly from poor young women, tend to grow up to
>be a problem for society later. End that problem, and the woman can
>continue her studies, learn to respect education, and when it comes time to
>have planned children, give them a better shot at a middle class life.
>Everyone wins economically.
>
>Unwanted children are costly to society. It is economically inconsistent to
>force women to bring children to term when they don't want to.
>
>But the religious conservatives feel that they are *socially* bound to
>prevent this, as much as liberals seem to feel *socially* bound to support
>unwanted children of poor families.
>
>I think morally, if you're going to want to force someone to bring a new
>human into the world, than you should also put the meat into that
>philosophy and obligate society to pay for that child's upbringing so they
>become productive members of society and not a drain on society (i.e.
>through the prison system).

But which one is more likely to require pregnant women to have their fetuses
where helmet? ;-)

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[StephG]

On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
smacked the keyboard and out came
news:***@4ax.com:

> But which one is more likely to require pregnant women to have their
> fetuses where helmet? ;-)

That sounds like something Ralph Nader would propose.


--
StephG

[Ben Kaufman]

On 4 Apr 2004 00:17:48 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>smacked the keyboard and out came
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> But which one is more likely to require pregnant women to have their
>> fetuses where helmet? ;-)
>
>That sounds like something Ralph Nader would propose.

Nader would have a womb recall. Being suspended upside down, underwater for
months is dangerous.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Charles Soto]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 4 Apr 2004 00:17:48 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
> >smacked the keyboard and out came
> >news:***@4ax.com:
> >
> >> But which one is more likely to require pregnant women to have their
> >> fetuses where helmet? ;-)
> >
> >That sounds like something Ralph Nader would propose.
>
> Nader would have a womb recall. Being suspended upside down, underwater for
> months is dangerous.

That dude did it over the London Bridge, didn't he?

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

[Charles Soto]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:


> But which one is more likely to require pregnant women to have their fetuses
> where helmet? ;-)

Depends if they come out head first or breech.

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

[Ben Kaufman]

On 3 Apr 2004 08:47:57 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 02 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>smacked the keyboard and out came news:81ns609im4s6flpfklaoea8d5tlhvpf070@
>4ax.com:
>
>>>> Ah, and this is probably the reason he's against Gay marriage. What kid
>>>> raised by gay/lesbian parents is going to be a Republican?
>>>
>>>This kind:
>>>http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html
>>
>> OK, 6 people, big deal :-)
>
>Never ceases to amaze me how many people put their wallets before every other
>consideration in politics.
>
>I had a girlfriend who was an ardent feminist, had an abortion at one time
>and would do it again if necessary, and she was a Republican. Why? Because
>Democrats are "anti-business" and "pro-tax".
>
>Oh and she was rich, and had an MBA too. From Pepperdine University, home of
>Arthur Laffer.
>
>Her political hypocricy was one reason I couldn't see us in a long term
>relationship.
>
>I know so many Republicans who don't agree with the social agenda of the
>Republicans, but support them purely for the money. Talk about selling your
>soul to the devil. Hell, the only thing I agree with when it comes to the
>Democrats is Choice, and treating people sort of fair. I'm only semi fond of
>their environmental support. The rest of their agenda they could and should
>flush down the toilet. I really hate both parties catering to insurance
>interests and lawyers lobbies.

I don't belong to any political party. I just vote for the "best" candidate.


Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[StephG]

On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
smacked the keyboard and out came
news:***@4ax.com:

> I don't belong to any political party. I just vote for the "best"
> candidate.

So you pretty much don't vote?


--
StephG

[Ben Kaufman]

On 4 Apr 2004 00:16:17 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>smacked the keyboard and out came
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> I don't belong to any political party. I just vote for the "best"
>> candidate.
>
>So you pretty much don't vote?

It's usually the least of the evils.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 06:46:43 GMT, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:

>On 4 Apr 2004 00:16:17 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 03 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>>smacked the keyboard and out came
>>news:***@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I don't belong to any political party. I just vote for the "best"
>>> candidate.
>>
>>So you pretty much don't vote?
>
>It's usually the least of the evils.
>
>Ben
>
>http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

That didn't come out write.... I vote for who is usually the least of the
evils.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[StephG]

On 04 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
smacked the keyboard and out came
news:***@4ax.com:

>>It's usually the least of the evils.
>
> That didn't come out write.... I vote for who is usually the least of
> the evils.

It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and end
up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast for
the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they would
really not want to see in office.

--
StephG

[Ben Kaufman]

On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
>smacked the keyboard and out came
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>>>It's usually the least of the evils.
>>
>> That didn't come out write.... I vote for who is usually the least of
>> the evils.
>
>It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and end
>up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast for
>the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they would
>really not want to see in office.

I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last election, on
principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even though he is from a
state where Gore got the electorial votes.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Charles Soto]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 04 Apr 2004, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com>
> >smacked the keyboard and out came
> >news:***@4ax.com:
> >
> >>>It's usually the least of the evils.
> >>
> >> That didn't come out write.... I vote for who is usually the least of
> >> the evils.
> >
> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and
> >end
> >up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast
> >for
> >the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they
> >would
> >really not want to see in office.
>
> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last election, on
> principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even though he is from a
> state where Gore got the electorial votes.


I kind of feel the same, even though there's no chance in Heck Texas
wouldn't have been one of the "red states." However, this time, i think
the Demo crop has proved itself sufficiently worthy to endorse.

Sending another $100 to Kerry's campaign today. Going to offer to drive
people to the polls in Nov. too. Probably going to rent or borrow a
minivan for this (can't fit enough on El Guapo).

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

[StephG]

On 05 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:

>> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last
>> election, on principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even
>> though he is from a state where Gore got the electorial votes.
>
>
> I kind of feel the same, even though there's no chance in Heck Texas
> wouldn't have been one of the "red states." However, this time, i think
> the Demo crop has proved itself sufficiently worthy to endorse.
>
> Sending another $100 to Kerry's campaign today. Going to offer to drive
> people to the polls in Nov. too. Probably going to rent or borrow a
> minivan for this (can't fit enough on El Guapo).

However annoying Kerry is, he's vastly more interesting than Gore, and vastly
more intelligent than Bush. And he seems to rate significantly lower on the
"evil" quotient, mostly because he isn't associated with Dick "negotiating
for a good management position in hell" Cheney.

Good on ya offering to personally get the vote out.

With the expansion of Dallas and Houston attracting cosmopolitan people to
corporate headquarters in those cities, Texas ain't quite as rednecky on my
more recent visits, as it had been in the past. I mean, they elected a
Democrat woman to be governor, and even liberal California hasn't done that
yet.

OTOH, when you go to a restaurant, and order a salad, the waitress asks "and
how would you like your steak cooked on your salad, darlin'?" (I learned that
the right answer is "medium well")

--
StephG

[Margaret M.]

StephG wrote:

> OTOH, when you go to a restaurant, and order a salad, the
> waitress asks "and how would you like your steak cooked on your
> salad, darlin'?" (I learned that the right answer is "medium
> well")

Close. The actual answer is, "Still mooin', Darlin'."
Mag

[StephG]

On 05 Apr 2004, "Margaret M." <***@REMOVE.houston.rr.com> smacked the
keyboard and out came news:7Umcc.54609$***@fe1.texas.rr.com:

> StephG wrote:
>
>> OTOH, when you go to a restaurant, and order a salad, the
>> waitress asks "and how would you like your steak cooked on your
>> salad, darlin'?" (I learned that the right answer is "medium
>> well")
>
> Close. The actual answer is, "Still mooin', Darlin'."

Damn. I guess I'm still a "C" student ;)

--
StephG

[Charles Soto]

In article <***@130.133.1.4>,
StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
> keyboard and out came
> news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:
>
> >> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last
> >> election, on principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even
> >> though he is from a state where Gore got the electorial votes.
> >
> >
> > I kind of feel the same, even though there's no chance in Heck Texas
> > wouldn't have been one of the "red states." However, this time, i think
> > the Demo crop has proved itself sufficiently worthy to endorse.
> >
> > Sending another $100 to Kerry's campaign today. Going to offer to drive
> > people to the polls in Nov. too. Probably going to rent or borrow a
> > minivan for this (can't fit enough on El Guapo).
>
> However annoying Kerry is, he's vastly more interesting than Gore, and vastly
> more intelligent than Bush. And he seems to rate significantly lower on the
> "evil" quotient, mostly because he isn't associated with Dick "negotiating
> for a good management position in hell" Cheney.
>
> Good on ya offering to personally get the vote out.
>
> With the expansion of Dallas and Houston attracting cosmopolitan people to
> corporate headquarters in those cities, Texas ain't quite as rednecky on my
> more recent visits, as it had been in the past. I mean, they elected a
> Democrat woman to be governor, and even liberal California hasn't done that
> yet.
>
> OTOH, when you go to a restaurant, and order a salad, the waitress asks "and
> how would you like your steak cooked on your salad, darlin'?" (I learned that
> the right answer is "medium well")

Oh, Texas has gone WAY to the dark side since 'ol Ann left. I mean, the
booted her out for Dubya!

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096

[StephG]

On 05 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:

> Oh, Texas has gone WAY to the dark side since 'ol Ann left. I mean, the
> booted her out for Dubya!

There is a pragmatic aspect to this. The Republicans rule the country. Single
party rule. I've seen the ambitious road projects Texas is reaping. Getting
those federal pork dollars is a lot easier when your reps are in with the "in
crowd". They can deliver big time.

But then, Texas is the sort of state where undercover police officers are
sent to bust people in their own homes for talking about dildos.

Didn't ol' Ann ride a Harley?

--
StephG

[Charles Soto]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
> keyboard and out came
> news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:
>
> > Oh, Texas has gone WAY to the dark side since 'ol Ann left. I mean, the
> > booted her out for Dubya!
>
> There is a pragmatic aspect to this. The Republicans rule the country. Single
> party rule. I've seen the ambitious road projects Texas is reaping. Getting
> those federal pork dollars is a lot easier when your reps are in with the "in
> crowd". They can deliver big time.

They keep redoing the same fucking roads! And they're widening and
STRAIGHTENING some of the best roads out in the Hill Country! It's a
freakin' shame.


> But then, Texas is the sort of state where undercover police officers are
> sent to bust people in their own homes for talking about dildos.

Ayup. THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY DILDO FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!


> Didn't ol' Ann ride a Harley?

Only for a camera. But Ann's cool. Had dinner with her once. She's a
hoot.

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096

[StephG]

On 06 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:

> StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> There is a pragmatic aspect to this. The Republicans rule the country.
>> Single party rule. I've seen the ambitious road projects Texas is
>> reaping. Getting those federal pork dollars is a lot easier when your
>> reps are in with the "in crowd". They can deliver big time.
>
> They keep redoing the same fucking roads! And they're widening and
> STRAIGHTENING some of the best roads out in the Hill Country! It's a
> freakin' shame.

Welcome to Califor...I mean Texas. As if roads in Texas aren't straight
enough as it is.

>> But then, Texas is the sort of state where undercover police officers
>> are sent to bust people in their own homes for talking about dildos.
>
> Ayup. THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY DILDO FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

"MR. SOTO!! CHARLES SOTO!! COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP. WE SAW THAT POSTING
WHERE YOU SAID 'DILDO' ON USENET. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!! COME OUT WITH YOUR
HANDS UP!!"

>> Didn't ol' Ann ride a Harley?
>
> Only for a camera. But Ann's cool. Had dinner with her once. She's a
> hoot.

Maybe she can be Kerry's running mate. Does she like guns? Might pick up
some red states if she did ;)

--
StephG

[Margaret M.]

Charles Soto wrote:

>> But then, Texas is the sort of state where undercover police
>> officers are sent to bust people in their own homes for talking
>> about dildos.
>
> Ayup. THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY DILDO FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Let's hope it's your *hands* they have to take it from. ;-)
Mag

[Charles Soto]

"Margaret M." <***@REMOVE.houston.rr.com> wrote:

> Charles Soto wrote:
>
> >> But then, Texas is the sort of state where undercover police
> >> officers are sent to bust people in their own homes for talking
> >> about dildos.
> >
> > Ayup. THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY DILDO FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
>
> Let's hope it's your *hands* they have to take it from. ;-)

Leave no evidence!

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and end
> >up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast for
> >the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they would
> >really not want to see in office.
>
> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last election, on
> principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even though he is from a
> state where Gore got the electorial votes.

My objections to that line of thought are:

1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.

2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.

3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
candidate x because candidate y is even worse.

If you look back a little bit, you'll find the lesser of two evils
arguments applied to Johnson vs. Goldwater and Nixon vs. Humphrey.
I submit neither of these was a credible argument.

I think I'd prefer to sit an election out rather than buy into
a lesser of two evils argument. If you want votes, you'd better
earn them on your merits. I see Gore and Kerry as "good enough"
candidates to get my vote but I don't see anything your friend
should feel guilty about even looking at the Bush administration.

Blame the morons who voted for that jerk.

[StephG]

On 05 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:***@posting.google.com:

> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in
> message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG
>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together
>> >and end up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that
>> >isn't cast for the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the
>> >evils that they would really not want to see in office.
>>
>> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last
>> election, on principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even
>> though he is from a state where Gore got the electorial votes.
>
> My objections to that line of thought are:
>
> 1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
>
> 2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.
>
> 3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
> candidate x because candidate y is even worse.

Until the US becomes a parliamentary government, that's the reality of the
situation. Any other perception is a childish fantasy, one that has landed
us in a position where our environment is getting raped, we're occupying a
country for all the wrong reasons, spending huge sums of money that could
be more useful in the real fight against terrorism and running up a huge
debt while at the same time cutting taxes for assholes that are shipping
our fucking skilled labor jobs to India.

Had the clodpate Floridian shittards who threw their votes out on that
self-serving, egomaniacal, safety-Nazi socialist lawyer voted for Gore, we
would have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq, our energy policy wouldn't
have been drafted by the oil companies, we wouldn't be solidifying even
more enemies when we could be undermining them, and we might have some
sensible plans in place to reduce use of foreign oil so OPEC couldn't bend
us over without even the courtesy of using Vasoline.

All it would have taken is 500 Naderites casting their votes for Gore.
Their votes for Nader only served to set up a government that is now
controlled by a single party which boldly stands against every possible
thing they could have hoped for. For the first time in history, I hear
progressives secretly hoping some nut case will put a bullet in Nader's
brain and take him out once and for all, so we don't see our country
utterly destroyed by the one party rule we now live under. An ironic
position for people who are resolutely anti-gun to take. Nader himself is
so evil, he inspires the good to commit acts of evil to prevent a much
greater evil. To even consider that Nader is the lesser of the three evils
is so patently absurd, that the only explanation that makes any sense is
that his supporters have licked the bad blotter acid and have had their
ability to reason permanently impaired. It's frightening to think that
those people are driving on public highways with such a severe case of
reality impairment.

If your rainbow fantasy, HR Puffinstuff world is too loaded with fairy
tales and rainbows to see the world as it really is, and would rather see
the world plunged into WWIII or WWIV because you can't get everything you
want in a candidate, I don't understand how you can even make it through a
whole day without having your fragile ego mangled.

It's for this reason that people are pledging to beat the crap out of
anyone who votes for Ralph Nader this year. Not a very progressive or
liberal attitude to take. By people who aren't really very good fighters.
But probably better than the "greener than though" Naderites.

I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting the
shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and progressives.

--
StephG

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On 5 Apr 2004 22:26:04 GMT, StephG
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>the only explanation that makes any sense is
>that his supporters have licked the bad blotter acid and have had their
>ability to reason permanently impaired.

Textbook explanation for anyone calling themselves progressive,
alternative or liberal.

> It's frightening to think that those people are driving on public highways with such a severe case of
>reality impairment.

That's nothing... these same people also REPRODUCE!

>I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting the
>shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and progressives.

I'll settle for the Bush morons choking to death on their corndog at
the next NASCAR meet.

[Charles Soto]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
> keyboard and out came
> news:***@posting.google.com:
>
> > Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in
> > message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> >> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG
> >> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together
> >> >and end up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that
> >> >isn't cast for the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the
> >> >evils that they would really not want to see in office.
> >>
> >> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last
> >> election, on principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even
> >> though he is from a state where Gore got the electorial votes.
> >
> > My objections to that line of thought are:
> >
> > 1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
> >
> > 2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.
> >
> > 3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
> > candidate x because candidate y is even worse.
>
> Until the US becomes a parliamentary government, that's the reality of the
> situation. Any other perception is a childish fantasy, one that has landed
> us in a position where our environment is getting raped, we're occupying a
> country for all the wrong reasons, spending huge sums of money that could
> be more useful in the real fight against terrorism and running up a huge
> debt while at the same time cutting taxes for assholes that are shipping
> our fucking skilled labor jobs to India.
>
> Had the clodpate Floridian shittards who threw their votes out on that
> self-serving, egomaniacal, safety-Nazi socialist lawyer voted for Gore, we
> would have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq, our energy policy wouldn't
> have been drafted by the oil companies, we wouldn't be solidifying even
> more enemies when we could be undermining them, and we might have some
> sensible plans in place to reduce use of foreign oil so OPEC couldn't bend
> us over without even the courtesy of using Vasoline.
>
> All it would have taken is 500 Naderites casting their votes for Gore.
> Their votes for Nader only served to set up a government that is now
> controlled by a single party which boldly stands against every possible
> thing they could have hoped for. For the first time in history, I hear
> progressives secretly hoping some nut case will put a bullet in Nader's
> brain and take him out once and for all, so we don't see our country
> utterly destroyed by the one party rule we now live under. An ironic
> position for people who are resolutely anti-gun to take. Nader himself is
> so evil, he inspires the good to commit acts of evil to prevent a much
> greater evil. To even consider that Nader is the lesser of the three evils
> is so patently absurd, that the only explanation that makes any sense is
> that his supporters have licked the bad blotter acid and have had their
> ability to reason permanently impaired. It's frightening to think that
> those people are driving on public highways with such a severe case of
> reality impairment.
>
> If your rainbow fantasy, HR Puffinstuff world is too loaded with fairy
> tales and rainbows to see the world as it really is, and would rather see
> the world plunged into WWIII or WWIV because you can't get everything you
> want in a candidate, I don't understand how you can even make it through a
> whole day without having your fragile ego mangled.
>
> It's for this reason that people are pledging to beat the crap out of
> anyone who votes for Ralph Nader this year. Not a very progressive or
> liberal attitude to take. By people who aren't really very good fighters.
> But probably better than the "greener than though" Naderites.
>
> I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting the
> shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and progressives.


Ralph says shit that we need to hear. Just like Dean has been. Gore
lost to a fucking twit from New Haven.

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096

[StephG]

On 05 Apr 2004, Charles Soto <***@austin.meepmeep.com> smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:csoto-***@news-server-fe-01.texas.rr.com:

> Ralph says shit that we need to hear. Just like Dean has been. Gore
> lost to a fucking twit from New Haven.
>
> Charles

A lot of people say shit we need to hear. They're called pundits. They also
say a lot of shit that's such bullshit that only a product of the educational
system with no real world experience buys into them.

Just because he has something to say, or I have something to say, doesn't
mean we should be running for top office in the land with no political
experience whatsoever. Especially in a fragile political environment in which
progressives are outnumbered and outmaneuvered by regressives and theocrats.

You can afford being a joke candidate when the progressives are a part of the
balance of power. But in a situation like today, where we have one party
rule, insuring that we maintain that one party rule makes even more of a
mockery of our republic than trying to fool people into thinking that we're a
parliamentary government.

--
StephG

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
> On 05 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
> keyboard and out came
> news:***@posting.google.com:
>
> > Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in
> > message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> >> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG
> >> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together
> >> >and end up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that
> >> >isn't cast for the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the
> >> >evils that they would really not want to see in office.
> >>
> >> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last
> >> election, on principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even
> >> though he is from a state where Gore got the electorial votes.
> >
> > My objections to that line of thought are:
> >
> > 1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
> >
> > 2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.
> >
> > 3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
> > candidate x because candidate y is even worse.
>
> Until the US becomes a parliamentary government, that's the reality of the
> situation. Any other perception is a childish fantasy, one that has landed
> us in a position where our environment is getting raped, we're occupying a
> country for all the wrong reasons, spending huge sums of money that could
> be more useful in the real fight against terrorism and running up a huge
> debt while at the same time cutting taxes for assholes that are shipping
> our fucking skilled labor jobs to India.

While I've had no intention of voting for either Bush or Nader, I believe
my fellow Americans have the right to shoot themselves in the foot as
often as they wish to. I think Bush and Nader are both poor choices but
I'm not on a mission to save my fellow citizens from their own stupidity.

> It's for this reason that people are pledging to beat the crap out of
> anyone who votes for Ralph Nader this year. Not a very progressive or
> liberal attitude to take. By people who aren't really very good fighters.
> But probably better than the "greener than though" Naderites.
>
> I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting the
> shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and progressives.

If I see one frickin story of this kind, I believe I will vote for Nader.
I might vote for him anyway just to piss off the kind of assholes who think
this way. I'm also not hard to find in your local phone book.

[StephG]

On 06 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:***@posting.google.com:

> StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
>> Until the US becomes a parliamentary government, that's the reality of
>> the situation. Any other perception is a childish fantasy, one that has
>> landed us in a position where our environment is getting raped, we're
>> occupying a country for all the wrong reasons, spending huge sums of
>> money that could be more useful in the real fight against terrorism and
>> running up a huge debt while at the same time cutting taxes for
>> assholes that are shipping our fucking skilled labor jobs to India.
>
> While I've had no intention of voting for either Bush or Nader, I
> believe my fellow Americans have the right to shoot themselves in the
> foot as often as they wish to. I think Bush and Nader are both poor

It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. It is another entirely to
shoot everyone in the country in the foot.

>> I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting
>> the shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and
>> progressives.
>
> If I see one frickin story of this kind, I believe I will vote for
> Nader. I might vote for him anyway just to piss off the kind of assholes
> who think this way. I'm also not hard to find in your local phone book.

Ah, going for the "deliberate irony" approach. How original.

--
StephG

[Henry Hansteen]

StephG wrote:

> It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. It is another
> entirely to shoot everyone in the country in the foot.

Hell, the ignorant fools who voted for the tragic moron bu$h,
shot the entire Planet in the foot. That's why I devote so much
time to liberating them from their increasingly costly
ignorance.


-

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/
http://www.911forthetruth.com/united_states_district_court.htm
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...


"Personally, I don't think all the Iraqis on earth are
worth even a single American life." - A usenet rabid
right wing extremist terrorist.

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@130.133.1.4>...

> > While I've had no intention of voting for either Bush or Nader, I
> > believe my fellow Americans have the right to shoot themselves in the
> > foot as often as they wish to. I think Bush and Nader are both poor
>
> It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. It is another entirely to
> shoot everyone in the country in the foot.

And that's the wonderful thing about democracy isn't it ?

> >> I look forward to reading the news reports of Nader supporters getting
> >> the shit stomped out of them by otherwise passive liberals and
> >> progressives.
> >
> > If I see one frickin story of this kind, I believe I will vote for
> > Nader. I might vote for him anyway just to piss off the kind of assholes
> > who think this way. I'm also not hard to find in your local phone book.
>
> Ah, going for the "deliberate irony" approach. How original.

Whatever. In the late sixties, the fifteen year old brother of a
friend I knew was murdered on his way home from picketing
a George Wallace rally. This really isn't funny stuff.

Anyway, to return to the original topic it seems as if some people
think votes are somehow owed to their party. It's a little hard to
fathom why anyone would think this way. I kinda figure that you earn
votes by carefully shaping your platform to include issues important
to these people.

[StephG]

On 07 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:***@posting.google.com:

> StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> > While I've had no intention of voting for either Bush or Nader, I
>> > believe my fellow Americans have the right to shoot themselves in the
>> > foot as often as they wish to. I think Bush and Nader are both poor
>>
>> It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. It is another entirely
>> to shoot everyone in the country in the foot.
>
> And that's the wonderful thing about democracy isn't it ?

If it was actually democracy, Gore would have won. He got more votes. What
we actually have is something else, with an electoral college designed to
give the citizens of less populous states more of a vote than those of more
populous states. Each state gets at least three electoral votes regardless
of their population.

> Whatever. In the late sixties, the fifteen year old brother of a
> friend I knew was murdered on his way home from picketing
> a George Wallace rally. This really isn't funny stuff.

Neither is using a protest vote that resulted in the deaths of thousands of
people. There is a direct connection between every vote for Ralph Nader in
Florida and George Bush winning Florida's electoral votes in the closest
contest in US history. And there is a direct connection between George Bush
and the debacle of Iraq.

A different conclusion might also be in order for George Bush's complete
disregard of the danger of terrorism to the US, because he was pushing for
that imbecilic anti-missile system over all other military and security
concerns.

So yeah, while I might be happy to hear of a bruised Nader supporter, and I
certainly wouldn't want it to go as far as murder, everyone who voted for
Nader in Florida has the blood of Iraq, and maybe even 911 on their hands.

The Bush supporters of course have the same, but they don't care. I think
if the blood stuck to their hands, the Nader supporters would care. They're
just too fucking irresponsible, gormless connect the dots.

> Anyway, to return to the original topic it seems as if some people
> think votes are somehow owed to their party. It's a little hard to
> fathom why anyone would think this way. I kinda figure that you earn
> votes by carefully shaping your platform to include issues important
> to these people.

The recent crazy recall in California illustrated precisely what the
problem with modern politics really is: primaries.

If the Republicans had a primary to select the candidate for the California
recall, it would have been some hyper-conservative anti-abortion, anti-gay,
pro-prayer-in-schools right wing nut case like they always select for
election to governor. With a wide open field, you got a famous moderate
with a foot each in left and right ideologies who represents the great
center of the political spectrum, instead of dividing it down the middle
and catering to the extreme but reliable fringes as the parties insist on
doing lately.

The primary process where the party can only vote on their own candidates
creates a situation where the insignificant fringes become a crucial
component to winning.

This is really why you have to tear apart the platforms of both parties
line by line, and figure out who is going to do the most damage by being
elected, and vote against them. It's a reprehensible system, that for some
reason occasionally works. Largely because a candidate misrepresented
themselves to the minority fringe element. It becomes a disaster when they
get into office, and it turns out they were a lot more serious about
appealing to their extremist elements, as GWB is to the extremist right.
Who amazingly don't even see themselves as extremists any more.

And results are important. Through the Florida Nader voters, they left the
US with a defacto single party rule. Their childish protest vote will cost
America for the next 30 years (the term of the bonds issued to cover the
national debt). You have to get real. If you don't have a candidate you
really want in office, you MUST vote against the candidate that you think
will cause the most damage by being in office. Any other viewpoint is
unrealistic. And in fact, such "spoiler" candidates may actually be a tool
of one party against another in a close race, where financial support is
given by say, the Republican party, to Nader, so that he can siphon votes
off of Kerry this year. Republican operatives admitted that they used that
strategy to win the election in 2000.

Of course, it didn't hurt that 12 years of Republican presidents put a
loyal conservative majority on the bench of the Supreme Court so the favor
for appointment could be returned, and the conservatives could retire and
be replaced by more like them if they wanted to.

--
StephG

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
> On 07 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
> keyboard and out came
> news:***@posting.google.com:
>
> > StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
> >
> >> > While I've had no intention of voting for either Bush or Nader, I
> >> > believe my fellow Americans have the right to shoot themselves in the
> >> > foot as often as they wish to. I think Bush and Nader are both poor
> >>
> >> It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. It is another entirely
> >> to shoot everyone in the country in the foot.
> >
> > And that's the wonderful thing about democracy isn't it ?
>
> If it was actually democracy, Gore would have won. He got more votes. What
> we actually have is something else, with an electoral college designed to
> give the citizens of less populous states more of a vote than those of more
> populous states. Each state gets at least three electoral votes regardless
> of their population.

I think you've gone back and forth a little bit about the U.S. political
system. On the one hand, you argue for staying inside a two party system.
On the other, you are definitely less than happy about the results it produces.

I do see some attraction in other models, especially parliamentary systems,
but I'll argue that third parties are important in the U.S. as well, if
for no other reason than keeping the two major parties responsive to
their constituents. Best example of this is probably the Teddy Roosevelt
bull moose progressive candidacy. I'll also argue that it was important
not to support the democratic party in '68 even if that brought Nixon
into office.

>
> > Whatever. In the late sixties, the fifteen year old brother of a
> > friend I knew was murdered on his way home from picketing
> > a George Wallace rally. This really isn't funny stuff.
>
> Neither is using a protest vote that resulted in the deaths of thousands of
> people. There is a direct connection between every vote for Ralph Nader in
> Florida and George Bush winning Florida's electoral votes in the closest
> contest in US history. And there is a direct connection between George Bush
> and the debacle of Iraq.
>
> A different conclusion might also be in order for George Bush's complete
> disregard of the danger of terrorism to the US, because he was pushing for
> that imbecilic anti-missile system over all other military and security
> concerns.
>
> So yeah, while I might be happy to hear of a bruised Nader supporter, and I
> certainly wouldn't want it to go as far as murder, everyone who voted for
> Nader in Florida has the blood of Iraq, and maybe even 911 on their hands.

I kinda figure that either you support the right to vote for a candidate of
your choice or you don't. Lots of people have in fact taken beatings
and occasionally died for those voter rights. The argument made by the side
administering the beatings seemed to be that they knew what was best
for everybody and these other folks ought to understand that. I'm
not a big fan of intimidators like that even if they say they're liberals.
So how much of a beating is OK in your book ?

> The Bush supporters of course have the same, but they don't care. I think
> if the blood stuck to their hands, the Nader supporters would care. They're
> just too fucking irresponsible, gormless connect the dots.

By and large, they're going to pay for bad decisions just the same way
you will, maybe more heavily. Some have got kids in Iraq and it's their
kids (and mine) who will have to pay off the debts incurred. When you
hear somebody talk about being unemployed, uninsured and looking forward
to another four years of Bush it does make you stop and wonder, but
you kinda figure sooner or later a clue may come their way.

[StephG]

On 08 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:***@posting.google.com:

> StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> If it was actually democracy, Gore would have won. He got more votes.
>> What we actually have is something else, with an electoral college
>> designed to give the citizens of less populous states more of a vote
>> than those of more populous states. Each state gets at least three
>> electoral votes regardless of their population.
>
> I think you've gone back and forth a little bit about the U.S. political
> system. On the one hand, you argue for staying inside a two party
> system. On the other, you are definitely less than happy about the
> results it produces.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines." from "Self Reliance" by Ralph
Waldo Emerson

The two party system would be workable if the electoral system were not
"winner take all", but votes were proportionally assigned. And there's a
right way and wrong way to do that also. The wrong way would be to assign
the electors by their gerrymandered congressional districts. The right way
would be blind proportional distribution in each state.

That way, someone like Nader would have gotten his electors in Florida, and
seeing the choice between a Gore and Bush presidency, would have had to
make the very public denial of electors to Gore, or could have thrown his
electors toward him. Ross Perot could have done the same for Bush Sr. or
maybe Bob Dole as well.

> I do see some attraction in other models, especially parliamentary
> systems, but I'll argue that third parties are important in the U.S. as
> well, if for no other reason than keeping the two major parties
> responsive to their constituents. Best example of this is probably the

This would be true if the third parties represented truly significant
groups of people. Unfortunately, in a close race it would give them power
out of proportion to their actual representation of the population.

If the third party represents a constructive platform, this can benefit
society. But generally, they represent highly destructive platforms. You
might think Nader is constructive, but what if the KKK formed a political
party?

I'm also on the fence about how responsive political parties *should* be to
their constituents. If you had a consistently educated populace that kept
itself fully aware of current events, I'd agree.

And even in parliamentary government, you still get coalitions. In the end,
you have the two party system anyway. But you have small minorities free to
shift their allegiances at a moment's notice to get their own pork,
resulting in wild and sudden shifts of power, making them powerful out of
proportion to their representation.

We already have enough of that in our two party system, with the socialists
in the Democratic party and the religious zealots in the Republican party.
The group that is most under-represented lately seems to be the vast
middle, because those small, but large in comparison to the combined size
of all the "third parties", constituencies get out the vote and just make
that little extra difference between success and defeat.

Still, what we have is a two party system. Period. Periodically, a populist
can make their way through the muddle as an independent, but they won't
represent a party. They'll represent their own platform, and if they want
to be successful, it'll borrow from the two existing parties.

If you started to make third parties feasible, it wouldn't stop with third
parties. And you'd have some groups being represented and getting law
passed in the US that you'd prefer to see continue to go unrepresented.

Lastly, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to make a greater-than-
two-party system feasible. Because congressional districts as well as
selection of electors in presidential elections are determined by the
states, according to the Constitution as it now stands, it is the
individual states which stand in the way of reforming the system. States
which go it alone wind up with weakened representation, as the two party
system will tend to attack third parties (as they have historically done).
*Only* a national Constitutional Amendment can fix that, and it ain't gonna
happen. Because the two parties are in charge of the federal representation
in Congress, and at the moment all of the governorships. An independent or
third party could conceivably win the presidency, but it would be an
ineffective presidency even with a populist president.

The current system usually works as long as there is some form of split in
party control over the lever of government. If you have a Democrat in the
White House and a Republican Congress, or a Republican in the White House
and a Democratic Congress, or the House or Senate are of different parties,
then the system works. Thanks to Nader, regardless of the ways in which
Gore lost other states, the full control of the government was handed over
to a single party, with only the filibuster holding the Republicans back.
The Republicans even control the Supreme Court.

And this is why you must have *only* a two party system under the current
Constitution. A third party interferes with the swinging of the political
pendulum, and just when it appears it might swing one way when the mood of
the populace shifts overall slightly from the midpoint of the political
bell curve, the third party which caters to a specialized element of that
side of the curve siphons off just enough support to send the pendulum back
in the other direction.

Voices handed over to a third party are wasted. They can make the losing
half that lost as a result angry not only at the participants, the voters
who voted for them, and the system that allowed this to happen, but they
may become hostile to the message even if it's a good one. Nader mortally
wounded the cause of anti-corporatism just when that movement had the
greatest amount of evidence to rally public support to its side. He also
mortally wounded, as a representative of the "Green Party", the cause of a
more active environmentalism. Don't underestimate the hostility that people
have toward Nader and the causes he represented in the 2000 election.

Had the same effort been put into lobbying and supporting the Democrats,
some effect would have been felt and seen, there would have been access to
a voice in the elected body politic, and possibly some of those policy
positions might have made their way, reasonably compromised for the sake of
reality, into law. Instead, not only did the Greens get zero, but they lost
a huge amount of ground on *every* position, ground that may take several
election cycles and maybe *decades* to fix. And if the conservative
majority in the Supreme Court is widened as a result, most certainly
decades.

> I kinda figure that either you support the right to vote for a candidate
> of your choice or you don't. Lots of people have in fact taken beatings

This is, in fact, a naive simplification of the world. It's a denial of
responsibility by hiding behind rights. The Naderites have refused to take
responsibility for their vote that plunged the country further into one
party, conservative rule, by hiding behind that right.

With rights, comes the obligation to use that right responsibly.

The attitude of the Naderites is similar to the attitude of an
environmentalist terrorist that wants to save wildlife by killing every
human alive. They were and are willing to burn the whole world down if they
don't get their way.

Fuck them and their voting rights. And more to the point, if they're still
commited to Nader after a few of them get a beating to speak up in public
support of him, then that shows real commitment, not just childish
petulance.

I wonder if anyone would be willing to die for Ralph Nader. That would be
ironic, given his lifelong dedication to trying to make the world safer for
stupid people.

> By and large, they're going to pay for bad decisions just the same way
> you will, maybe more heavily. Some have got kids in Iraq and it's their
> kids (and mine) who will have to pay off the debts incurred. When you
> hear somebody talk about being unemployed, uninsured and looking forward
> to another four years of Bush it does make you stop and wonder, but
> you kinda figure sooner or later a clue may come their way.

I think many, when they voted for Nader, were young and single and
influenced by the stupidity of youth (and a lot of people never outgrow
that). It's hard to imagine someone who was married, supporting a family,
supporting Nader. In the great way that things distribute themselves in
bell curves, of course those people existed. But it's even more difficult
to imagine anyone with kids old enough to fight *now* voting for Nader.
People with teenage children seem to be more acutely aware of youthful
ignorance, and strive to separate themselves from it.

My personal opinion of why Bush won, was on a single, simple issue. Guns.
Gore's support of gun control lost him his home state, and every state that
has a large rural population. 90,000 people lost him the electors from
Florida, but there are 40 million gun owners who are law abiding citizens
in this country, and that's a large chunk of the population to piss off.
Far more than enough to shift the balance of power. Far more than the
number of unemployed. The uninsured don't know they have a problem until
they get very sick, and that's a very small subset of the uninsured. Most
of them will get treatment anyway, so they aren't too worried about it.

And of course, for the Republican and unemployed, it's going to be someone
else's fault anyway, most likely minorities and affirmative action.

--
StephG

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@130.133.1.4>...

>
> > I kinda figure that either you support the right to vote for a candidate
> > of your choice or you don't. Lots of people have in fact taken beatings
>
> This is, in fact, a naive simplification of the world. It's a denial of
> responsibility by hiding behind rights. The Naderites have refused to take
> responsibility for their vote that plunged the country further into one
> party, conservative rule, by hiding behind that right.
>
> With rights, comes the obligation to use that right responsibly.

Bullshit. Using a vote responsibly is between the voter and his or her
conscience and none of your damn business.

You're claiming to be a better judge than the voter is of "use that
right
responsibly" and are OK with attempting to coerce votes by
intimidation.

Invoking Godwins law, if you're really OK with beating the snot out of
a Nader voter to teach them the error of their ways, you have more in
common
with the klansmen than you might care to believe.

[StephG]

On 09 Apr 2004, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) smacked the
keyboard and out came
news:***@posting.google.com:

> StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
>
>>
>> > I kinda figure that either you support the right to vote for a
>> > candidate of your choice or you don't. Lots of people have in fact
>> > taken beatings
>>
>> This is, in fact, a naive simplification of the world. It's a denial of
>> responsibility by hiding behind rights. The Naderites have refused to
>> take responsibility for their vote that plunged the country further
>> into one party, conservative rule, by hiding behind that right.
>>
>> With rights, comes the obligation to use that right responsibly.
>
> Bullshit. Using a vote responsibly is between the voter and his or her
> conscience and none of your damn business.

Of course it's my damn business. Just as it's someone's damn business to
pass helmet laws and maintain a federal safety organization dedicated to
passing and opposing removal of helmet laws.

Just as it's a woman's business if someone is voting for someone who will
take her rights to control her own body away.

The way *other* people vote is intrinsically tied to the things that are
our own "business".

> You're claiming to be a better judge than the voter is of "use that
> right responsibly" and are OK with attempting to coerce votes by
> intimidation.

I'm OK with other people doing it. I don't really possess that self-
confidence and certitude to do it myself.

> Invoking Godwins law, if you're really OK with beating the snot out of
> a Nader voter to teach them the error of their ways, you have more in
> common with the klansmen than you might care to believe.

Well, except that I don't really support beating people for their race, or
religion, or sexual orientation, or any of the stuff that's not as easy to
change as an opinion or a decision to punish the entire country because
they can't get their way.

I realize it's a fine point, but too much democracy dooms a country. That's
why we're a republic and not a direct democracy. Well that, and it was a
compromise to allow for "regional representation" rather than
"philosophical representation". And that the founders thought that most
people were pretty much incapable of really understanding what was going on
and if they had direct democracy, would destroy the nation by voting their
own personal interests.

I realize that admiring physical violence in this case is really just a
more hyperbolic way of saying that such people should be shunned and
treated as the pariahs that they really deserve to be treated as by their
fellow, more practical, progressives. Peer pressure is the more civilized
way of accomplishing much the same thing, but if the displeasure goes as
far as usually non-violent progressives unleashing the inner beast and
kicking the shit out of a Nader supporter, the irony *combined* with the
satisfaction of explaining the intensity of belief in a deeply personal and
hard to ignore way, has a sort of simple appeal to me.

Sorry if that offends you. But then again, I'm not going to be the one to
dispense the violence personally, because I'm a good progressive and
wouldn't want to go to jail for my beliefs or make any other personal
sacrifice.

--
StephG

[Charles Soto]

***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) wrote:

> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@4ax.com>...
> > On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and
> > >end
> > >up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast
> > >for
> > >the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they
> > >would
> > >really not want to see in office.
> >
> > I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last election, on
> > principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even though he is from
> > a
> > state where Gore got the electorial votes.
>
> My objections to that line of thought are:
>
> 1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
>
> 2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.
>
> 3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
> candidate x because candidate y is even worse.
>
> If you look back a little bit, you'll find the lesser of two evils
> arguments applied to Johnson vs. Goldwater and Nixon vs. Humphrey.
> I submit neither of these was a credible argument.
>
> I think I'd prefer to sit an election out rather than buy into
> a lesser of two evils argument. If you want votes, you'd better
> earn them on your merits. I see Gore and Kerry as "good enough"
> candidates to get my vote but I don't see anything your friend
> should feel guilty about even looking at the Bush administration.

I had just this argument waiting in line at a club in 1999.


> Blame the morons who voted for that jerk.

You said it!

Charles
(check out my new .sig!)

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Donate to John Kerry's presidential campaign:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/index.html?source_code=00018096

[Ben Kaufman]

On 5 Apr 2004 14:28:56 -0700, ***@aol.com (Rob Kleinschmidt) wrote:

>Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Apr 2004 07:15:21 GMT, StephG <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub together and end
>> >up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize that the vote that isn't cast for
>> >the least of two evils is a vote for the greater of the evils that they would
>> >really not want to see in office.
>>
>> I know someone who voted for Nader instead of Gore in the last election, on
>> principle, and he's still on a guilt trip about it, even though he is from a
>> state where Gore got the electorial votes.
>
>My objections to that line of thought are:
>
>1) The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
>
>2) I am greatly offended by any party that thinks it owns my vote.
>
>3) I'm not a big fan of the argument that you should vote for
> candidate x because candidate y is even worse.
>
>If you look back a little bit, you'll find the lesser of two evils
>arguments applied to Johnson vs. Goldwater and Nixon vs. Humphrey.
>I submit neither of these was a credible argument.
>
>I think I'd prefer to sit an election out rather than buy into
>a lesser of two evils argument. If you want votes, you'd better
>earn them on your merits. I see Gore and Kerry as "good enough"
>candidates to get my vote but I don't see anything your friend
>should feel guilty about even looking at the Bush administration.
>
>Blame the morons who voted for that jerk.

I would sit out an election out ONLY if they were equally bad.
The lessor of two evils is the better choice, even if it's picking one's
execution method.

As for blaming the voters, I can't speak for this person but given what Bush has
already done, as opposed to what doom and gloom his opponents may have painted
of him four years ago, I will blame those who vote for him this time around.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Hank]

StephG wrote:

> It's funny how many people don't have two brain cells to rub
> together and end up voting for a Nader or Perot, and realize
> that the vote that isn't cast for the least of two evils is
> a vote for the greater of the evils that they would really
> not want to see in office.

What's pathetic, is the fact that many people with billions
of brain cells, are completely unable to use them. They "think"
that it's wrong to make sacrifices based on courage, integrity,
and principle. These people have no spine, no self respect,
and are easily manipulated at the first sign of sacrifice or
hardship. They are a very weak and pathetic lot who really
don't appreciate or deserve the rights and freedoms that so
many have died for.


-

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

[Chris Hornberger]

"Vote Republican!" <***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote in message
news:***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Our Great President has just signed into law the
> long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of
> Congress. Excellent! This means that "pro-killer"
> abortion advocates had better run and hide their
> pointed little Anti-Xian heads in shame, because
> the law of the land now favors what God's immuta-
> ble Law clearly states to be fruitful & multiply!
>

So, you'll personally pay for and raise all the children of rape and incest?

[Margaret M.]

Vote Republican! wrote:

> bility like we've routinely done in the past. If
> abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have a-
> bortions, with rates of sexual promiscuity among
> adolescents quickly plummeting. This spells "dis-
> aster" for the Hollywood, cable & satellite tele-
> vision smut machine, and will make the Hollywood

When you wake up from that dream...

Anyone got stock in metal coathangers?

As for Hollywood, it has always been a smut machine...ever since they
let Clark Gable get away with saying Damn on the big screen.
Heathens. We're all going to burn in hell.
Mag

[Stephen K. Gielda]

In article <***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org>,
***@us.gov.rules.the.world says...
> Our Great President has just signed into law the
> long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of
> Congress. Excellent! This means that "pro-killer"
> abortion advocates had better run and hide their
> pointed little Anti-Xian heads in shame, because
> the law of the land now favors what God's immuta-
> ble Law clearly states to be fruitful & multiply!
>
>

The measure applies only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is
being committed against the pregnant mother. It does not affect Roe vs
Wade at all.

/steve
--
You simply cannot get more server side control of
your e-mail without running your own mail server and
knowing how to program.
http://www.cotse.net/privacyservice.html

[Paul Cassel]

Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
>
> The measure applies only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is
> being committed against the pregnant mother. It does not affect Roe
> vs Wade at all.
>
You ever heard of the nose of the camel coming under the tent? The point of
that story is once the nose, soon the camel. If you doubt it, look at the
restrictions we have now on private ownership of firearms. The NRA was
helpless to stop the nose and now the rest of the camel is slowly creeping
in.

Watch the ability to acquire an abortion go the same way. Dude - where' s my
country?

-paul

[Capitalist Pig]

Yeah the mother can kill her unborn child, but the father gets accused of a
double murder. Sounds like the liberal's idea of justice.........perveted

Capitalist Pig


"Stephen K. Gielda" <***@packetderm.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:***@news.newsreader.com...
> In article <***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org>,
> ***@us.gov.rules.the.world says...
> > Our Great President has just signed into law the
> > long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of
> > Congress. Excellent! This means that "pro-killer"
> > abortion advocates had better run and hide their
> > pointed little Anti-Xian heads in shame, because
> > the law of the land now favors what God's immuta-
> > ble Law clearly states to be fruitful & multiply!
> >
> >
>
> The measure applies only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is
> being committed against the pregnant mother. It does not affect Roe vs
> Wade at all.
>
> /steve
> --
> You simply cannot get more server side control of
> your e-mail without running your own mail server and
> knowing how to program.
> http://www.cotse.net/privacyservice.html

[Rolavine]

>Subject: Re: "Roe vs Wade" is DEAD! Hip-Hip-Hurrah President Bush!
>From: "Capitalist Pig" ***@whitehouse.org
>Date: 4/3/2004 2:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <***@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Yeah the mother can kill her unborn child, but the father gets accused of a
>double murder. Sounds like the liberal's idea of justice.........perveted
>
>Capitalist Pig
>
>

Interesting your use of the word father here, not a murderer but a father?

As far as a liberals idea of justice, yes, I think the law is as close to
justice as we can get. This is the real world and nothing is perfect.

How can any law that demands that a women grow something she does not want in
her body ever be considered moral?

Liberals, real conservatives (honorable people that like liberals let objective
information guide their views - Not DittoHeads) and Libertarians all realize
that these decisions are best left to the people involved, who are the only
ones that would be in a position to realize all the implications, and that this
is a fundamental kind of freedom.

If you demand freedom for yourself while preaching the removal of freedom from
others, well that is perverted! And worse than perverted, you must ask, where
will that lead us?

Yes, liberal justice is the best kind.

Rocky

Happiness is Bush and my NightHawk, both out.

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 14:06:50 -0800, "Capitalist Pig"
<***@whitehouse.org> wrote:

>Yeah the mother can kill her unborn child, but the father gets accused of a
>double murder. Sounds like the liberal's idea of justice.........perveted

The Konservatives' version of justice:

Father and mother go to jail cause abortion is murder.

Liberals go to jail because agitating against the government is
terrorism.

Minorities go to jail if they're dealing drugs.

Fat white guys who deal drugs don't and they still recieve the
dividends from their investments in the private-contractor prison
system.

Hispanic and black kids get sent to the front lines first.

Fat white guys root for our troops from the comfort of their living
room sofa.

You show some tit and the FCC screams bloody murder.

George W takes a runny crap during his state of the union speech and
you call it the best thing since sliced bread whilst slathering it all
over your sandwich.

[Miss-G-]

I dont live in the US so this doesn't really apply to me. And if you really
believed in Gods law you should have at least seven wives. Muslims are much
better at upholding natural law if you go by those rules!

Made by choice.
Miss-G-

P.S. Obligatory pointing out that this really doesn't belong in
alt.fashion. Or rec.motorcycles. Or...nevermind, your lack of lateral
thinking doesn't reflect well on those you represent.

"Vote Republican!" <***@us.gov.rules.the.world> wrote in message
news:***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Our Great President has just signed into law the
> long-awaited "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of
> Congress. Excellent! This means that "pro-killer"
> abortion advocates had better run and hide their
> pointed little Anti-Xian heads in shame, because
> the law of the land now favors what God's immuta-
> ble Law clearly states to be fruitful & multiply!
>
> I really like this law because Scott Peterson is
> obviously guilty of murdering his wife and child,
> so his scumbag criminal defense attorney doesn't
> dare draw further attention to his guilty client
> such that the Act of Congress signed into law by
> President Bush is named after Peterson's victims!
>
> What's Garagos gonna say? "Your honor, my client
> can't get a fair trial anywhere in the US, since
> Congress--and the President of the United States
> of America--enacted this 'Laci & Conner' law, so
> all charges against my irrefutably guilty client
> should be dismissed, on the grounds of his guilt.
> No jury on Earth could assume my guilty client's
> innocence until proven guilty, but rather see it
> as automatically guilty as will be proved guilty
> in a court of law. My client hasn't got a prayer!"
>
> And Roe vs Wade is history too, since any unborn
> child is now protected by federal law, Oh my God!
> Now we can't even have first trimester abortions,
> but will have to teach our children abstinence &
> responsibility instead of decadence & irresponsi-
> bility like we've routinely done in the past. If
> abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have a-
> bortions, with rates of sexual promiscuity among
> adolescents quickly plummeting. This spells "dis-
> aster" for the Hollywood, cable & satellite tele-
> vision smut machine, and will make the Hollywood
> heathen leftist liberal communists look very bad,
> even though they always have looked like dogshit.
>
> Made in America,
> Daniel Joseph Min
> ________________________________________________________
>
> PS be sure to bookmark and visit these websites today:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly
> http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes
>
> *Vietnam Veterans Against Commie Kerry:
> http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
>
> *Commie Kerry's Growing Popularity Among Terrorists:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@posting.google.com
>
> *News Commentary on Commie Kerry's "Lily-White Ass"!
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
>
> *Min's Commentary on Mel Gibson's "Passion":
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
>
> *Min's Last Word on Homosexual Marriage & Armageddon:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
>
> *Min's Commentary on Homosexual Marriage:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
>
> *Min's Newsgroup-Archived Home Page On The World Wide Web:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@Gilgamesh-frog.org
> `
> `
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBQG3kkZljD7YrHM/nEQJy0QCfXw0/JoNPathEo9riXCLqzgLWTQYAn1CP
> 6FXiSxyI+e3QaNewCarG8hcB
> =J0QM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
> `
> `
> `
>
> ` `
> `
>
> ` `
>
>
> `
>

[klm]

"Miss-G-" <***@NOSPAMcyberchiq.com> wrote in message
news:N07bc.136060$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I dont live in the US so this doesn't really apply to me. And if you
really
> believed in Gods law you should have at least seven wives. Muslims are
much
> better at upholding natural law if you go by those rules!

Yes, that's why God took seven of Adam's ribs.

[Wayne S Garmil]

In article <N07bc.136060$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Miss-G-
<***@NOSPAMcyberchiq.com> wrote:
>And if you really >believed in Gods law you should have at least
>seven wives.

*shudder* having one wife was bad enough (I am now divorced), but to
have seven?

Actually, that may work out better, since the reason for my divorce
was the lack of common interestes between myself and my ex-wife (that
and the disgreement on kids vs no-kids, but lack of liking to do any
of the same things was also a big part of the split). Having multiple
wives to cover all the interests I want to share probably would work
out better for everyone.

And I assume wives are allowed to have multiple huspands as well. Got
to be fair and share the misery. :-)

Wayne




--
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | -Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"

[Hank]

"Vote Republican!" wrote:

< nothing worth quoting >


Are you John Burt, the right wing extremist, anti-choice
child molester who hates woman, loves violence, and abuses
children?



From The Associated Press, 4/1/04:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA9NW4IJSD.html

Panhandle Abortion Activist Convicted in Molestation Case

By Bill Kaczor Associated Press Writer


MILTON, Fla. (AP) -

An activist with links to anti-abortion violence was convicted on five
molestation charges Thursday.

John Burt, 66, showed no outward emotion as he stood listening to the
verdict. Circuit Judge Ron Swanson ordered Burt held without bond
pending sentencing May 12.

Burt was convicted on five counts of lewd or lascivious molestation or
conduct with a child under 16, and faces a sentence range of probation
to 15 years in prison on each count.

Burt was accused of touching a 15-year-old girl on her breasts, groin
and buttocks, forcing her hand to the crotch of his pants and writing
her a note propositioning sex last year at a home for troubled teens
he and his wife ran in this Florida Panhandle city.

The girl, now 16, testified Tuesday over a satellite television link
from Northern Ireland, where she now lives.

Jurors also heard from another girl who accused Burt of improperly
touching her and masturbating in front of her although not charged
with any crimes in her case.

Defense lawyer Nicole Ferry said she was surprised by the verdict.

"John's been very vocal in his pro-life activities and I believe that
that probably factored into it," Ferry said.

Burt had associated with two men who committed anti-abortion murders
in nearby Pensacola during the mid-1990s.

Michael Griffin is serving a life sentence for fatally shooting an
abortion doctor and Paul Hill was executed last year for the shooting
deaths of another doctor and a clinic escort.

In the 1980s, Burt served jail time for bursting into a clinic and
damaging equipment and demonstrated in support of two young couples
who bombed three clinics, all in Pensacola.

Bo Davison, a volunteer clinic escort, attended the trial and was
happy with the verdict.

"I think he was certainly the leader of those deaths, the instigator,"
Davison said.

The molestation victim's father, a state employee from Boynton Beach,
said he hoped the verdict will be a turning point for his daughter.

He said he sent her to the Burts at Our Father's House because neither
he nor his ex-wife, who lives in Northern Ireland, could control her.

"This will be one thing my daughter will be able to, hopefully, build
on, that there was a positive belief in what she did, and that
everything came out, that she did tell the truth and she did the right
thing," he said.




-


http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...