Filed under: Aids
Question:
The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, but had a right to be on account of their youth. The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude toward Clinton is–well, we’ll let Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," explain: Russert: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president? McCaskill: I do. I think–I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at– Russert: But do you– McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him." What a ringing endorsement! And hey, say what you will about Mark Foley, at least you can trust him with your daughter! http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009065
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth. > The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is–well, we’ll let Missouri Senate candidate Claire > McCaskill, in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," explain: > Russert: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you > think Bill Clinton was a great president? > McCaskill: I do. I think–I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, > his personal issues. I said at– > Russert: But do you– > McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he’s been a great leader, but I > don’t want my daughter near him." > What a ringing endorsement! And hey, say what you will about Mark Foley, at > least you can trust him with your daughter! > http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009065
Oh really? Then why don’t you arrange a get-together between Foley and your son? It should be as wholesome as the "Leave it to Beaver" show.
Response:
>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth."
ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic grasping at best. She knew what she was doing, and, by her own admission, was the pursuer. I’d be willing to bet she was well into double digits at that time in her life. (News flash John, single people have sex). >"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is-"
LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? The *difference* is that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious indiscretion. End of story.
Response:
> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and emailing underage males. > The difference is
See above
Response:
I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex. Many Presidents have had mistresses, so Lewinsky was nothing new. What was new about it was that a crazy investigation into Clinton’s private affairs lead to an impeachment. If Clinton had done something truly "bad", then most Democrat’s I know would have asked him to step-down, but the Clinton impeachment was all about politics – the dirtiest kind. Democrat’s have washed their hands of wrong-doers & Republicans have not sometimes, so this characterization is false. Mr Soul http://www.MusicIsLove.com
Response:
> Oh really? Then why don’t you arrange a get-together > between Foley and your son? It should be as wholesome > as the "Leave it to Beaver" show.
You might consider reading what is written here BEFORE you comment. I have posted a number of times that Foley and ALL SCUM like he should be removed. Oops! More of those fact thingies that so many of you Lefty Lemmings refuse to left influence your ideas, beliefs, or posts.
Response:
>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best.
You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. >"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you?
Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion.
What crime did Foley commit?
Response:
"timepixdc" > > The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males.
Both are scum that misused their authority.
Response:
>I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy > scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex.
You regularly fail to see scum when it’s Dem scum. > Many Presidents have had mistresses, so Lewinsky was nothing new. What > was new about it was that a crazy investigation into Clinton’s private > affairs lead to an impeachment.
Please enlighten us as to ANY investigation that was targeted at Clinton’s private life. Oh, I’ll bet that you are retelling that Dem lie that the Whitewater Investigation that was initiated to investigate the looting of Millions of dollars was only about Clinton’s sex life. What about the over a dozen people that were convicted of scores of Federal Crimes? If Clinton had done something truly > "bad", then most Democrat’s I know would have asked him to step-down, > but the Clinton impeachment was all about politics – the dirtiest kind.
Impeachment is a political act, and that Clinton can be thankful for. As the courts ruled, William Jefferson Clinton committed criminal acts, and was disbarred because of them. > Democrat’s have washed their hands of wrong-doers & Republicans have > not sometimes, so this characterization is false.
Isn’t that nice Democratic Congressman that had $90,000 in his freezer STILL in office?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >>scandal. >> In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of >> responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, >> but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best. > You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You > might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity > between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >>soon >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude >> toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. > The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion. > What crime did Foley commit?
Isn’t he accused of child molestation or "No Child’s Behind Left"? Or do you think that should not be a crime?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >>scandal. >> In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of >> responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, >> but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best. > You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You > might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity > between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties.
What I’ve noticed, is that age has NOTHING to do with maturity. There are very mature teenagers, and very immature persons in their 20’s or older. Monica Lewinsky WAS in her 20’s, and obviously quite sexually experienced. >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >>soon >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude >> toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum.
Well, I’m not a Democrat, and I certainly never felt anything but disgust for what Clinton did. Adultery is a sign of moral weakness. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to get married. If he felt he couldn’t stay committed to a single woman, he never should have gotten married in the first place. > The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion. > What crime did Foley commit?
Federal or State?? http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15697745.htm
Response:
> "timepixdc" > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >> scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority.
If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. BIG difference. Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars because they find them attractive? : ) Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get treated like whores. It’s just the nature of the way things work.
Response:
> >I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy > scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex. > You regularly fail to see scum when it’s Dem scum.
The fact that you can’t discern the difference between a consenting sexual relationship between two adults and an adult sexually stalking a child speaks volumes about your lack of morals.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "timepixdc" > > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > >> scandal. > > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority. > If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is > equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky > admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. > BIG difference. > Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars > because they find them attractive? : ) > Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get > treated like whores. > It’s just the nature of the way things work.
So *that’s* why Weanton acts like a whore. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Response:
Waiting for tears in a Barbara Walters interview is like waiting for blood in a prizefight. Cry No. 1 in the Monica Lewinsky "20/20" interview came at 9:51 p.m. EST. Cry No. 2 hit at 10:41, with the story of the FBI bust on Jan. 16. And then Babs moved in like Tyson, scoring No. 3 at 10:43 with a round of questions about Monica’s family. Monica’s face reddened; her lip quivered. We all knew her history — the White House freak-outs, the wailing to Linda Tripp — and for a second it looked like our Mon might go to pieces. Would she lose control? Would her voice crack? Would there be mucus? There would be none of that. Composed and professional in a dark suit with her hair pulled back — and about a quart of Vaseline on the camera — Monica (or, at least, the Monica we saw in the final edit, which at times looked like it was spliced from file footage) lived her life in two hours and came out dry, smiling and ready for love. Though we all guessed there wouldn’t be any real revelations — and except for Monica’s abortion admission and, maybe, her antidepressants, there weren’t — the build-up this past week was staggering. New York publicists complained they couldn’t get anyone to show for Monica-night events; people organized Monica parties; ABC garnered $800,000 for a 30-second commercial spot — half the rate of the Super Bowl, approaching Academy Awards numbers. (Did anyone else notice a disproportionate number of ads for Snackwell’s, the new diet drug wonder Meridia, herbal diet aids and Victoria’s Secret breaking up the talk with the zaftig, thong-wearing Lewinsky?) In its breathy promos, ABC showed Walters posing provocative questions and Monica biting her lip but — teasingly — never talking, investing her with sphinxlike power as though, were she finally to speak, your television would explode. The problem is that by now Monica was just about the chattiest sphinx in American history, having surfeited us with the Starr Report, the Tripp tapes and the Senate deposition. The popular comparison of the broadcast was to the big game or Oscar night. But only if the Super Bowl had already been played last August, if the Oscars had already been given out and they were just rerunning the musical numbers. God knows we commentators stopped having anything new to say about Monica months ago, but it’s a comfort to us to know that she’s pretty much tapped out on the subject too. What the interview did help clarify were some of those longstanding watercooler questions: the why-did-she, how-could-she questions. For instance, how could Monica not feel like she was being used? Why would she want a relationship with a man who took a congressman’s phone call in the middle of their first sexual encounter? As she answered — in not so many words — duh. "There was a level of excitement," she said. "A level of danger involved in the relationship." I mean, damn! Nothing says, "You’re having sex with the president" like an intracoital congressional phone call. And the why-did-he questions? The interview probably gave little material to Clinton biographers, but it was refreshing to hear Monica implicitly answer the question, "Why would he risk it?" — a childish query repeated by pundits and supporters who, as Mr. Mojo Nixon would put it, have no Elvis in them. "I would imagine it’s very difficult being president of the United States," she said. "There’s tremendous pressure. Sometimes, you just need a piece of …" "Ass!" volunteered 50 million Americans in the home audience.
Response:
Monica Lewinsky - A woman who had more President in her mouth than George W. Bush has in his entire body.
Response:
> Monica Lewinsky - A woman who had more President in her mouth than > George W. Bush has in his entire body.
Well, to the extent N. Korea’s latest move just put THE next to last nail in George’s historical rep., I’d say Bill just slipped him a pretty good ass-doggy! So, W and Monica are back on par…give it till the inaugural in 1/09.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >>scandal. >> In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of >> responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, >> but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best. >You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You >might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity >between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties.
And then there is you, who will never be considered mature. — Ken Wilson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "timepixdc" > > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > >> scandal. > > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority. >If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is >equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky >admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. >BIG difference.
Tom Foley, the Michael Jackson for your teenager… — Ken Wilson
Response:
> >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >> scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority.
Wrong again. Thanks for playing.
Response:
>You might consider reading what is written here BEFORE you comment. I have >posted a number of times that Foley and ALL SCUM like he should be >removed. > I read your bullshit. You compare Clinton to Foley, and there is no > comparison.
Both misused their authority. Clinton was found to have committed criminal acts and was disbarred. We will see if Foley was merely scummy, or if he committed criminal acts as well.
Response:
> What crime did Foley commit? > Isn’t he accused of child molestation or "No Child’s Behind Left"?
Please provide verification of him touching any minor.
Response:
> You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. > You > might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity > between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. > What I’ve noticed, is that age has NOTHING to do with maturity. There > are very mature teenagers, and very immature persons in their 20’s or > older. Monica Lewinsky WAS in her 20’s, and obviously quite sexually > experienced.
Go back and read some more about Monica. She was nineTEEN when it started. > >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as > >>soon > >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > >> toward Clinton is-" > > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. > Well, I’m not a Democrat, and I certainly never felt anything but > disgust for what Clinton did.
As did I. > Adultery is a sign of moral weakness. No one held a gun to his head > and forced him to get married. If he felt he couldn’t stay committed > to a single woman, he never should have gotten married in the first > place.
Bingo! > The *difference* is > > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > > indiscretion.
No the courts found that Clinton had committed criminal acts and that is why he was disbarred. > What crime did Foley commit? > Federal or State?? > http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15697745.htm
Might was the key word in that story, so we’ll see if he is ever convicted of anything.
Response:
> > You compare Clinton to Foley, and there is no > comparison. > Both misused their authority.
Another lie.
Response:
> Both are scum that misused their authority. > If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is > equally guilty of the same.
Fans are NOT employees. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky > admitted to Pursuing Clinton.
She was still a Government employee who was his subordinate. In the Military, officers have been Court Martialed for that. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. > BIG difference. > Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars > because they find them attractive? : )
They find the power attractive. Remember when Henry Kissinger wrote about it when he was dating World Class beauties. > Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get > treated like whores. > It’s just the nature of the way things work.
And the mature, responsible authority should rise to the occasion.
Response:
Question:
Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just pull the staffers in his office & ask them? And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the buck doesn’t really stop with him? Mr Soul http://www.MusicIsLove.com
Response:
> Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there > was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation > process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just > pull the staffers in his office & ask them? > And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his > staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the > buck doesn’t really stop with him? > Mr Soul > http://www.MusicIsLove.com
It all depends on one’s personal ethics. There are still some rare individuals (even if they did not know what had happened), who’d look at the situation and say "these are my people, whom I have personally trained and molded into doing business *my* way…..and, since I’m ultimately responsible, I’ll step down….as I have failed to properly lead them." And then, there are others who (knew everything)would say "I just might be able to skate out of this one, with no one being able to *prove* that I personally knew anything….it’s all my staff’s fault!" If Hastert takes that option, he won’t look so good. Especially since a good number of republicans don’t want to be tarnished by this one. He’ll have the dems attacking him, and not too many repugs willing to get involved to stop them. In times like this, I would have a lot more respect for the man if he chose the first option above (assuming he really didn’t know anything!). I’m sure a lot will come out about this one…especially since the repugs (as a whole) aren’t trying to block a real investigation (or, so it would appear). Mike
Response:
courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just >pull the staffers in his office & ask them? >And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his >staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the >buck doesn’t really stop with him?
I guess a buck just isn’t what it used to be. — Ken Wilson
Response:
I knew Hastert wasn’t going to resign because it’s too close to the election. They’re hoping that they’ll maintain control over the House and that everything will blow over after the election. But if Hastert resigned then they would more likely loose control. Indeed, it will be an interesting election. Mr Soul
Response:
> Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there > was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation > process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just > pull the staffers in his office & ask them?
People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.
Response:
did courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >That has about as much cred as Bush saying he would fire all whitehouse >leakers.
That could explain why they suddenly had all the urinals in the White House, because no one was using them anymore for fear of being caught. — Ken Wilson
Response:
>Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > That has about as much cred as Bush saying he would fire all whitehouse > leakers.
Do you read the news? 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that broke the law. 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, NOT the White House.
Response:
> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.
People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did either. I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the buck stops with his aids. That’s unacceptable to me & should be unacceptable to you. If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be all over him. Mr Soul
Response:
> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.
Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high standards. Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, > NOT the White House.
Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. Mr Soul
Response:
> > People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either. > I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the > buck stops with his aids. That’s unacceptable to me & should be > unacceptable to you. If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be > all over him. > Mr Soul
You misuderstood the context. He meant that when the money comes in, the buck stops with him.
Response:
> find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.
What a convenient way for him to weasel out of taking action against his buddies and let the stench of dishonor continue to waft through the West WIng.
Response:
> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about > it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either.
How do you find it so easy to lie? I have NEVER said any such thing, and I have in FACT spoken well of some Dems, and voted that way before as well! Oops! More of those fact thingies that you refuse to let influence your views, beliefs, or posts.
Response:
> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first:
Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul.
No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury"
That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State > Dept, > NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak.
Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.
Response:
You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.
Armitage leaked to Novak. Rove may have leaked to Newsweek’s Cooper. He talked to Cooper before the leak came out. "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak’s column appeared; in other words, before Plame’s identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Rove carefully chooose his words when testifying: "I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name," But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover CIA agent. At the time, Rove handed out this information, he was leaking it. Mr Soul
Response:
>>> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: >Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. >Bush DID say if someone broke the law.
Eventually. He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going into Iraq. — Ken Wilson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: > Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. > Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. > No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued > dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick > Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." >> 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State >> Dept, >> NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.
oh yeah, just like Clinton did not have sex with that women. He just leaked Wilson’s wife but not her name, very cute.
Response:
> Eventually. He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going > into Iraq.
That’s correct. And have you noticed as recent as yesterday, Bush isn’t even talking about a democracy in Iraq. I listened to 2 analysts last night on PBS and they painted a bleak picture. Basically, they were discussing ways we could get out without it looking like a complete failure. Mr Soul
Response:
> You really didn’t follow this that well did you.
We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.
Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
Response:
> > You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent. > Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
How about if we just prove he’s gay?
Response:
> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
I can’t prove that. All I can prove is that Rove knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA & that he told Matt Cooper about it before the Novak article ran. I can also tell you that Rove indicated that he had heard about Wilson’s wife when Novak talked to him. How was that now? Mr Soul
Response:
> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.
I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! Your usual.
Response:
> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.
Fuck you! Rove outed Plame to Matt Cooper. That’s what the fact are. He outed her in the same way that Armitage did to Novak. Exactly the same way. Rove also lied by saying that he hadn’t heard about Plame before Novak, when in fact, he told Novak that he had heard about Plame. Mr Soul
Response:
> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual. > Fuck you!
Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how this happened…
> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.
> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
> I can’t prove that.
>> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that. > I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.
Your parents must be so proud of you!
Response:
> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened…
And so don’t you. We catch you lying here all the time. We caught you with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week. When are you going to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends? On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied. Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper & then he lied about it later, saying he’d heard of it from Novak. That of course contradicts statements he had previously made. > Your parents must be so proud of you!
Actually they are quite proud of me – thanks! Mr Soul
Response:
> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened… > And so don’t you. We catch you lying here all the time.
Not once, not ever, but nice try! We caught you > with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week.
You are the one that accuses others of lying anytime they make an error. As you know, a lie requires that one knows what they are posting is not true, much like you do all of the time! Infact I have saved and reposted a number of examples of your lies! When are you going > to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends?
I will answer to Howards request as soon as he answers to my previous request. > On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied.
Here’s a Mr Soul lie!
> Thank you for finally admitting that he is UNETHICAL after breaking Ethics > Rules!
admitted that. >> Other than the broken ethics rule,
Here is another example of Mr Soul lying! You might have been Ok if you would learn to use the words, "I believe", but Nooooo, you state things as fact when you know the is ZERO verification because it isn’t true!
> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.
> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I can’t prove that.
Response:
Question:
Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video where the artist shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and quite rare. Real guitar players know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. Follow this link to bid on the video: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&item=32001271762… – Darren
Response:
> Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video > where the artist > shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and > quite rare. Real guitar players > know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. > Follow this link to > bid on the video:
Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD for twenty bucks?
Response:
> > Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video > where the artist > shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and > quite rare. Real guitar players > know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. > Follow this link to > bid on the video: > Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD for > twenty bucks?
It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!
Response:
> > Follow this link to > > bid on the video: > Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD > for > twenty bucks? > It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!
Yeah, I saw the package, too funny. I couldn’t tell you the last time I watched a VHS tape. I got into DVD early on and haven’t looked back.
Response:
> It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!
Old does not make Vintage ! Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding home video tapes and the Americans, having no real exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. BETA or DIE ! Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.
Response:
> Old does not make Vintage ! > Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth > and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all > those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding > home video tapes and the Americans, having no real > exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s > and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. > BETA or DIE !
Sony shot itself in the foot with arrogant and lame-ass marketing decisions, BETA was superior to VHS but Sony was dumb enough not to sell it properly. > Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.
What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market?
Response:
> What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market?
Cassettes should have been left to what they were intended for originally….dictation. Open reel forever!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It’s VHS, dude. Vintage! > Old does not make Vintage ! > Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth > and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all > those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding > home video tapes and the Americans, having no real > exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s > and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. > BETA or DIE ! > Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.
I was just kidding. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t always carry over well in text. =)
Response:
> What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market? > Cassettes should have been left to what they were intended for > originally….dictation. Open reel forever!
And yet it’s amazing how much quality they were eventually able to wring out of the cassette, my last deck was a Sony 777 with outboard Dolby C and it was pretty damned good, priced accordingly too. Of course I had open-reel as well for the serious stuff, big old Sony it took two guys to move, ended up selling it to somebody who just liked the way it looked with a couple of 10" reels in place, made the stereo look cooler. Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear sound like crap.
Response:
Of course I had open-reel > as well for the serious stuff, big old Sony it took two guys to move, ended > up selling it to somebody who just liked the way it looked with a couple of > 10" reels in place, made the stereo look cooler.
My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise. > Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear > sound like crap.
I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio.
Response:
> I was just kidding. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t always carry over > well in text. =)
The funny part i was too and look what happened !
Response:
> most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality,
There is an entire generation >= 20 + that have likely never heard quality audio equipment other than what they hear through .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference point they are quite content with mp3 or less. Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real horror story is what happened to my beloved 8-tracks !
Response:
> Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video > where the artist > shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and > quite rare. Real guitar players > know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. > Follow this link to > bid on the video: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/
If you’d like to purchase a brand new Danny Gatton "Telemaster" DVD from HOT LICKS, you can do so by visiting http://tinyurl.com/lpqne Also available on DVD is the second HOT LICK DVD Danny recorded. It’s titled "Strictly Rhythm Guitar". The link for this title is http://tinyurl.com/kmb3l Why buy a used and worn VHS copy when you can have a new DVD with chapter search… Both discs come with study aids, included written tab… If either of the links fail to work, simply visit AMAZON and do a search for Danny Gatton on DVD. Good Luck Scoot Soli Deo Gloria p.s. For the record, Danny didn’t pass away. That presumes he died of cancer or got hit by a truck or electricuted himself or some "natural" form of death. Danny’s death was a suicide…Shotgun blast to the head took his talent away from us….
Response:
> My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even > better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise.
Revox was da man, them and Crown, but I had a buddy who was a Sony dealer and got terrific prices so a lot of my hi-fi gear came from them. That whole market seems to have withered, it’s all home theatre these days. I confess I listen to more music on my computer or iPod than I do on a stereo, my hi-fi gear is all packed away. > Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public > has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I > hear > sound like crap. > I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t > care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio.
Photography is going the same way, I have a bunch of good 35mm SLR gear that sits in the safe, a Canon digital is so damn convenient, and I haven’t had a darkroom set up for ages anyway. Hack, wheeze, "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn or I’ll come down off this porch and give you a whack with this cane you won’t forget in a hurry," wheeze. . . .
Response:
> There is an entire generation >= 20 + that > have likely never heard quality audio > equipment other than what they hear through > .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference > point they are quite content with mp3 or less. > Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real > horror story is what happened to my beloved > 8-tracks !
Pfhhht! 8-tracks, we all know you liked them merely because you cracked them open and hid joints in them. A more serious issue is what the hell am I supposed to do with these six cases of blank El-Cassettes?
Response:
> Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear > sound like crap.
My big problem with cassettes was not really the lack of initial sound quality, although NR systems and noise bugged me, it was that they didn’t store well. It was not a durable medium. I’ve made recordings on good quality tape that sounded good after a few passes, then after sitting for a few months the highs started fading in and out. That’s why I started archiving on open reel. Nothing phases the stuff. Well, we won’t count all the 3M 226,206 and Ampex formulations that had defective binder material and absorbed moisture out of the air. I got stuck with a large qty of 10" reels of 226 that were that way. 226 is an amazing sounding tape….when its not drinking water. I know you can bake it, and have done so. It works….temporarily. I did some recording on the VHS hi-fi format, which was nice with the right machine. Now I archive on CDR mainly. Not that I’m all that exited about it but its a good way to preserve out of print material from vinyl. Just for the record, I do have a cassette machine. A Sony 3 head deal with Dolby S. Was a 900$ machine…I bought it at a yard sale for 15$, mint cond. Never used it once yet, but I figure I’ll never find a Dragon…..if I ever need the medium again, its there.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is an entire generation >= 20 + that > have likely never heard quality audio > equipment other than what they hear through > .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference > point they are quite content with mp3 or less. > Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real > horror story is what happened to my beloved > 8-tracks ! > Pfhhht! 8-tracks, we all know you liked them merely because you cracked > them open and hid joints in them. A more serious issue is what the hell > am I supposed to do with these six cases of blank El-Cassettes?
Give ‘em to me… I’ll put them with the wire recorder wire. __ Steve .
Response:
> My big problem with cassettes was not really the lack of initial sound > quality, although NR systems and noise bugged me, it was that they > didn’t store well. It was not a durable medium. I’ve made recordings on > good quality tape that sounded good after a few passes, then after > sitting for a few months the highs started fading in and out. That’s > why I started archiving on open reel. Nothing phases the stuff.
It seems like nothing is really permanent, hard drives decay, so do optical discs, you almost need to do occasional backups of your backups for something you really treasure. However, I figure by the time my CDs have stopped working I probably won’t care anymore.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even > better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise. > Revox was da man, them and Crown, but I had a buddy who was a Sony dealer > and got terrific prices so a lot of my hi-fi gear came from them. That > whole market seems to have withered, it’s all home theatre these days. I > confess I listen to more music on my computer or iPod than I do on a stereo, > my hi-fi gear is all packed away. >> Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public >> has >> shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with >> mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about >> convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I >> hear >> sound like crap. > I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t > care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio. > Photography is going the same way, I have a bunch of good 35mm SLR gear that > sits in the safe, a Canon digital is so damn convenient, and I haven’t had a > darkroom set up for ages anyway. Hack, wheeze, "Hey, you kids, get off my > lawn or I’ll come down off this porch and give you a whack with this cane > you won’t forget in a hurry," wheeze. . . .
I think 35mm and film in general are still a very valid medium, especially when it comes to black and white. The graininess of the film and the tooth of the paper are, for me, can be a big part of the appeal of a printed photograph. I’m not a photographer, but a friend of mine is and he does some amazing work with not just those variables, but also his shutter speed and whatever else it is that he does. Here is a link to his work. Be advised that there are nude models on this page so be careful if you’re at work or, if nudes offend you, don’t click the link: http://www.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=35250
Response:
Question:
Nancy Reagan Again Takes Lead on Stem Cells By LAURIE KELLMAN (Associated Press) With Nancy Reagan’s blessing and in defiance of President Bush’s veto threat, Senate Republican leaders are making plans for a vote this summer on a bill to restore federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The House passed the measure nearly a year ago with support from 50 Republicans. Supporters contend government funding of the budding science could someday cure diseases suffered by millions of people. Opponents argue that harvesting such stem cells amounts to abortion because an embryo is destroyed in the process. President Bush in 2001 ordered sharp restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, allowing it only for stem cells created before Aug. 9 of that year. His veto threat stands, according to White House spokesman Ken Lisaius. Neither chamber of Congress has demonstrated the two-thirds support required to overcome a veto. "The president’s embryonic stem cell policy serves both science and ethics," Lisaius said. Mrs. Reagan, in a statement to Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, a sponsor of the bill, gently urges the Senate to pass it despite Bush’s veto threat, according to aides in both parties who have seen the letter and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Response:
> Mrs. Reagan, in a statement
25 fucking years too fucking late lady .. should have shown some heart in science in 1980 instead of buying million dollars of cheap China for the ShitHouse and custom dresses for Saturday Night Galas for 8 fucking years. How many AIDS related deaths has she washed off her hands …. BITCH.
Response:
> > Mrs. Reagan, in a statement > 25 fucking years too fucking late lady .. should have shown some heart > in science in 1980 instead of buying million dollars > of cheap China for the ShitHouse and custom dresses for > Saturday Night Galas for 8 fucking years. > How many AIDS related deaths has she washed off her hands …. BITCH.
Don’t hold back. Say what you REALLY think…
Response:
Question:
Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records By Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 27, 2006; 10:27 AM A strong bipartisan majority of the public believes President Bush should disclose all contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers despite administration claims that media requests for details about those contacts amount to a "fishing expedition," according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that three in four–76 percent–of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. At a Thursday news conference, the president declined to discuss those meetings but said federal investigators are "welcome" to look into them if they suspect wrongdoing. Last week, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, pressured by reporters to explain Abramoff’s contacts with the Bush administration, said, "We’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition." Earlier this month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy and fraud charges. A plea agreement said Abramoff bribed public officials, including a member of Congress. Questions about White House contact with Abramoff came as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald continues an unrelated investigation to determine who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to reporters. That investigation already has produced charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby , former top aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby is accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury. The twin scandals have done little to help the battered public image of the Bush White House and Congress. The new poll found that 56 percent of the public disapproved of the way that Bush is handling ethics in government, up 7 percentage points in the past five weeks. An equally large majority say the type of wrongdoing admitted by Abramoff is "widespread" in Washington. Abramoff has agreed to cooperate with federal investigators whose targets reportedly include several members of Congress as well as ranking officials within the executive branch. In Congress, both parties have scrambled to put together lobbying reform packages as the November midterm elections loom on the horizon. But Americans are divided over whether Congress is serious about passing reform legislation. About half–51 percent–of those surveyed said they doubted Congress would pass tough new lobbying restrictions in the coming year while 46 percent said it was likely. A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed nationally Jan. 23-26 for this telephone survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. _____
Question:
> You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.
I answered this part already. I was going to give additional examples beyond what I already gave (where I left a placeholder, "x") but never bothered going back to providing such, and need not now. You understand about implied powers as "necessary and proper," and the distinction between these and general powers and powers not granted. > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?
A corporation is not an individual. I am not a lefty who will lose his or her rabid mind about this, but will say that obviously a corporation is not an individual. For a judge or court to say a corporation is an individual is activism — legal fiction passing as "law" created out of thin air (greatly outdone since the 1930s by liberal judicial activism).
Response:
> > There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.) > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.
I am not overstating things. I am distinguishing between what is truly an implied power, one that is not explicitly laid down in the Constitution, but which follows properly from the powers granted to the federal government. Note that x > The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care). > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?
Changing the subject, are we? *grin* I don’t have the time at the moment to discuss this (a demon of the Left) but I will say that Bork, who lays waste to liberal activism since the 1930s in the judiciary, is on record as saying that the courts were activist in a conservative manner in the era preceding the New Deal. (Bork also discusses conservative judicial activist professors today, a handful of grains of sand on a vast liberal beach.)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power? > Yes, you do, if you are the federal government. Powers not granted > to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth > Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody > dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be > successful). There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.)
You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. > The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care).
I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
>> A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.
The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> A real-world example of >> what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a >> number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to >> create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied >> power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks >> upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. > The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not > the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the > Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to > recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example > of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? > I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.
You are right. I’m wrong.
Response:
> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government.
If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they do and get away with it time and again?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, >> they also have defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the > 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are > explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the > branches of the federal government. > If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they > do and get away with it time and again?
For the same reason that Nazi Germany passed all sorts of laws. The Volk approved of the effort to make them safe. (Or as Hillery would say — Do it for the children) People are Lazy. Few would be willing to take up Arms to protect what Rights they posses. And with a few well meaning acts the People will cease to have Arms to protect themselves from the intrusion of the State,
Response:
> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power.
That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?
Yes, you do, if you are the federal government. Powers not granted to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be successful). There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.) The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of new federal forms of entitlements (like health care). What has been true since the 1930s, and accepted by many, is in fact the reverse of what is in the Constitution: "If it is not expressly forbidden, it may be undertaken" by the federal government. That is the true New Deal American Revolution (turning the Constitution into its opposite).
Response:
> 1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative > power.
But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have defacto legislative power. > 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power > is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and > wrongly exercised. All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to > the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance > or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of > society).
Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — >>If the federal government were >>limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >>Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >>Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the >>Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >>design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples. >I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ?
When they started paying a third of their income in federal taxes.
Response:
> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives. > to make laws is to legislate. You have heard of the phrease > "Legislate from the Bench"?
Thanks for the correction.
Response:
> Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so.
All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design.
I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you because you answered the question yourself — about education, about "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human needs"), and many other examples. > In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates.
Right — and: * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the force of law; * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. > Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is > evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of > this nation.
It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family. Many look to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive). (The dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the other.) Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are easily bought. Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of many votes, of the Pauls. The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct construction of the Constitution. Their reason for proceeding? The Constitution was in their way. They did in the 1930s what they thought was "necessary" for the USA. The only good thing that can be said was that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe in the 1930s. As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details of its propriety. Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more." Some things are water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution. (I’m concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.) But it is proper. "Go and sin no more." DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG. (HillaryCare, and the associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 repudiation of liberalism.)
Response:
> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives.
to make laws is to legislate. You have heard of the phrease "Legislate from the Bench"? from the Constitution: Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Response:
1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative power. 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and wrongly exercised. All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of society).
Response:
"Dave Simpson" Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. If the federal government were limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by design. In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal mandates. Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of this nation.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ? >Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? > Yes. That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to > believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal > government to do. (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. > They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ > frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington > as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.) And if they > want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to > the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a > Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress > to cause this to happen. >>>Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >>>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>>this nation. >Collective, selective amnesia ? > Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures.
Sounds like our current administration. > Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls > love you. And you, at least initially, own them.
Buy them with money or high paying jobs eh ? Now – Bush wouldn’t dream of doing a vile thing like that would he ? >Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. >America was never meant to be in that business. > Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there was no war declared. Is modern > war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and > processes? As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from > prosecuting (waging) it.
Can’t get around this one kiddo. It was wrong. The whole world knows it was. And if you don’t care what the world thinks of us, you ought to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. > Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with > respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of > government from true governing), yes. >I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for >the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and >requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak >past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. > Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say > "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well > as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been > harmful as well as wrong. Some tiny reform that differs from the > status quo is long overdue.
Environmentalist nonsense? Wow. How old are you anyway ? >Are liberals the only villains at work here ? >Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? > They have their own problems, including being corrupted by > liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans > in Washington as the worst example for years running.
We can’t keep blaming the last shift for everything that’s going wrong. If we’re not actively working to fix it, it’s as much our problem. > The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the > Civil Rights revolution. Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years > when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. > Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by > them.
Who are these "better Americans" ? Where are they ? >What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical >care >or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, >had better jobs and invested wisely ? > If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have > right fully on my side.
Right will never be on you side, or vice versa. You are an elitist. Probably play golf and drive a status auto. If you were poor your song would play very differently. Or perhaps you were born with nothing - in a shack - to a widow – and earned everything you have today by the sweat of your brow ? Do you consider all social issues to be matters of emotionality ? > It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen > as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local > and state government issue in our constitutional system of government > (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater > and the Constitution trashed even more).
Who constitutes this ‘left’ that you’re having so much trouble with ? How do YOU define left ? Does left mean commie to you ? Or – enemy of the people ? And how on earth do you assume you’re entitled to say what such a
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.
You realize that the Public Health Service traces its roots back to 1798? It was expanded in the late 19th century to aid in the fight against yellow fever. Clearly there are matters of public health that cross state lines and cannot be left solely to the states. If a state decides they don’t want to educate their poor, that problem remains largely inside the state. If a state decides it doesn’t want to vaccinate its poor, we all pay for that. If you think drug resistant TB is only a problem for homeless people in New York City, or AIDS patients, you are very much mistaken. If you think any state has the resources to defend us against H5N1, you are very much mistaken. Environmental protection is another case where you cannot simply leave it to the states. The tailing from strip mining in one state ruins the water in neighboring states. Acid rain is not generated in the states that suffer it most. The nuclear waste they want to store in Nevada was not generated there. > In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates. > Right — and: > * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law;
That is actually a complaint shared by left and right. The left would even point out that Congress has illegally abrogated its unique Constitutional authority to declare war both in Iraq and Viet Nam. We are still paying for the consequences of Viet Nam. How long will we pay for Iraq? Similar complaints are made from the left regarding the FCC. What does "freedom of the press" mean if a half dozen conglomerates own almost all of it? I think one big difference between left and right in this country is the right is happy to have imperial presidents while the left wants a powerful Congress. I think most Americans are happy with power shared between the Executive and the Legislature with the Judiciary serving as referee. > * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary.
Here I tend to think the consequences less dire than when they forfeit power to the Executive. Congress can undo the judiciary if it has the will of the people. Undoing a war without the consent of the Executive is impossible. [diatribe and attributions re New Deal snipped] I think most everyone agrees the size of government is too large. Katrina has shown that a big DHS means very little in terms of real security. Unfortunately, we have developed a lobbyist class beyond anything we ever had before. There are more lobbyists for pharmaceuticals than members of Congress. And that is just one special interest. The revolving door between government and K street is a real problem. Here’s just one example: Phillip Cooney. He went from being a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute in 2001 to chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This summer he quit that job and went to work for ExxonMobil. There are thousands of examples like that from both parties. Unfortunately, the Constitution was never designed to handle that problem. They were worried about corruption and foreign influence, but the legal fiction of a corporation having individual rights did not exist since the 14th amendment did not exist to be tampered with. Once you extend the Bill of Rights to give corporations all the rights of individuals, Buckley v. Valeo was a logical extension. Some days I’m surprised corporations haven’t sought the right to vote. With the rise of corporate consolidation, individuals simply can’t expect states alone to provide effective restraints. We see it from West Virginia to Michigan, from California to Tennessee. It doesn’t even have to be manufacturing. If California’s utilities couldn’t keep Enron from raping them, how could anyone expect a state to protect the interests of honest Enron employees? Looking to the federal government for help works in theory, except for the revolving door on K street. How much help can you expect when the President of Enron has a personal working relationship with President of the United States that enables him to recommend the political appointees who oversee his business interests? Note… I didn’t specify Republican or Democrat…. Lay was tight with both Clinton and Bush. The problem isn’t left or right. The problem today is crony capitalism. Think of it as a Corporatist State without any political agenda. Mussolini without a vision. People point to the Carlyle Group as a prime example of this, but they are mistaken when they paint it as some sort of Bush family business. There are plenty of people who worked for the Clinton administration in there as well. This didn’t happen overnight. Kissinger has been doing it for decades. The monstrosity of it was briefly revealed… but oddly ignored by corporate media … when Kissinger declined the post on the 9/11 Commission. I mean c’mon… how can you be an American citizen and have "potential conflicts of interest" between your clients and the people who died at the World Trade Center? It wasn’t always like this, even after the perversion of the 14th amendment’s intent. When John Rockefeller tried to pull that crap during WWII, Congress forced him to give up the trade secrets he held for the German cartel, I.G. Farben. When Prescott Bush acted as the bagman for Thyssen and Nazi corporate interests, the government came in and closed down his business. Some people point to the 138 Reagan-era appointees who resigned over ethical conflicts or under criminal indictments and say that is where things went bad. I don’t think they invented corruption, but it certainly reached a new level. The numbers are sketchier for the Clinton-era because so many of the indictments were aimed at individuals and associates, not necessarily political appointees. The current administration is no better when it comes to cronyism. They’re just better at avoiding prosecution. Unfortunately, I think balance will not be restored until we elect presidents like FDR who will betray their class interests. They will then have to appoint people like Joe Kennedy who will betray their friends.
Response:
> I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that > would have to take care of sick people or educate children. > When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was > responsible for all their needs and wants ? > Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ?
Yes. That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal government to do. (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.) And if they want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress to cause this to happen. >> Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>this nation. > Collective, selective amnesia ?
Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures. Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls love you. And you, at least initially, own them. > Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. > America was never meant to be in that business.
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there was no war declared. Is modern war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and processes? As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from prosecuting (waging) it. > We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before.
Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of government from true governing), yes. > I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for > the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and > requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak > past some of those nasty environmental protection issues.
Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been harmful as well as wrong. Some tiny reform that differs from the status quo is long overdue. > Are liberals the only villains at work here ? > Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ?
They have their own problems, including being corrupted by liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans in Washington as the worst example for years running. The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the Civil Rights revolution. Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by them. > What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical > care > or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, > had better jobs and invested wisely ?
If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have right fully on my side. It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local and state government issue in our constitutional system of government (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater and the Constitution trashed even more).
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — >If the federal government were >limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the >Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.
I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that would have to take care of sick people or educate children. When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was responsible for all their needs and wants ? Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, >establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then >doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal >mandates. > Right — and: > * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law; > * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. > Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >this nation.
Collective, selective amnesia ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser > base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in > degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as > a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a > substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family. Many look > to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned > dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor > that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive). (The > dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the > other.) > Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that > he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of > 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, > though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of > what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. America was never meant to be in that business. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists > decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved > Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist > totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public > support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the > Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" > (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are > easily bought. Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of > many votes, of the Pauls. > The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying > that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct > construction of the Constitution. Their reason for proceeding? The > Constitution was in their way. They did in the 1930s what they thought > was "necessary" for the USA. The only good thing that can be said was > that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe > in the 1930s.
We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related > issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by > left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they > thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details > of its propriety. > Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the > liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more > support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s > and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more." Some things are > water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention > that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported > practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution. (I’m > concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be > misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in > the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing > Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.) But it is > proper. "Go and sin no more." DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, > LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG. (HillaryCare, and the > associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election > results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 > repudiation of liberalism.)
Are liberals the only villains at work here ? Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical care or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, had better jobs and invested wisely ?
Response:
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among conservatives.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >| >| >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >| >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >| >| In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all >proved >| thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >| university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >| >| -Connie >I write about that which I know. Colin Powell entered the Army as a college >graduate ROTC student. No affirmative action on the part of the Army. Then >he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was >the "up or out" army.) He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made >him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time. He >successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to >command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of >responsibility. Get this. If at any point he was less than outstanding he >would not have been promoted to the next higher grade. And I have served >under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point >it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a >difference in what you can do. I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the >National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his >duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it >was equally obvious that he should.)
An incompetent officers stands out like a sore thumb in the military. Peers, subordinates and superiors can see them and the quota babies seldom get more then one grade above their level of incompetence. We had them. But, I knew very few who made E-6 or O4! I also saw Powell several times on the Joint Staff and he was certainly star material. Everyone carries some degree of unease about people who are different from them. The thing with liberals is they claim one thing to get political points and are faster then any Klansman to lash out at an ‘uppity nigger’. Those guys are just not grateful enough and don’t know their place in the liberal world. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the >youngest college graduates in history. Also the youngest provost of >Stanford University. Never met her myself.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >>benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action. >Merit? Thomas? >Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! >Please, read the book "Disgusted" mentioned earlier: "The Selling of >Clarence Thomas". I had the same "disgusted" reaction. >He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for >Our Masters. Ever read any of his scanty opinions? Laughable! >He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments. > Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her >as smart and bookish (and, subtext, good at finding the right >mentors!) >Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. >But Thomas? He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. >His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy >what made good were puke city. None of those wusses on the Judiciary >dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! >Gimme a break!
Give you a break asshole? You are running on a dozen identities to pump up the volume including Grammar, Heroic, Horace, Pax and that is just a start. Why not just use your own name and stand on it jerkoff?
Response:
>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas.
In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. -Connie
Response:
>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action.
Thomas??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >-Connie
Response:
| | >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have | >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. | | In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved | thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major | university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. | | -Connie I write about that which I know. Colin Powell entered the Army as a college graduate ROTC student. No affirmative action on the part of the Army. Then he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was the "up or out" army.) He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time. He successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of responsibility. Get this. If at any point he was less than outstanding he would not have been promoted to the next higher grade. And I have served under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a difference in what you can do. I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it was equally obvious that he should.) I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the youngest college graduates in history. Also the youngest provost of Stanford University. Never met her myself.
Response:
>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >-Connie
Had Powell profitted, he would have certainly gone to a better university! Rice is an intellectual giant and was years ahead of her peers. I do like to see people who claim to be ‘color-blind’ try to deal with people of color who don’t act right!
Response:
>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action.
Merit? Thomas? Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! Please, read the book "Disgusted" mentioned earlier: "The Selling of Clarence Thomas". I had the same "disgusted" reaction. He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for Our Masters. Ever read any of his scanty opinions? Laughable! He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so.
Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her as smart and bookish (and, subtext, good at finding the right mentors!) Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. But Thomas? He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy what made good were puke city. None of those wusses on the Judiciary dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! Gimme a break! — GeorgeOrwell
Response:
Question:
But you don’t believe that Christ was crucified, so what the heck are you even talking about, Abu Alfalfa?? — المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Response:
> The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style > By Jerry Ghinelli > "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or > any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, > impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, > contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died > for two thousand years ago." Continue > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm
Ghenelli is a sock puppet. Mike
Response:
ALLAH TURNED ITS WRATH AGAINST ISLAM While Aids in the west has now declined sharply; millions of Arabs and Muslims in Islamic nations are now plagued with the deadly aids disease and is killing and spreading at a very fast rate. The affected population of these countries are now suffering a slow and agonizing death caused by this deadly disease with no known cure yet. Aids causes the immune system to breakdown. With the immune system weakened, the body is defenseless against killer bacteria, microrganisms , virus and germs that results to death. The west has already provided some medical assistance to these Islamic countries despite their war cries "Death to America, Death to Israel", but limited supplies and the current war situation has slowed down the help and care they are giving. Worst is, these Arabs/Muslims has blamed the west of their miseries. For more information, visit www.americanjihad.blogspot.com (If possible, copy or retype this website in your browser )
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style > By Jerry Ghinelli > "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or > any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, > impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, > contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died > for two thousand years ago." Continue > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm
Response:
The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style By Jerry Ghinelli "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died for two thousand years ago." Continue http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm
Response:
Question:
> There are many lies taught about Islam in UK > Schools Teaching Islam
Yep the above statement makes sense. All the Schools Teaching Islam claiming it’s peaceful is but one of the lies.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There are many lies taught about Islam in UK > Schools Teaching Islam > I know of two major studies into school textbooks, one in Britain by > IQRA Trust and one in Europe by Abdoljavad Falaturi. Both discovered > many errors and instances of bias against Islam. Many of the school > textbooks are written by Christian clergymen or from a Christian point > of view, sometimes subtly perpetuating the violent and bloodthirsty > image of Islam, which stems from the Crusader propaganda. > IQRA Trust went on to survey the books used in training teachers, and > most of these were written by Orientalists of the past with strong > anti-Muslim bias. IQRA’s survey, due to lack of funds, remains > unpublished and now mainly inaccessible. > Falaturi’s findings were very similar. He said that the negative > comments of the external, Western observer are not meant to be > unfriendly. They are programmed by the deep-rooted negative image of > Islam in Western culture, which seems to show everything negative can > only stem from Islam. It is typical with this attitude that one can > find only a little positive information about Islam in textbooks of > these areas in the West, where one or another individual could learn > from Islam. > However, the picture is not without hope. Some Orientalists, like W. > Montgomery Watt, have recanted on their previous views and now try to > be fairer. Muslim scholars are now writing their own books on Islam in > European languages and several well-researched books have exposed the > bias against Islam in Western source literature. Some Muslims are now > being asked to write for major educational publishers, and others, who > used to write from a Christian viewpoint, like Rosalyn Kendrick and > Professor Neal Robinson, have embraced Islam and written > sympathetically about their chosen religion. There have been various > series on BBC and Channel 4 TV (UK), as well as on CNN and other US > channels, showing Islam in a more favorable light. In 2002, there was > also a very good series in The Guardian newspaper, on Muslims in > Britain , in 2002. > School textbooks, though, remain a problem as they are expensive to > produce and to buy-and schools are poor. > Changing old library and teaching stock will take many years and much > investment on the part of publishers and schools. In the late 1980s and > early 1990s, IQRA Trust made a good start by commissioning the writing > of a large number of books and work cards geared to mainstream schools > and the UK National Curriculum, some of which have since been published > and widely advertised to schools as an Islamic Resource Pack. IQRA and > other Muslim organizations in the UK, like the Muslim Educational > Trust, worked with official bodies to improve the curriculum for > teaching Islam in mainstream schools. > Muslim schools where Islam and Arabic are taught alongside the National > Curriculum have been set up right across the country, but only two have > gained any funding from the state so far, and only after long battles. > Brother Yusuf Islam set up an Islamic Education Waqf (religious > endowment) to help support Muslim schools and students. > There is also the Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network (IHSAN), a > new organization to help mothers who want to teach their children at > home. > At the request of a local education authority, IQRA Trust produced a > major interactive, multimedia exhibition called The Islamic Experience, > which has been touring the country since 1995. Between 1995 and 2000 it > visited 17 different localities with repeated visits to two of these. > This was highly acclaimed by all who visited it. It has been upgraded > and re-launched this year. It is now on its fourth showing. After much > initial investment, this exhibition is beginning to be self-supporting. > There are plans currently being discussed for it to have a permanent > home in Birmingham , right in the middle of the country. > There is also talk of making a copy to circulate in the US educational > system, which has similar regulations about not promoting any one > religion, but allowing education about religions. > There is also another brave and enthusiastic attempt, by non-Muslim > Mosaic International. It is to generate a video-touring exhibition, on > the influence of Islamic learning on Europe. In fact, it has so far > failed to gain adequate funding, in spite of much good will from many > experts and influential people. > There are many other Muslim organizations working to help schools teach > Islam more successfully. Some of them were directly inspired by > IQRA’s exhibition, like the Islamic Awareness and Education Project > based in Wiltshire, the Cambridge Islamic Awareness Project, and a > similar project in Norwich , all of which train and equip volunteers to > respond to requests by schools for Muslim visitors. Several young > Muslims’ organizations and local Muslim action groups are also > setting up school visitors projects. IQRA Trust has produced a handbook > for school visitors and has given training to some of these groups, and > the trust itself sends out school visitors on request. > IQRA Trust provides in-service training for teachers on request. Also, > the Association of Muslim Schools UK and Eire, provide training courses > for Muslim graduate teachers. > The World Assembly of Muslim Youth has produced a very useful and > informative exhibition called Discover Islam. It consists of 25 large > posters and is popular with Muslim groups, local education authorities, > schools, and prisons that run Islamic awareness days and weeks, or > multicultural awareness events. > As for the academic field, the Center of Islamic Studies in the School > of Oriental and African Studies, University of London , has started a > series of publications on the Qur’an. The Center for Islamic Studies > in Oxford is working on a major Atlas of Islamic history. There are > also some good, general introductory books by Muslim writers being > circulated by various Muslim organizations. > Also, there are several organizations broadcasting Islamic educational > programs on radio, TV, and the Internet. Educational Islamic Web sites > are offering Islamic books, videos, nasheeds, CD ROMs and other > information, mainly for Muslim children. There is even a Muslim film > company in Hollywood, USA. > Still others are taking on the media by encouraging Muslims and > sympathizers to write in, contradicting and complaining about biased > media reporting. Muslim professionals are also getting jobs in the > mainstream media and encouraging the production of sympathetic programs > and educational materials about Islam. The BBC was offering expertise > in return for investment to make suitable programs last year for its > Islam season. > The one thing almost all these worthy organizations and individuals, > and others like them, have in common, is shortage of funding. To make a > big impression you need big funding, and what funding there is seems to > be declining rather than increasing. If people in the Arab world really > want to help improve the image of Islam in the West, the most useful > thing they can do is to raise funds for such organizations and > encourage them in the good work they are already trying to do. > For your further guidance, please try the following links: > http://www.islamonline.net/English/family/2005/04/article05.shtml > http://www.islamonline.net/English/family/2004/11/article01.shtml
Response:
Award for best laugh of the day! | http://image05.webshots.com/5/3/9/81/71730981lqRUdy_ph.jpg
Response:
mostly by mozzies!!!
Response:
My name is Faris Jawad-amongst a host of other aliases. I own up at last-the AIDS is starting to play tricks with my miniscule brain.I actually believed sensible people would be taken in by islamofascist bullshit. I humbly apologise for using various aliases to spam newsgroups with what I now know to be total crap.If it happens again,I humbly apologise in advance for paranoid delusional rantings which are written in the name of the false moon god and serial paedophile Allah I am off now to enjoy a lovely pork lunch,and shag an underage boy for afters-oh no-islamic rantings again……HELP ME.PLEASE…… Shalom to my Jewish brothers
Response:
There are many lies taught about Islam in UK Schools Teaching Islam I know of two major studies into school textbooks, one in Britain by IQRA Trust and one in Europe by Abdoljavad Falaturi. Both discovered many errors and instances of bias against Islam. Many of the school textbooks are written by Christian clergymen or from a Christian point of view, sometimes subtly perpetuating the violent and bloodthirsty image of Islam, which stems from the Crusader propaganda. IQRA Trust went on to survey the books used in training teachers, and most of these were written by Orientalists of the past with strong anti-Muslim bias. IQRA’s survey, due to lack of funds, remains unpublished and now mainly inaccessible. Falaturi’s findings were very similar. He said that the negative comments of the external, Western observer are not meant to be unfriendly. They are programmed by the deep-rooted negative image of Islam in Western culture, which seems to show everything negative can only stem from Islam. It is typical with this attitude that one can find only a little positive information about Islam in textbooks of these areas in the West, where one or another individual could learn from Islam. However, the picture is not without hope. Some Orientalists, like W. Montgomery Watt, have recanted on their previous views and now try to be fairer. Muslim scholars are now writing their own books on Islam in European languages and several well-researched books have exposed the bias against Islam in Western source literature. Some Muslims are now being asked to write for major educational publishers, and others, who used to write from a Christian viewpoint, like Rosalyn Kendrick and Professor Neal Robinson, have embraced Islam and written sympathetically about their chosen religion. There have been various series on BBC and Channel 4 TV (UK), as well as on CNN and other US channels, showing Islam in a more favorable light. In 2002, there was also a very good series in The Guardian newspaper, on Muslims in Britain , in 2002. School textbooks, though, remain a problem as they are expensive to produce and to buy-and schools are poor. Changing old library and teaching stock will take many years and much investment on the part of publishers and schools. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, IQRA Trust made a good start by commissioning the writing of a large number of books and work cards geared to mainstream schools and the UK National Curriculum, some of which have since been published and widely advertised to schools as an Islamic Resource Pack. IQRA and other Muslim organizations in the UK, like the Muslim Educational Trust, worked with official bodies to improve the curriculum for teaching Islam in mainstream schools. Muslim schools where Islam and Arabic are taught alongside the National Curriculum have been set up right across the country, but only two have gained any funding from the state so far, and only after long battles. Brother Yusuf Islam set up an Islamic Education Waqf (religious endowment) to help support Muslim schools and students. There is also the Islamic Home Schooling Advisory Network (IHSAN), a new organization to help mothers who want to teach their children at home. At the request of a local education authority, IQRA Trust produced a major interactive, multimedia exhibition called The Islamic Experience, which has been touring the country since 1995. Between 1995 and 2000 it visited 17 different localities with repeated visits to two of these. This was highly acclaimed by all who visited it. It has been upgraded and re-launched this year. It is now on its fourth showing. After much initial investment, this exhibition is beginning to be self-supporting. There are plans currently being discussed for it to have a permanent home in Birmingham , right in the middle of the country. There is also talk of making a copy to circulate in the US educational system, which has similar regulations about not promoting any one religion, but allowing education about religions. There is also another brave and enthusiastic attempt, by non-Muslim Mosaic International. It is to generate a video-touring exhibition, on the influence of Islamic learning on Europe. In fact, it has so far failed to gain adequate funding, in spite of much good will from many experts and influential people. There are many other Muslim organizations working to help schools teach Islam more successfully. Some of them were directly inspired by IQRA’s exhibition, like the Islamic Awareness and Education Project based in Wiltshire, the Cambridge Islamic Awareness Project, and a similar project in Norwich , all of which train and equip volunteers to respond to requests by schools for Muslim visitors. Several young Muslims’ organizations and local Muslim action groups are also setting up school visitors projects. IQRA Trust has produced a handbook for school visitors and has given training to some of these groups, and the trust itself sends out school visitors on request. IQRA Trust provides in-service training for teachers on request. Also, the Association of Muslim Schools UK and Eire, provide training courses for Muslim graduate teachers. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth has produced a very useful and informative exhibition called Discover Islam. It consists of 25 large posters and is popular with Muslim groups, local education authorities, schools, and prisons that run Islamic awareness days and weeks, or multicultural awareness events. As for the academic field, the Center of Islamic Studies in the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London , has started a series of publications on the Qur’an. The Center for Islamic Studies in Oxford is working on a major Atlas of Islamic history. There are also some good, general introductory books by Muslim writers being circulated by various Muslim organizations. Also, there are several organizations broadcasting Islamic educational programs on radio, TV, and the Internet. Educational Islamic Web sites are offering Islamic books, videos, nasheeds, CD ROMs and other information, mainly for Muslim children. There is even a Muslim film company in Hollywood, USA. Still others are taking on the media by encouraging Muslims and sympathizers to write in, contradicting and complaining about biased media reporting. Muslim professionals are also getting jobs in the mainstream media and encouraging the production of sympathetic programs and educational materials about Islam. The BBC was offering expertise in return for investment to make suitable programs last year for its Islam season. The one thing almost all these worthy organizations and individuals, and others like them, have in common, is shortage of funding. To make a big impression you need big funding, and what funding there is seems to be declining rather than increasing. If people in the Arab world really want to help improve the image of Islam in the West, the most useful thing they can do is to raise funds for such organizations and encourage them in the good work they are already trying to do. For your further guidance, please try the following links: http://www.islamonline.net/English/family/2005/04/article05.shtml http://www.islamonline.net/English/family/2004/11/article01.shtml
Response:
Question:
My name is Faris Jawad-amongst a host of other aliases. I own up at last-the AIDS is starting to play tricks with my miniscule brain.I actually believed sensible people would be taken in by islamofascist bullshit. I humbly apologise for using various aliases to spam newsgroups with what I now know to be total crap.If it happens again,I humbly apologise in advance for paranoid delusional rantings which are written in the name of the false moon god and serial paedophile Allah I am off now to enjoy a lovely pork lunch,and shag an underage boy for afters-oh no-islamic rantings again……HELP ME.PLEASE…… Shalom to my Jewish brothers
Response:
AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, HAL TURNER IS PLEASED TO WORK TOWARD "HOMELAND SECURITY" BY PROVIDING EXAMPLES OF "SUSPICIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHOM YOU SHOULD REPORT TO POLICE!" We have been told to call police if we see "people dressed in unusually heavy clothing based upon the weather, people who are sweating profusely or if we see wires or other things hanging from the inside of clothing. Click below to see people who seem to fit the description in many regards. They are "Middle Eastern looking" with "unusually heavy clothing" and often with wires or some things" hanging out from under the clothing! So, if you see any of these "suspicious people" walking down a street, trying to board a subway, ferry bus or airplane, please do your civic duty and tell the authorities about these "suspicious people wearing heavy clothing with wires or something hanging out. Click Here http://www.halturnershow.com/SuspiciousPersonsToReport.html
Response:
Question:
There is a fair bit of dishonesty and double counting in your list. For example, Palestine and Israel are listed separately although they are the same. Kashmir ( a state in India ) and India also have seperate entries. Try some honesty. — Seek simplicity and mistrust it. Alfred Whitehead A witty saying proves nothing. Voltaire
Response:
you title states that these muslims were killed by western powers since when are the Russians western along with all the other groups how about telling people about what would have happened to all the muslims in former Yugoslavia if the western powers didn’t come in what about all the muslims in the sudan killing and raping the black population whos killing all the muslim people in iraq with their terrorist bombs, it wouldnt be other muslims by any chance would it muslims have killed 10 times more muslims than all the non muslim countries put together you stated that ALGERIA: Several thousand killed during independence struggle from France. More than 100, 000 killed since 1992, by the Secular Regime for fear of Muslim takeover of government. why did they struggle to get independence from france and than all go over to live overthere isnt about 20% of france muslim can you please explain to me why if the west is so bad why millions of muslims try and escape to the west but why so may westerners who can leave whenever they want to never go to live in muslim countries how many refugees come to australia for instance to say they are refugees from afganistan and iraq and pass throught a muslim country like indonesia but dont want to stay there and risk their lives trying to get to australia is it maybe that they prefer the democracy and freedom of a western state rather than the totalitarian regime like the taliban or saddam when the muslims can sort themselves out than maybe then we can leave in peace.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Killing of Muslims in various countries by western powers, Refugees and > the Killing Fields > 1. AFGHANISTAN: 2 million killed during Soviet invasion since 1979. Now > it’s the turn of Americans, British & Russians to kill several thousand > Talibans and their foreign helpers in 2001. More than 6 Million made > refugees. > 2. ALBANIA: Several thousand by Soviet Communists, since 1944. Hosted > 465,000 Kosovar refugees in 1999. > 3. ALGERIA: Several thousand killed during independence struggle from > France. More than 100, 000 killed since 1992, by the Secular Regime for > fear of Muslim takeover of government. > 4. ARMENIA: Several thousand Muslims killed in an enclave called > Nagorno Karabakh during 1992-93 > 5. AZERBAIJAN: Several thousand Muslims killed by Soviets since 1922. > 6. BANGLADESH: More than one million people killed by Indian/Bengali > Terrorists, and 10 million made refugees since 1970. > 7. BOSNIA-HERZOGOVINA: Several hundred thousand Muslims killed by Serbs > and Croats since 1991. > 8. CHAD: Several thousand by French since 1981. > 9. CYPRESS: Several thousand Turkish Muslims killed by Greek since > 1964. > 10. DJIBOUTI: Several thousand killed during clashes with Ethiopia > since 1976. > 11. EGYPT: Several thousand Egyptian soldiers in Sinia killed since > 1967 War by Israelis. > 12. ERITRIA: Several thousand starved and killed by Ethiopians, since > 1962. > 13. INDIA: More than 2 million by Hindus, since 1947 partition of > India. > 14. INDONESIA: More than 500,000 thousand Indonesians (mostly Muslims) > were killed since 1960 by labeling them as communists with the help > from U.S. > 15. IRAN: More than 2 million people lost their lives during Iranian > revolution and by Iraqis after 1980, with the aid of American troops > and Naval Fleet. > 16. IRAQ: The worst massacre of Muslims by American and British forces > in the history, in which 150,000 lost lives, since 1991 Persian Gulf > War. More than 7000 Iraqi soldiers sitting in trenches were buried > alive when American infantry vehicle equipped with bulldozing blades > pushed sand on them in the trenches. > 17. ISRAEL: More than 3 million Muslim Arabs have been killed since > 1920’s by Jews. > 18. JORDAN: Hosted 700,000 refugees after Iraq was encouraged by U.S. > to take over Kuwait in 1990. > 19. KAZAKHSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviets since 1936. > 20. KOSOVO: Several thousand Albanian Muslims were killed by Serbs > during recent Balkan crisis in Mid 90’s, and many thousands made > refugees. > 21. KUWAIT: Several thousand Kuwaitis lost lives during Iraq’s invasion > and Gulf War since 1990. > 22. KYRGYZSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviet since 1936. > 23. LEBANON: An estimated 60,000 killed by Christian Fallangistsduring > 1975-76 Civil War, and many thousands killed since Lebanon’s occupation > by Israel in 1982, including several thousand at Sabra and Shatila > Palestinian refugee camps. Israeli troops made Lebanon a killing ground > since that time. > 24. LIBYA: U.S. Air Force bombed Tripoli & Be Ghazi in 1982, and 1986, > downing a few planes, sinking two ships, and killing several hundred > civilians including the adopted daughter of Muammar Qaddafi. > 25. MOROCCO: In 1979 Morocco lost several thousand troops after > invasion of Mauritania and Western Sahara for its rich mineral > deposits. > 26. NIGERIA: U.S. tried to divide Nigeria into another oil-rich region > calling it Biafra in which several thousand lives were lost in 1967. > Because of oil covert operations in Nigeria have caused high loss of > life in Muslim areas since that time. > 27. OMAN: Although not much is heard about Oman, but U.S. has set up a > permanent military base in Oman since mid 80s, used by American and > British forces during Persian Gulf War and recent Afghan War. > 28. PAKISTAN: Although no direct involvement by Western forces, yet the > internal strife called ethnic killings is due to help given to > dissident and opposition forces by Americans, Indian and British > intelligence has led to several thousand deaths since 1970’s. > 29. PHILIPPINES: More than 120,000 Muslims living in Mindanao lost > their lives by Christians assisted by U.S. covert operations. > 30. SOMALIA: Several hundred thousands Somalis died in civil war > encouraged by Christian covert war-lords in surrounding countries > assisted by U.S. U.S. Forces killed several hundred Somalis in 1995, > just to capture one person Col. Aideed. > 31. SUDAN: more than 2 million people killed by covert operations since > 1990 and many million have been displaced. > 32. SYRIA: Ever since 1967 Six Day War, Israel has killed many thousand > Syrians along with suppression by Bathist political party, whose > founder was a Christian Arab. Syrian forces confronted Arab Philangists > in Lebanon, and many killed by Israeli Defense Forces and their > surrogates in South Lebanon Army. > 33. TANZANIA: In January 1964, Sultan was ousted. This was achieved by > revolutionary forces with the help from Western masters. In this > process Several thousand Arabs/Muslims were slaughtered. > 34. TAJIKISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced several hundred thousands > of Tajiks from 1929. Later the invasion of Afghanistan in late 80s led > to several thousand dead in war with Afghans. > 35. TURKMENISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced many thousands of > Turkmenistanis after 1925. The investment by Western/American Oil > companies is leading to killing of many in Afghanistan by Turkmen and > Tajiks in current crisis in 2001. > 36. UGANDA: From 1971 to 1979, several thousand Muslim lost their lives > when British American forces launched covert operations to oust Idi > Amin. > 37. UZBEKISTAN: Soviet Russia after 1925 killed many thousands of > Muslims and displaced many thousands more. > 38. YEMEN: More than 200,000 people lost their lives since Gamal Abdul > Nasser launched a campaign in 60s, and more than 300,000 fled to south > during two decades of hostilities created by communists in the North. > 39. ZAMBIA: The covert civil strife and AIDS has taken a great toll in > this impoverished country, and more than 500, 000 children have been > orphaned. > 40. PALESTINE: Ever since the creation of Israel, more than two million > people lost their lives in Palestine, and many millions were driven out > never to return to their homeland. > 41. KASHMIR: More than a million Muslims have lost their lives ever > since Indian occupation in 1948, and many millions became refugees. > REFUGEES: > Today the largest number of refugees in the world are the Muslims, and > no one counts the Millions of Muslims killed in Asia, Africa, Middle > East, Europe, and South East Asia but the American are erecting > Holocaust Museums all over the country to remind the brutality > experienced by six million Jews at the hands of none other than the > intolerant Christians in Europe. This led to partition of Palestine > giving most of the Arab lands to settle European Jews in 1948, and > create a permanent problem for Arabs since that time. Israel has been > used as a surrogate to fight for American interests and at war with > neighboring Muslim countries ever since that time. The recent war in > Afghanistan has created many more million refugees driven in all > directions, but majority towards Pakistan by United States and > Britain. They are not only killing Afghan Muslim through unprecedented > and relentless bombing in history but also encouraging Muslims from > North to kill other Muslims in the South especially in the Holy Month > of Ramadan. > KILLING FIELDS: > US/UK are using latest weapons technology and the heaviest bombs > (15,000 lbs), cluster bombs, and cruise missiles tipped with depleted > Uranium warheads, to kill and maim civilians without any mercy, and at > the same time dropping food packages to show their hypocrisy never seen > in the history before. Ever since the Persian Gulf War, US/UK have used > Depleted Uranium weapons that will kill millions with cancer and other > diseases, in those areas contaminated with radioactive debris that will > continue to effect life for millions of years through the killing > ionizing radiation. > This war will leave a great deal of animosity
… read more »
Response:
> 15. IRAN: More than 2 million people lost their lives during Iranian > revolution and by Iraqis after 1980, with the aid of American troops > and Naval Fleet.
The 1 million people were killed by your hero SADDAM (who started the war) and his filthy ARAB and MUSLIM allies and their money. ALL the innocent people killed were Muslims (Muslim killing Muslim) IRAQ- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (including Kords and Shia) were killed by your hero SADDAM. Many more would have been killed , if he was not removed by US and its allies MUSLIMS are the Menace and produce the most terrorists killing, bombing, beheading innocent people (including other Muslims) all around the world , for their Allah (from Philippines, to Holland, to UK, Pakistan, Iran, India, US, Afghanistan,….) If you want to go further back, Mohamad and his MUSLIMS thugs were the major source of terrorism and killing innocent people from Persia to Spain, forcing and killing people to convert to their Islamic CULT. Not much has changed , the same terrorist Muslims are trying to do the same for their imaginary Allah (following Quran) in 21st century – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Killing of Muslims in various countries by western powers, Refugees and > the Killing Fields > 1. AFGHANISTAN: 2 million killed during Soviet invasion since 1979. Now > it’s the turn of Americans, British & Russians to kill several thousand > Talibans and their foreign helpers in 2001. More than 6 Million made > refugees. > 2. ALBANIA: Several thousand by Soviet Communists, since 1944. Hosted > 465,000 Kosovar refugees in 1999. > 3. ALGERIA: Several thousand killed during independence struggle from > France. More than 100, 000 killed since 1992, by the Secular Regime for > fear of Muslim takeover of government. > 4. ARMENIA: Several thousand Muslims killed in an enclave called > Nagorno Karabakh during 1992-93 > 5. AZERBAIJAN: Several thousand Muslims killed by Soviets since 1922. > 6. BANGLADESH: More than one million people killed by Indian/Bengali > Terrorists, and 10 million made refugees since 1970. > 7. BOSNIA-HERZOGOVINA: Several hundred thousand Muslims killed by Serbs > and Croats since 1991. > 8. CHAD: Several thousand by French since 1981. > 9. CYPRESS: Several thousand Turkish Muslims killed by Greek since > 1964. > 10. DJIBOUTI: Several thousand killed during clashes with Ethiopia > since 1976. > 11. EGYPT: Several thousand Egyptian soldiers in Sinia killed since > 1967 War by Israelis. > 12. ERITRIA: Several thousand starved and killed by Ethiopians, since > 1962. > 13. INDIA: More than 2 million by Hindus, since 1947 partition of > India. > 14. INDONESIA: More than 500,000 thousand Indonesians (mostly Muslims) > were killed since 1960 by labeling them as communists with the help > from U.S. > 15. IRAN: More than 2 million people lost their lives during Iranian > revolution and by Iraqis after 1980, with the aid of American troops > and Naval Fleet. > 16. IRAQ: The worst massacre of Muslims by American and British forces > in the history, in which 150,000 lost lives, since 1991 Persian Gulf > War. More than 7000 Iraqi soldiers sitting in trenches were buried > alive when American infantry vehicle equipped with bulldozing blades > pushed sand on them in the trenches. > 17. ISRAEL: More than 3 million Muslim Arabs have been killed since > 1920’s by Jews. > 18. JORDAN: Hosted 700,000 refugees after Iraq was encouraged by U.S. > to take over Kuwait in 1990. > 19. KAZAKHSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviets since 1936. > 20. KOSOVO: Several thousand Albanian Muslims were killed by Serbs > during recent Balkan crisis in Mid 90’s, and many thousands made > refugees. > 21. KUWAIT: Several thousand Kuwaitis lost lives during Iraq’s invasion > and Gulf War since 1990. > 22. KYRGYZSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviet since 1936. > 23. LEBANON: An estimated 60,000 killed by Christian Fallangistsduring > 1975-76 Civil War, and many thousands killed since Lebanon’s occupation > by Israel in 1982, including several thousand at Sabra and Shatila > Palestinian refugee camps. Israeli troops made Lebanon a killing ground > since that time. > 24. LIBYA: U.S. Air Force bombed Tripoli & Be Ghazi in 1982, and 1986, > downing a few planes, sinking two ships, and killing several hundred > civilians including the adopted daughter of Muammar Qaddafi. > 25. MOROCCO: In 1979 Morocco lost several thousand troops after > invasion of Mauritania and Western Sahara for its rich mineral > deposits. > 26. NIGERIA: U.S. tried to divide Nigeria into another oil-rich region > calling it Biafra in which several thousand lives were lost in 1967. > Because of oil covert operations in Nigeria have caused high loss of > life in Muslim areas since that time. > 27. OMAN: Although not much is heard about Oman, but U.S. has set up a > permanent military base in Oman since mid 80s, used by American and > British forces during Persian Gulf War and recent Afghan War. > 28. PAKISTAN: Although no direct involvement by Western forces, yet the > internal strife called ethnic killings is due to help given to > dissident and opposition forces by Americans, Indian and British > intelligence has led to several thousand deaths since 1970’s. > 29. PHILIPPINES: More than 120,000 Muslims living in Mindanao lost > their lives by Christians assisted by U.S. covert operations. > 30. SOMALIA: Several hundred thousands Somalis died in civil war > encouraged by Christian covert war-lords in surrounding countries > assisted by U.S. U.S. Forces killed several hundred Somalis in 1995, > just to capture one person Col. Aideed. > 31. SUDAN: more than 2 million people killed by covert operations since > 1990 and many million have been displaced. > 32. SYRIA: Ever since 1967 Six Day War, Israel has killed many thousand > Syrians along with suppression by Bathist political party, whose > founder was a Christian Arab. Syrian forces confronted Arab Philangists > in Lebanon, and many killed by Israeli Defense Forces and their > surrogates in South Lebanon Army. > 33. TANZANIA: In January 1964, Sultan was ousted. This was achieved by > revolutionary forces with the help from Western masters. In this > process Several thousand Arabs/Muslims were slaughtered. > 34. TAJIKISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced several hundred thousands > of Tajiks from 1929. Later the invasion of Afghanistan in late 80s led > to several thousand dead in war with Afghans. > 35. TURKMENISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced many thousands of > Turkmenistanis after 1925. The investment by Western/American Oil > companies is leading to killing of many in Afghanistan by Turkmen and > Tajiks in current crisis in 2001. > 36. UGANDA: From 1971 to 1979, several thousand Muslim lost their lives > when British American forces launched covert operations to oust Idi > Amin. > 37. UZBEKISTAN: Soviet Russia after 1925 killed many thousands of > Muslims and displaced many thousands more. > 38. YEMEN: More than 200,000 people lost their lives since Gamal Abdul > Nasser launched a campaign in 60s, and more than 300,000 fled to south > during two decades of hostilities created by communists in the North. > 39. ZAMBIA: The covert civil strife and AIDS has taken a great toll in > this impoverished country, and more than 500, 000 children have been > orphaned. > 40. PALESTINE: Ever since the creation of Israel, more than two million > people lost their lives in Palestine, and many millions were driven out > never to return to their homeland. > 41. KASHMIR: More than a million Muslims have lost their lives ever > since Indian occupation in 1948, and many millions became refugees. > REFUGEES: > Today the largest number of refugees in the world are the Muslims, and > no one counts the Millions of Muslims killed in Asia, Africa, Middle > East, Europe, and South East Asia but the American are erecting > Holocaust Museums all over the country to remind the brutality > experienced by six million Jews at the hands of none other than the > intolerant Christians in Europe. This led to partition of Palestine > giving most of the Arab lands to settle European Jews in 1948, and > create a permanent problem for Arabs since that time. Israel has been > used as a surrogate to fight for American interests and at war with > neighboring Muslim countries ever since that time. The recent war in > Afghanistan has created many more million refugees driven in all > directions, but majority towards Pakistan by United States and > Britain. They are not only killing Afghan Muslim through unprecedented > and relentless bombing in history but also encouraging Muslims from > North to kill other Muslims in the South especially in the Holy Month > of Ramadan. > KILLING FIELDS: > US/UK are using latest weapons technology and the heaviest bombs > (15,000 lbs), cluster bombs, and cruise missiles tipped with depleted > Uranium warheads, to kill and maim civilians without any mercy, and at > the same time dropping food packages to show their hypocrisy never seen > in the history before. Ever since the Persian Gulf War, US/UK have used > Depleted Uranium weapons that will kill millions with cancer and other > diseases, in those areas contaminated with radioactive debris that will > continue to effect life for millions of years through the killing > ionizing radiation. > This war will leave a great deal of animosity within various ethnic > groups of Muslims and a great danger for Pakistan in the future from > India with hostile Afghanistan on the West. The corrupt Muslim leaders > have been purchased by the West to kill their fellow Muslims in and > around Afghanistan. During the twentieth century Christians killed > Christians, Jews and Muslims. Muslim countries were fragmented to > create better control of the population by creating Kingdoms and > Emirates that never existed
… read more »
Response:
just one problem-it’s not on a big enough scale
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Killing of Muslims in various countries by western powers, Refugees and > the Killing Fields > 1. AFGHANISTAN: 2 million killed during Soviet invasion since 1979. Now > it’s the turn of Americans, British & Russians to kill several thousand > Talibans and their foreign helpers in 2001. More than 6 Million made > refugees. > 2. ALBANIA: Several thousand by Soviet Communists, since 1944. Hosted > 465,000 Kosovar refugees in 1999. > 3. ALGERIA: Several thousand killed during independence struggle from > France. More than 100, 000 killed since 1992, by the Secular Regime for > fear of Muslim takeover of government. > 4. ARMENIA: Several thousand Muslims killed in an enclave called > Nagorno Karabakh during 1992-93 > 5. AZERBAIJAN: Several thousand Muslims killed by Soviets since 1922. > 6. BANGLADESH: More than one million people killed by Indian/Bengali > Terrorists, and 10 million made refugees since 1970. > 7. BOSNIA-HERZOGOVINA: Several hundred thousand Muslims killed by Serbs > and Croats since 1991. > 8. CHAD: Several thousand by French since 1981. > 9. CYPRESS: Several thousand Turkish Muslims killed by Greek since > 1964. > 10. DJIBOUTI: Several thousand killed during clashes with Ethiopia > since 1976. > 11. EGYPT: Several thousand Egyptian soldiers in Sinia killed since > 1967 War by Israelis. > 12. ERITRIA: Several thousand starved and killed by Ethiopians, since > 1962. > 13. INDIA: More than 2 million by Hindus, since 1947 partition of > India. > 14. INDONESIA: More than 500,000 thousand Indonesians (mostly Muslims) > were killed since 1960 by labeling them as communists with the help > from U.S. > 15. IRAN: More than 2 million people lost their lives during Iranian > revolution and by Iraqis after 1980, with the aid of American troops > and Naval Fleet. > 16. IRAQ: The worst massacre of Muslims by American and British forces > in the history, in which 150,000 lost lives, since 1991 Persian Gulf > War. More than 7000 Iraqi soldiers sitting in trenches were buried > alive when American infantry vehicle equipped with bulldozing blades > pushed sand on them in the trenches. > 17. ISRAEL: More than 3 million Muslim Arabs have been killed since > 1920’s by Jews. > 18. JORDAN: Hosted 700,000 refugees after Iraq was encouraged by U.S. > to take over Kuwait in 1990. > 19. KAZAKHSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviets since 1936. > 20. KOSOVO: Several thousand Albanian Muslims were killed by Serbs > during recent Balkan crisis in Mid 90’s, and many thousands made > refugees. > 21. KUWAIT: Several thousand Kuwaitis lost lives during Iraq’s invasion > and Gulf War since 1990. > 22. KYRGYZSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviet since 1936. > 23. LEBANON: An estimated 60,000 killed by Christian Fallangistsduring > 1975-76 Civil War, and many thousands killed since Lebanon’s occupation > by Israel in 1982, including several thousand at Sabra and Shatila > Palestinian refugee camps. Israeli troops made Lebanon a killing ground > since that time. > 24. LIBYA: U.S. Air Force bombed Tripoli & Be Ghazi in 1982, and 1986, > downing a few planes, sinking two ships, and killing several hundred > civilians including the adopted daughter of Muammar Qaddafi. > 25. MOROCCO: In 1979 Morocco lost several thousand troops after > invasion of Mauritania and Western Sahara for its rich mineral > deposits. > 26. NIGERIA: U.S. tried to divide Nigeria into another oil-rich region > calling it Biafra in which several thousand lives were lost in 1967. > Because of oil covert operations in Nigeria have caused high loss of > life in Muslim areas since that time. > 27. OMAN: Although not much is heard about Oman, but U.S. has set up a > permanent military base in Oman since mid 80s, used by American and > British forces during Persian Gulf War and recent Afghan War. > 28. PAKISTAN: Although no direct involvement by Western forces, yet the > internal strife called ethnic killings is due to help given to > dissident and opposition forces by Americans, Indian and British > intelligence has led to several thousand deaths since 1970’s. > 29. PHILIPPINES: More than 120,000 Muslims living in Mindanao lost > their lives by Christians assisted by U.S. covert operations. > 30. SOMALIA: Several hundred thousands Somalis died in civil war > encouraged by Christian covert war-lords in surrounding countries > assisted by U.S. U.S. Forces killed several hundred Somalis in 1995, > just to capture one person Col. Aideed. > 31. SUDAN: more than 2 million people killed by covert operations since > 1990 and many million have been displaced. > 32. SYRIA: Ever since 1967 Six Day War, Israel has killed many thousand > Syrians along with suppression by Bathist political party, whose > founder was a Christian Arab. Syrian forces confronted Arab Philangists > in Lebanon, and many killed by Israeli Defense Forces and their > surrogates in South Lebanon Army. > 33. TANZANIA: In January 1964, Sultan was ousted. This was achieved by > revolutionary forces with the help from Western masters. In this > process Several thousand Arabs/Muslims were slaughtered. > 34. TAJIKISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced several hundred thousands > of Tajiks from 1929. Later the invasion of Afghanistan in late 80s led > to several thousand dead in war with Afghans. > 35. TURKMENISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced many thousands of > Turkmenistanis after 1925. The investment by Western/American Oil > companies is leading to killing of many in Afghanistan by Turkmen and > Tajiks in current crisis in 2001. > 36. UGANDA: From 1971 to 1979, several thousand Muslim lost their lives > when British American forces launched covert operations to oust Idi > Amin. > 37. UZBEKISTAN: Soviet Russia after 1925 killed many thousands of > Muslims and displaced many thousands more. > 38. YEMEN: More than 200,000 people lost their lives since Gamal Abdul > Nasser launched a campaign in 60s, and more than 300,000 fled to south > during two decades of hostilities created by communists in the North. > 39. ZAMBIA: The covert civil strife and AIDS has taken a great toll in > this impoverished country, and more than 500, 000 children have been > orphaned. > 40. PALESTINE: Ever since the creation of Israel, more than two million > people lost their lives in Palestine, and many millions were driven out > never to return to their homeland. > 41. KASHMIR: More than a million Muslims have lost their lives ever > since Indian occupation in 1948, and many millions became refugees. > REFUGEES: > Today the largest number of refugees in the world are the Muslims, and > no one counts the Millions of Muslims killed in Asia, Africa, Middle > East, Europe, and South East Asia but the American are erecting > Holocaust Museums all over the country to remind the brutality > experienced by six million Jews at the hands of none other than the > intolerant Christians in Europe. This led to partition of Palestine > giving most of the Arab lands to settle European Jews in 1948, and > create a permanent problem for Arabs since that time. Israel has been > used as a surrogate to fight for American interests and at war with > neighboring Muslim countries ever since that time. The recent war in > Afghanistan has created many more million refugees driven in all > directions, but majority towards Pakistan by United States and > Britain. They are not only killing Afghan Muslim through unprecedented > and relentless bombing in history but also encouraging Muslims from > North to kill other Muslims in the South especially in the Holy Month > of Ramadan. > KILLING FIELDS: > US/UK are using latest weapons technology and the heaviest bombs > (15,000 lbs), cluster bombs, and cruise missiles tipped with depleted > Uranium warheads, to kill and maim civilians without any mercy, and at > the same time dropping food packages to show their hypocrisy never seen > in the history before. Ever since the Persian Gulf War, US/UK have used > Depleted Uranium weapons that will kill millions with cancer and other > diseases, in those areas contaminated with radioactive debris that will > continue to effect life for millions of years through the killing > ionizing radiation. > This war will leave a great deal of animosity within various ethnic > groups of Muslims and a great danger for Pakistan in the future from > India with hostile Afghanistan on the West. The corrupt Muslim leaders > have been purchased by the West to kill their fellow Muslims in and > around Afghanistan. During the twentieth century Christians killed > Christians, Jews and Muslims. Muslim countries were fragmented to > create better control of the population by creating Kingdoms and > Emirates that never existed before. The beginning of new millennium > (i.e. 21st Century) has unleashed fury on Muslims unprecedented in the > history of mankind and against International law, again by joint > Christian and Jewish forces. > The first Crusade was blessed by Pope Urban II in 1096, but the recent > two Wars (1990 and 2001 – Crusades under different names) were blessed > by none other than a well known Christian Evangelist, Billy Graham. No > matter what the spin masters in Washington and London call it as "War > Against Terrorism," but in reality it is a CRUSADE against Muslims in a > disguise. Allah will never forgive Muslims who kill their fellow > Muslims to help their common enemy – Non-Muslim foreigners, hypocrites > and pagans. > REFRENCES: > 1. Kinder & Hilgermann, "The Anchor HISTORY OF WORLD," Volume 1 & 2, > Anchor > Books, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden city, New York, 1974. > (Paperback). > 2. The World Almanac & Book of Facts, World Almanac Books, Mahwah, New > Jersey, 2001. > 3. Rick Atkinson, "CRUSADE – The
… read more »
Response:
Killing of Muslims in various countries by western powers, Refugees and the Killing Fields 1. AFGHANISTAN: 2 million killed during Soviet invasion since 1979. Now it’s the turn of Americans, British & Russians to kill several thousand Talibans and their foreign helpers in 2001. More than 6 Million made refugees. 2. ALBANIA: Several thousand by Soviet Communists, since 1944. Hosted 465,000 Kosovar refugees in 1999. 3. ALGERIA: Several thousand killed during independence struggle from France. More than 100, 000 killed since 1992, by the Secular Regime for fear of Muslim takeover of government. 4. ARMENIA: Several thousand Muslims killed in an enclave called Nagorno Karabakh during 1992-93 5. AZERBAIJAN: Several thousand Muslims killed by Soviets since 1922. 6. BANGLADESH: More than one million people killed by Indian/Bengali Terrorists, and 10 million made refugees since 1970. 7. BOSNIA-HERZOGOVINA: Several hundred thousand Muslims killed by Serbs and Croats since 1991. 8. CHAD: Several thousand by French since 1981. 9. CYPRESS: Several thousand Turkish Muslims killed by Greek since 1964. 10. DJIBOUTI: Several thousand killed during clashes with Ethiopia since 1976. 11. EGYPT: Several thousand Egyptian soldiers in Sinia killed since 1967 War by Israelis. 12. ERITRIA: Several thousand starved and killed by Ethiopians, since 1962. 13. INDIA: More than 2 million by Hindus, since 1947 partition of India. 14. INDONESIA: More than 500,000 thousand Indonesians (mostly Muslims) were killed since 1960 by labeling them as communists with the help from U.S. 15. IRAN: More than 2 million people lost their lives during Iranian revolution and by Iraqis after 1980, with the aid of American troops and Naval Fleet. 16. IRAQ: The worst massacre of Muslims by American and British forces in the history, in which 150,000 lost lives, since 1991 Persian Gulf War. More than 7000 Iraqi soldiers sitting in trenches were buried alive when American infantry vehicle equipped with bulldozing blades pushed sand on them in the trenches. 17. ISRAEL: More than 3 million Muslim Arabs have been killed since 1920’s by Jews. 18. JORDAN: Hosted 700,000 refugees after Iraq was encouraged by U.S. to take over Kuwait in 1990. 19. KAZAKHSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviets since 1936. 20. KOSOVO: Several thousand Albanian Muslims were killed by Serbs during recent Balkan crisis in Mid 90’s, and many thousands made refugees. 21. KUWAIT: Several thousand Kuwaitis lost lives during Iraq’s invasion and Gulf War since 1990. 22. KYRGYZSTAN: Several thousand Muslims by Soviet since 1936. 23. LEBANON: An estimated 60,000 killed by Christian Fallangistsduring 1975-76 Civil War, and many thousands killed since Lebanon’s occupation by Israel in 1982, including several thousand at Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. Israeli troops made Lebanon a killing ground since that time. 24. LIBYA: U.S. Air Force bombed Tripoli & Be Ghazi in 1982, and 1986, downing a few planes, sinking two ships, and killing several hundred civilians including the adopted daughter of Muammar Qaddafi. 25. MOROCCO: In 1979 Morocco lost several thousand troops after invasion of Mauritania and Western Sahara for its rich mineral deposits. 26. NIGERIA: U.S. tried to divide Nigeria into another oil-rich region calling it Biafra in which several thousand lives were lost in 1967. Because of oil covert operations in Nigeria have caused high loss of life in Muslim areas since that time. 27. OMAN: Although not much is heard about Oman, but U.S. has set up a permanent military base in Oman since mid 80s, used by American and British forces during Persian Gulf War and recent Afghan War. 28. PAKISTAN: Although no direct involvement by Western forces, yet the internal strife called ethnic killings is due to help given to dissident and opposition forces by Americans, Indian and British intelligence has led to several thousand deaths since 1970’s. 29. PHILIPPINES: More than 120,000 Muslims living in Mindanao lost their lives by Christians assisted by U.S. covert operations. 30. SOMALIA: Several hundred thousands Somalis died in civil war encouraged by Christian covert war-lords in surrounding countries assisted by U.S. U.S. Forces killed several hundred Somalis in 1995, just to capture one person Col. Aideed. 31. SUDAN: more than 2 million people killed by covert operations since 1990 and many million have been displaced. 32. SYRIA: Ever since 1967 Six Day War, Israel has killed many thousand Syrians along with suppression by Bathist political party, whose founder was a Christian Arab. Syrian forces confronted Arab Philangists in Lebanon, and many killed by Israeli Defense Forces and their surrogates in South Lebanon Army. 33. TANZANIA: In January 1964, Sultan was ousted. This was achieved by revolutionary forces with the help from Western masters. In this process Several thousand Arabs/Muslims were slaughtered. 34. TAJIKISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced several hundred thousands of Tajiks from 1929. Later the invasion of Afghanistan in late 80s led to several thousand dead in war with Afghans. 35. TURKMENISTAN: Soviets killed and displaced many thousands of Turkmenistanis after 1925. The investment by Western/American Oil companies is leading to killing of many in Afghanistan by Turkmen and Tajiks in current crisis in 2001. 36. UGANDA: From 1971 to 1979, several thousand Muslim lost their lives when British American forces launched covert operations to oust Idi Amin. 37. UZBEKISTAN: Soviet Russia after 1925 killed many thousands of Muslims and displaced many thousands more. 38. YEMEN: More than 200,000 people lost their lives since Gamal Abdul Nasser launched a campaign in 60s, and more than 300,000 fled to south during two decades of hostilities created by communists in the North. 39. ZAMBIA: The covert civil strife and AIDS has taken a great toll in this impoverished country, and more than 500, 000 children have been orphaned. 40. PALESTINE: Ever since the creation of Israel, more than two million people lost their lives in Palestine, and many millions were driven out never to return to their homeland. 41. KASHMIR: More than a million Muslims have lost their lives ever since Indian occupation in 1948, and many millions became refugees. REFUGEES: Today the largest number of refugees in the world are the Muslims, and no one counts the Millions of Muslims killed in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Europe, and South East Asia but the American are erecting Holocaust Museums all over the country to remind the brutality experienced by six million Jews at the hands of none other than the intolerant Christians in Europe. This led to partition of Palestine giving most of the Arab lands to settle European Jews in 1948, and create a permanent problem for Arabs since that time. Israel has been used as a surrogate to fight for American interests and at war with neighboring Muslim countries ever since that time. The recent war in Afghanistan has created many more million refugees driven in all directions, but majority towards Pakistan by United States and Britain. They are not only killing Afghan Muslim through unprecedented and relentless bombing in history but also encouraging Muslims from North to kill other Muslims in the South especially in the Holy Month of Ramadan. KILLING FIELDS: US/UK are using latest weapons technology and the heaviest bombs (15,000 lbs), cluster bombs, and cruise missiles tipped with depleted Uranium warheads, to kill and maim civilians without any mercy, and at the same time dropping food packages to show their hypocrisy never seen in the history before. Ever since the Persian Gulf War, US/UK have used Depleted Uranium weapons that will kill millions with cancer and other diseases, in those areas contaminated with radioactive debris that will continue to effect life for millions of years through the killing ionizing radiation. This war will leave a great deal of animosity within various ethnic groups of Muslims and a great danger for Pakistan in the future from India with hostile Afghanistan on the West. The corrupt Muslim leaders have been purchased by the West to kill their fellow Muslims in and around Afghanistan. During the twentieth century Christians killed Christians, Jews and Muslims. Muslim countries were fragmented to create better control of the population by creating Kingdoms and Emirates that never existed before. The beginning of new millennium (i.e. 21st Century) has unleashed fury on Muslims unprecedented in the history of mankind and against International law, again by joint Christian and Jewish forces. The first Crusade was blessed by Pope Urban II in 1096, but the recent two Wars (1990 and 2001 – Crusades under different names) were blessed by none other than a well known Christian Evangelist, Billy Graham. No matter what the spin masters in Washington and London call it as "War Against Terrorism," but in reality it is a CRUSADE against Muslims in a disguise. Allah will never forgive Muslims who kill their fellow Muslims to help their common enemy – Non-Muslim foreigners, hypocrites and pagans. REFRENCES: 1. Kinder & Hilgermann, "The Anchor HISTORY OF WORLD," Volume 1 & 2, Anchor Books, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden city, New York, 1974. (Paperback). 2. The World Almanac & Book of Facts, World Almanac Books, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2001. 3. Rick Atkinson, "CRUSADE – The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War," Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York 1993. 4. James Bamford, "BODY OF SECRETS – Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, from the Cold War through the Dawn of A New Century," Doubleday ( A Div. Of Random House), New York 2001. 5. William Blum, "KILLING HOPE – U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME 1995. 6. International Action Center, "METAL OF DISHONOR – Depleted Uranium: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers & Civilians with DU Weapons," … read more »
Response:
Previous page