|
|
|
As the article states this was at a firehouse which is public
property. This protester had every right to speak out. Now this
american has been charged with "defiant protest" whatever that is!!!!
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D8552MV00_story
U.S. News - September 16, 2004
September 16, 2004 07:10 PM EDT
HAMILTON, N.J. - A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President
Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was
detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by first
lady Laura Bush.
Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a
firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth
Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying
to disarm a bomb.
As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the
middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of
her son. Local police escorted her from the event, handcuffed her and
put her in the back of a police van.
Niederer was later charged with defiant trespass and released. (snip)
|
| |
| |
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D8552MV00_story
And from this you conclude that Laura Bush had the protester arrested?
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
As the article states this was at a firehouse which is public
property. This protester had every right to speak out. Now this
american has been charged with "defiant protest" whatever that is!!!!
No, she was charged with defiant protest. And if you want to know what that
is you could (gasp!) look it up.
Her problem was that she interrupted the speech that others had gathered to
hear. Her right to speak out does not include disturbing the public
peace - others have the right to gather and hear a speech.
But then, given your constantly nutty and unrealistic notions, I don't
expect you understand that one person's right to free speech is balanced
against other peoples' rights to free assembly, gathering together to hear a
speaker they *want* to listen to.
Go yell fire in a crowded theater, and then tell me about your right to
speak out. Sit in front of a police station looking at kiddy porn, and then
lecture the arresting officer about freedom of the press. Rights are
balanced against each other - none of them is absolute.
Oh, and while I'm pointing out how utterly stupid you are - did Laura Bush
order the polic to arrest this woman? Or is it perhaps that the subject
line was just the first of many stupid things you had to say here.
Bo Raxo
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D8552MV00_story
U.S. News - September 16, 2004
September 16, 2004 07:10 PM EDT
HAMILTON, N.J. - A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President
Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was
detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by first
lady Laura Bush.
Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a
firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth
Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying
to disarm a bomb.
As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the
middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of
her son. Local police escorted her from the event, handcuffed her and
put her in the back of a police van.
Niederer was later charged with defiant trespass and released. (snip)
|
| |
| |
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:780ea958.0409161654.5d4aa013@posting.google.com...
No, she was charged with defiant protest.
Typo - I meant defiant trespass.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:00:41 +0000, Bo Raxo wrote:
No, she was charged with defiant protest. And if you want to know what that
is you could (gasp!) look it up.
Her problem was that she interrupted the speech that others had gathered to
hear. Her right to speak out does not include disturbing the public
peace - others have the right to gather and hear a speech.
But then, given your constantly nutty and unrealistic notions, I don't
expect you understand that one person's right to free speech is balanced
against other peoples' rights to free assembly, gathering together to hear a
speaker they *want* to listen to.
Go yell fire in a crowded theater, and then tell me about your right to
speak out. Sit in front of a police station looking at kiddy porn, and then
lecture the arresting officer about freedom of the press. Rights are
balanced against each other - none of them is absolute.
Oh, and while I'm pointing out how utterly stupid you are - did Laura Bush
order the polic to arrest this woman? Or is it perhaps that the subject
line was just the first of many stupid things you had to say here.
Bo Raxo
Bo,
some good points about the previous post being over-hyped. A more accurate
post would have said "Grief-stricken mother interrupts First Lady's Speech
and is arrested for Defiant Trespass." That is why I changed the subject
line.
I think that the woman who was arrested was simply expressing resentment
at the disregard family members feel, when no one seems to be paying
attention to their loss. The deaths get little more than passing notice in
most of the media - the deaths are ticked off like little numbers and
nothing more. We don't know the true number of wounded and maimed for
life, and we don't know the real cost in human lives and more importantly,
lost human potential yet. That is a terrible tragedy that is largely
ignored, swept under the rug - hidden and out of sight, out of mind.
The soldiers don't know that when they get home, they probably won't have
jobs waiting for them either, because they will have been sent overseas.
That is not a good thing. The future generations don't know about what war
really is - it's a meat-grinder of humanity. It chews up lives and
spits out corpses. It isn't an answer, it's a problem. There are no
winners in war - there are only survivors in one form or another, left
behind to pick up the pieces of shattered lives and loves lost.
If the draft in enacted - then every citizen between 18 and 26, male and
female, will be involuntarily inducted for two years into government
service. It stands a good chance of becoming reality. Wait till all those
children start leaving this country for war and not coming back. There
will be more Sue Niederers - and more protests.
It is likely to become a very ugly scene. Having lived in the Vietnam era,
it wasn't so great. Knowing people who went and didn't return, some who
did and were later killed because they weren't quite right in the head
anymore, some who served and came out okay (but changed) and some who
dodged the draft and ran to Canada, I can say it was a very stressful
experience growing up. It was the TV war and the anti-war at the same
time, along with the civil rights riots, unemployment and inequality.
I had hoped we would have gone past all that by now. Unfortunately, I
think we are preparing to learn a lot of lessons we seem to have forgotten. :(
The rhetoric and vitriol are useless when you are dead. It's time we
realize that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Until this
campaign chickensh*t stops from both ends - we are f*cked as a Nation.
Until both sides realize that sh*t - then, we, the people, are screwed.
Have a nice day.
freecode
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:00:41 +0000, Bo Raxo wrote:
Bo,
some good points about the previous post being over-hyped. A more accurate
post would have said "Grief-stricken mother interrupts First Lady's Speech
and is arrested for Defiant Trespass." That is why I changed the subject
line.
I think that the woman who was arrested was simply expressing resentment
at the disregard family members feel, when no one seems to be paying
attention to their loss. The deaths get little more than passing notice in
most of the media - the deaths are ticked off like little numbers and
nothing more.
I disagree. I see these numbers reported, and I see stories about the
wounded and killed in their local papers. I see heart-wrenching stories
appear in newspapers and on local news broadcasts, both in places like San
Francisco where most people oppose the war, to places like Oklahoma City
where most people support it.
We don't know the true number of wounded and maimed for
life, and we don't know the real cost in human lives and more importantly,
lost human potential yet. That is a terrible tragedy that is largely
ignored, swept under the rug - hidden and out of sight, out of mind.
Again, I respectfully disagree. We've seen the numbers on permanently
disabled (almost seven thousand), we've seen the numbers on how many injured
enough that they won't ever return to active duty (over twenty six
thousand); indeed, such stories make great news copy, it's inevitable that
they are reported.
As for not reporting how much lost human potential this represents, well,
how exactly would you report such a story?
The soldiers don't know that when they get home, they probably won't have
jobs waiting for them either, because they will have been sent overseas.
That is not a good thing. The future generations don't know about what war
really is - it's a meat-grinder of humanity. It chews up lives and
spits out corpses. It isn't an answer, it's a problem. There are no
winners in war - there are only survivors in one form or another, left
behind to pick up the pieces of shattered lives and loves lost.
Well, there are winners in war, and there are losers. But they are all
people sitting far away and toting up the results in their accounts - not
the people doing the actual fighting.
I draw a difference between regular military - full-time, professional
soldiers who signed on and trained for just this situation - and reserve and
National Guard troops, who are only supposed to be used in a national
emergency. The reserve and Guard troops are really getting a raw deal, and
this administration should be called on the shameful way they have taken
advantage of these people.
If the draft in enacted - then every citizen between 18 and 26, male and
female, will be involuntarily inducted for two years into government
service. It stands a good chance of becoming reality. Wait till all those
children start leaving this country for war and not coming back. There
will be more Sue Niederers - and more protests.
Again, I disagree. If a draft is enacted, it will be men only.
Note to idiots: this doesn't mean I approve of enacting a draft, or of it
targeting only men; I'm just saying, given the realities of domestic
politics, that you won't see a coed draft any time soon.
It is likely to become a very ugly scene. Having lived in the Vietnam era,
it wasn't so great. Knowing people who went and didn't return, some who
did and were later killed because they weren't quite right in the head
anymore, some who served and came out okay (but changed) and some who
dodged the draft and ran to Canada, I can say it was a very stressful
experience growing up. It was the TV war and the anti-war at the same
time, along with the civil rights riots, unemployment and inequality.
Again, I disagree, but in a more subtle manner: it will be an ugly scene, no
doubt about it, reminiscent of 'Nam vets who came back with addictions and
mental health issues and who often ended up homeless and ignored by the
society they served. It has nothing to do with a draft - we will see many,
many Iraq war vets who will be disturbed by the massacre of civilians, by
seeing and doing things that no human being should be forced to endure.
And this country will turn its collective back on them, letting them spiral
in to alcohol and drug addiction, letting them slip through the cracks and
end up as the crazy panhandler everyone tries to ignore.
I had hoped we would have gone past all that by now. Unfortunately, I
think we are preparing to learn a lot of lessons we seem to have
forgotten. :(
Now here we agree completely.
The rhetoric and vitriol are useless when you are dead. It's time we
realize that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Until this
campaign chickensh*t stops from both ends - we are f*cked as a Nation.
Until both sides realize that sh*t - then, we, the people, are screwed.
This war was a mistake, and it's unwinnable. There's your parallel to 'Nam.
Like that earlier conflict, the collective American conciousness will want
to forget it all and put it behind us, and will forget and ignore the
problems of these veterans (as well as the problems of many Iraqis, which we
should take some responsibility for but won't).
Have a nice day.
I try, but I'll have a much better day when my tax dollars and the lives of
American soldiers aren't being squandered making the lives of ordinary
Iraqis miserable.
Thank you for taking the time to make your lengthy and thoughtful reply. 0
Bo Raxo
|
| |
| |
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:780ea958.0409161654.5d4aa013@posting.google.com...
No, she was charged with defiant protest. And if you want to know what
that
is you could (gasp!) look it up.
Her problem was that she interrupted the speech that others had gathered
to
hear.
You mean like that republican hero of yours who stood up and yelled at
kerry, that we keep seeing pasted all over the newsgroup? lol
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
<big snips>
I disagree. I see these numbers reported, and I see stories about the
wounded and killed in their local papers. I see heart-wrenching stories
appear in newspapers and on local news broadcasts, both in places like San
Francisco where most people oppose the war, to places like Oklahoma City
where most people support it.
I see the same as you do.
Truly, hell has frozen over ;-).
Again, I respectfully disagree. We've seen the numbers on permanently
disabled (almost seven thousand), we've seen the numbers on how many injured
enough that they won't ever return to active duty (over twenty six
thousand); indeed, such stories make great news copy, it's inevitable that
they are reported.
Yes. The reporting on deaths and casualties has been
very up to date, easy to find, etc.
Again, I disagree, but in a more subtle manner: it will be an ugly scene, no
doubt about it, reminiscent of 'Nam vets who came back with addictions and
mental health issues and who often ended up homeless and ignored by the
society they served.
There's some interesting writing out there wrt just how
many Vietnam vets came back with psychiatric problems
and hard-drug addictions - some which indicates that
the numbers are barely higher than in the general pop.
I've run across it, but it's not a big interest, so
don't have any links at hand.
flick 100785
|
| |
| |
ranger00089@aol.comnojunk (Ranger00089) wrote in message news:<20040916221337.13148.00000970@mb-m28.aol.com>...
our resident troll wrote;
I sure bet her son, a true hero btw, is real proud of his mother and her
actions. She should be ashamed of herself, and the way she is shaming her sons
memory.
Steve, SFC/US Army
They son is dead, you moron. Bush murdered him.
|
| |
| |
You mean like that republican hero of yours who stood up and yelled at
kerry, that we keep seeing pasted all over the newsgroup? lol
Dear idiot:
I'm a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. Yes, I would arrest the idiot who
keeps yelling at Kerry rallies too.
Go laugh yourself silly over that, nitwit.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Dear idiot:
I'm a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. Yes, I would arrest the idiot who
keeps yelling at Kerry rallies too.
Go laugh yourself silly over that, nitwit.
Oh, come on -- when did heckling become a jailable offense?
yD
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Oh, come on -- when did heckling become a jailable offense?
yD
When protesters at my alma mater (U.C. Berkeley) decided that they could
take it one step further, and disrupt the speech enough that the speaker
couldn't continue. I've seen (literally, seen with my own eyes in person)
dozens of people get arrested for this stupid stunt.
If you were at, say, a concert, and some person kept screaming about, oh,
how abortion is murder, would you say, "Hey, they've got a right to express
their opinions?" Or would you say, "Somebody arrest that nitwit for
disturbing the peace."
You want to show up at a candidate's rally wearing a t-shirt that's
critical? Fine. You want to carry a sign? Fine. You want to ask a
question that's highly critical of the candidate? Fine.
You want to prevent other people from hearing the speech they came there to
hear? Not fine. Off to the land of misdemeanors for you.
Bo Raxo
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
When protesters at my alma mater (U.C. Berkeley) decided that they could
take it one step further, and disrupt the speech enough that the speaker
couldn't continue. I've seen (literally, seen with my own eyes in person)
dozens of people get arrested for this stupid stunt.
If you were at, say, a concert, and some person kept screaming about, oh,
how abortion is murder, would you say, "Hey, they've got a right to express
their opinions?" Or would you say, "Somebody arrest that nitwit for
disturbing the peace."
You want to show up at a candidate's rally wearing a t-shirt that's
critical? Fine. You want to carry a sign? Fine. You want to ask a
question that's highly critical of the candidate? Fine.
You want to prevent other people from hearing the speech they came there to
hear? Not fine. Off to the land of misdemeanors for you.
Bo Raxo
But this isn't what happened: ONE woman shouted at Laura Bush.
yD
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
But this isn't what happened: ONE woman shouted at Laura Bush.
yD
Yes, one woman shouted during a speech to disrupt it. And one woman got
arrested. Like I said:
You want to prevent other people from hearing the speech they came there
to
hear? Not fine. Off to the land of misdemeanors for you.
Is there a part of that you're not grasping?
Bo
|
| |
| |
Dear idiot:
I'm a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. Yes, I would arrest the idiot who
keeps yelling at Kerry rallies too.
Go laugh yourself silly over that, nitwit.
My mistake. =)
I still think ejecting the screamers is enough.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Sep 2004 08:11:49 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:
They son is dead, you moron. Bush murdered him.
It's a volunteer military, blowhole. If you join up, expect to fight.
|
| |
| |
ouroboros rex wrote:
My mistake. =)
I still think ejecting the screamers is enough.
I agree, heckling is not and should not be any kind of criminal
offense. Especially, in this case one woman shouting at the wife of the
president! Maybe Laura Bush sees now, knows that her husband is
responsible for the death of *this* woman's son.
yD
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Yes, one woman shouted during a speech to disrupt it. And one woman got
arrested. Like I said:
You want to prevent other people from hearing the speech they came there
to
hear? Not fine. Off to the land of misdemeanors for you.
Is there a part of that you're not grasping?
Bo
The part that says heckling a speaker is a crime worthy of jail time.
That part!
yD
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
The part that says heckling a speaker is a crime worthy of jail time.
That part!
yD
And where did I say the should go to jail? Misdemeanor - cite 'em, release
'em, fine 'em later.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
And where did I say the should go to jail? Misdemeanor - cite 'em, release
'em, fine 'em later.
Okay okay -- me arrest = jail, not you! Still, throw them out, don't
arrest them.
yD
|
| |
| |
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0409170711.505c640e@posting.google.com>...
ranger00089@aol.comnojunk (Ranger00089) wrote in message news:<20040916221337.13148.00000970@mb-m28.aol.com>...
They son is dead, you moron. Bush murdered him.
Who held a gun to their son's head forcing him to join the military?
How can you be so stupid and still figure out how to turn on a computer?
|
| |
| |
ranger00089@aol.comnojunk (Ranger00089) wrote in message > I sure bet her
son, a true hero btw, is real proud of his mother and her
actions. She should be ashamed of herself, and the way she is shaming her
sons memory. Steve, SFC/US Army
and I think her son would be very proud of her. i can't imagine
he would want her to just sit back and be quiet. we all know this is an
unnecessary, unwinnable war. why not scream from the rooftops?
|
| |
| |
David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0409170711.505c640e@posting.google.com>...
Who held a gun to their son's head forcing him to join the military?
He signed up to defend his country, not to be an invasion force for
the Bush Junta. He was put into harm's way needlessly, and she has a
right to be furious.
We should ALL be furious at George.
|
| |
| |
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:414C2C63.4070300@it.com...
David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
He signed up to defend his country, not to be an invasion force for
the Bush Junta. He was put into harm's way needlessly, and she has a
right to be furious.
We should ALL be furious at George.
Where was George when he was needed in Nam ? Hiding under the bed with the
dog and his drugs and liquor ?
|
| |
| |
DieSpammersDie.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com (David W. Poole, Jr.) wrote in message news:<95a7672d.0409171952.7837ba8a@posting.google.com>...
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0409170711.505c640e@posting.google.com>...
Who held a gun to their son's head forcing him to join the military?
Don't blame this kid because bush lied america into an illegal war and
got him killed.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
Who held a gun to their son's head forcing him to join the military?
He signed up to defend his country, not to be an invasion force for the
Bush Junta.
Sorry, the choice is not his. When he signs up, he agrees to go WHEREVER he
is ordered to go. If he doesn't like the terms, he isn't obliged to sign up.
He was put into harm's way needlessly, and she has a right to be furious.
That's not way things work in the real world, Bucko. Like it or not, we are
in it for the long haul. After 8 years of inaction by Bill Clinton, our
enemies got the idea that we are soft, and will not retaliate. Now they
think that, when the going gets tough, we will quit. (And John Kerry, being
a quitter, ABSOLUTELY will.) And if we quit now, it will only invite more
(and greater) attacks. But self-absorbed louts such as yourself are too
blind to see this -- and even if you do, you are so self-absorbed that you
don't even care.
We should ALL be furious at George.
You've been furious at the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and where has it
gotten you?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Who held a gun to their son's head forcing him to join the military?
Sorry, the choice is not his. When he signs up, he agrees to go WHEREVER he
is ordered to go. If he doesn't like the terms, he isn't obliged to sign up.
He is obligated to support and defend the United States Constitution,
and that necessarily obliges him to honor existing treaties to which we
are signatory, as they are the law of the land. And apart from it being
ill-advised, unnecessary, and poorly-planned, the invasion of Iraq is in
violation of international law and those treaties. But a soldier on the
ground cannot be charged with knowledge that Bush lied and/or deceived
the country into this imperial invasion.
That's not way things work in the real world, Bucko.
In the real world, you have despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam,
Pinochet, Bush, and Putin, who will take power whenever they can get it,
and do whatever it takes to keep it. The "price of liberty" is eternal
vigilance, and its enemies are both foreign AND domestic.
Like it or not, we are in it for the long haul.
Bush and the Zionists got us into this *crusade*, and I don't see any
easy way for us to extricate ourselves from it, unless we somehow found
the good sense to change governments and abandon our tilt toward Israel.
After 8 years of inaction by Bill Clinton, our
enemies got the idea that we are soft, and will not retaliate.
Reagan was the one who turned tail and ran in Lebanon. When Clinton
tried to retaliate for the Cole, the right-wing religious nutters were
all screaming "Wag the Dog!"
Now they
think that, when the going gets tough, we will quit. (And John Kerry, being
a quitter, ABSOLUTELY will.)
Kerry displays more intelligence than the Bush Junta, and has enough
sense to know that we're losing the war in Iraq on account of the Bush
people's gross incompetence.
And if we quit now, it will only invite more (and greater) attacks.
If we had approached this mess with some semblance of intelligence,
we wouldn't be in such deep #@($. If we had just kept our eye on the
ball, focusing on getting bin Laden and rebuilding Afghanistan, we'd be
in the cat-bird's seat. Unocal would have its pipeline, Afghanistan
would be a demonstration project for the entire Middle East, and bin
Laden's people would have a tougher time recruiting disaffected youth.
But Bush -- whether through stupidity or by intentional design --
made bin Laden into a prophet. Sensible Republicans like Bush #41,
Buckley, Hegel, and Bereuter have all said the invasion of Iraq was a
bad idea, and Powell and Rice told us beforehand that it was
unnecessary. (Powell was right in his reported assessment that the
neo-cons were "@$#*ing crazies.")
But self-absorbed louts such as yourself are too
blind to see this -- and even if you do, you are so self-absorbed that you
don't even care.
You're so blinded by your sick religious views that you're not seeing
the *big* picture. I would suggest that you do a Google search for the
name "Stanley Hilton" -- we're not talking about *Paris* Hilton or some
Birkenstock babe in burlap, but Bob Dole's former chief of staff. I've
tried to open your eyes, but you hate me too much to even consider this
coming from me, but a Republican of Hilton's stature *might* be able to
make you think twice.
We should ALL be furious at George.
You've been furious at the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board,
And I've taken the only constructive action permitted by law.
Perhaps you would have used your tyre-iron, like the thug you are? Or
maybe you would have thrown one of the Examiners' children off a cliff
(as it DOES seem to be how matters of this nature are dealt with in your
family)?
and where has it gotten you?
As my Congressman put it, "We're never promised that we'll always
win. We're called upon to fight the good fight." What part of that
sentiment do you disagree with?
Go back to *DRINKING* your Sam Adams by the case, Ted; I'll stick to
reading Sam Adams and the case law. Freedom isn't free, and sometimes,
it means taking risks.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
He is obligated to support and defend the United States Constitution, and
that necessarily obliges him to honor existing treaties to which we are
signatory, as they are the law of the land. [...]
And no such treaties are being violated.
He was put into harm's way needlessly, and she has a right to be furious.
That's not way things work in the real world, Bucko.
In the real world, you have despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, [...]
And someone has to deal with them. And that "someone" generally turns out to
be us.
The "price of liberty" is eternal vigilance, and its enemies are both
foreign AND domestic.
As, perhaps, Ken Smith.
Like it or not, we are in it for the long haul.
Bush and the Zionists got us into this *crusade*,
No, world events dragged us into it. As when Saddam invaded Kuwait 14 years
ago, and Bush's dad gave himself over to coalition-building. Because the
coalition that he built wouldn't let him take Saddam out. And that was what
was properly needed to be done. Bush the Younger is just seeing to some
unfinished business.
and I don't see any easy way for us to extricate ourselves from it, unless
we somehow found the good sense to change governments and abandon our tilt
toward Israel.
That's not even an option. Israel is the only civilised nation in the
region. All the rest are populated by murderous sand monkeys who would kill
you for nothing without even a tinge of remorse.
After 8 years of inaction by Bill Clinton, our enemies got the idea that
we are soft, and will not retaliate.
Reagan was the one who turned tail and ran in Lebanon.
While Reagan perhaps should have taken some retaliatory action in Lebanon,
to say that he "turned tail" is a little bit disingenuous. (But then, what
should we expect from a mendacious prevaricator as Ken Smith?)
When Clinton tried to retaliate for the Cole, the right-wing religious
nutters were all screaming "Wag the Dog!"
When did he ever try to retaliate for that? He DID bomb an aspirin factory
in Sudan-- but that was just to get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages. The
man was an utter disgrace.
Now they think that, when the going gets tough, we will quit. (And John
Kerry, being a quitter, ABSOLUTELY will.)
Kerry displays more intelligence than the Bush Junta,
Kerry's a moron. Vietnam is a losing issue for him, and yet that's where he
keeps steering the campaign. And what's the result? A double-digit lead for
Bush.
and has enough sense to know that we're losing the war in Iraq on account
of the Bush people's gross incompetence.
If we are losing, then the solution is to increase the effort there. (But in
fact, we're not losing.)
And if we quit now, it will only invite more (and greater) attacks.
If we had approached this mess with some semblance of intelligence, we
wouldn't be in such deep #@($. [...]
We're not in "deep sh*t".
But Bush -- whether through stupidity or by intentional design -- made bin
Laden into a prophet.
Bin Laden's most likely dead (and has been for several years).
Sensible Republicans like Bush #41, Buckley, Hegel, and Bereuter have all
said the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, [...]
And what (in the mind of Ken Smith) makes these Republicans "sensible"? They
said that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Because had they not said that it
was a bad idea, why, then they wouldn't be "sensible"!
Perhaps Ken needs to brush up on logical fallacies, such as "circular
reasoning".
But self-absorbed louts such as yourself are too blind to see this -- and
even if you do, you are so self-absorbed that you don't even care.
You're so blinded by your sick religious views that you're not seeing the
*big* picture. [...]
Ken, you are quite likely certifiably BONKERS! So now you are following
after KOOKS!!
We should ALL be furious at George.
You've been furious at the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board,
And I've taken the only constructive action permitted by law.
And what was the result in Judge Nottingham's court, and also in the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals?
[...]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
|
| |
| |
heodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
And no such treaties are being violated.
Kofe Annan has a different take, and I pretty much have to agree with
him. The only time that war is permitted under international law is in
legitimate self-defense, and Bush's invasion of Iraq was clearly not in
self-defense. All sorts of treaty provisions implicated here.
He was put into harm's way needlessly, and she has a right to be furious.
That's not way things work in the real world, Bucko.
In the real world, you have despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam,
Pinochet, Bush, and Putin, who will take power wherever they can get
it, and do whatever it takes to keep it.
And someone has to deal with them. And that "someone" generally turns out to
be us.
We can't do that much about Hitler and his pal Prescott Bush, but we
can do something about Putin's buddy Gay aWol Cokehead Bush on November
2nd. Diebold will be a problem, but at least, we can use the franchise
to get Bush out of office so he can do no more harm.
The "price of liberty" is eternal vigilance, and its enemies are both
foreign AND domestic.
As, perhaps, Ken Smith.
Or, as more likely, Ted Kaldis.
Like it or not, we are in it for the long haul.
Bush and the Zionists got us into this *crusade*,
No, world events dragged us into it. As when Saddam invaded Kuwait 14 years
ago, and Bush's dad gave himself over to coalition-building. Because the
coalition that he built wouldn't let him take Saddam out. And that was what
was properly needed to be done. Bush the Younger is just seeing to some
unfinished business.
Bush #41 admitted in his memoirs why it would have been stupid to
take Saddam out ... and history proved him right. Bush the lesser took
two failing states and turned them into *FAILED* states, turning the
entire Middle East into a primordial soup of terrorism.
and I don't see any easy way for us to extricate ourselves from it, unless
we somehow found the good sense to change governments and abandon our tilt
toward Israel.
That's not even an option.
As a practical matter, given AIPAC and the stranglehold it has on our
Congress? No. In theory? You bet it is! We don't have a horse in
that race (except, of course, for you religious nutters).
Israel is the only civilised nation in the
region. All the rest are populated by murderous sand monkeys who would kill
you for nothing without even a tinge of remorse.
Let's apply that reasoning: If all Arabs are "sand monkeys," then all
Greeks are gay or bi -- after all, that's why they call it "Greek sex."
Saddam. Reza Pahlavi. Ariel Sharon. We've given them good reason
to be pissed at us. If we had had a sensible foreign policy, we'd have
no problem with them, and radical factions of Islam would find an
infertile soil.
After 8 years of inaction by Bill Clinton, our enemies got the idea that
we are soft, and will not retaliate.
While Reagan perhaps should have taken some retaliatory action in Lebanon,
to say that he "turned tail" is a little bit disingenuous.
He packed up his military and went home. Regardless of what you or I
might think of it, Osama reportedly uses that as a prime example of the
West's soft underbelly.
[personal attack elided]
When did he ever try to retaliate for that? He DID bomb an aspirin factory
in Sudan-- but that was just to get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages.
You mean, like Minister of Fear Tom Ridge and his serendiptitiously
timed Orange Alerts? LOL!
The 9/11 Commission was spot-on with this one. Because you and your
fellow attack dogs hounded Clinton beyond the bounds of common sense, he
was severely hanstrung in his legitimate efforts to fight al-Qaeda. He
also fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan, aiming directly at one of
bin Laden's camps.
Clinton had *no legal basis* for nabbing bin Laden when he was in the
Sudan -- unfortunately. Pretty much everyone agrees that the invasion
of Afghanistan would have been politically impossible before 9/11, and
certainly, if Clinton had tried, you would have been screeching for his
impeachment.
The man was an utter disgrace.
Why? Because he got a blowjob in the White House? Kennedy's
nickname was "Lancer," and Bush the Lesser was a draft-dodging coke
fiend. Sure, he's been faithful to his wife, but I don't hear you
dissing Limbaugh as a serial adulterer and drug fiend.
Clinton was about as much of a disgrace as Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth,
Wilbur Mills, Henry Hyde, or any number of televangelists. A disgrace,
to be sure, but hardly at the head of his class.... :)
Now they think that, when the going gets tough, we will quit. (And John
Kerry, being a quitter, ABSOLUTELY will.)
Kerry's a moron. Vietnam is a losing issue for him, and yet that's where he
keeps steering the campaign.
Really? Have you actually heard any of his speeches? Of course not,
because the mainstream media is tilted toward Bush. Reporting about the
debacle in Iraq is conspicuous by its absence -- because the mega-media
conglomerates have a vested interest in getting Bush re-elected.
And what's the result? A double-digit lead for Bush.
Depends on who you talk to. More reliable polls (such as Zogby and
Rasmussen) say it's still a close race -- which it wouldn't be if the
media would focus on Bush's obvious failures.
If we are losing, then the solution is to increase the effort there. (But in
fact, we're not losing.)
Which is why the "no-go" areas are increasing in size, right? We're
losing ground, and have already lost the hearts and minds of the people
over there. It's Vietnam, redux.
And if we quit now, it will only invite more (and greater) attacks.
We're not in "deep sh*t".
We're in a SEA of it, cowboy. But you wouldn't know, because you get
ALL your "news" from FAUX, Weiner-Dog ["Savage"], and Drugs Limbaugh....
Bin Laden's most likely dead (and has been for several years).
|
| |
