http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....


http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...3&parent_id=19
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....

It's a pretty meaningless event. In places like the Palestinian territory,
it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead by a
steady diet of propaganda. (Karl Rove understands this)

Jeff

Jeffrey McCann wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....

It's a pretty meaningless event. In places like the Palestinian territory,
it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead by a
steady diet of propaganda. (Karl Rove understands this)

Jeff

LOL! You mean like this:

NEW YORK May 22, 2005 — Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=780917

Tom

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Jeffrey McCann wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....

It's a pretty meaningless event. In places like the Palestinian
territory,
it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead by
a
steady diet of propaganda. (Karl Rove understands this)

Jeff

LOL! You mean like this:

NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

Jeffrey McCann wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Jeffrey McCann wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....

It's a pretty meaningless event. In places like the Palestinian
territory,
it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead by
a
steady diet of propaganda. (Karl Rove understands this)

Jeff

LOL! You mean like this:

NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

Better be careful, next you'll be questioning Americans who support
current US policy and the consequences to the people, it so applied..

Tom

it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead
by a
steady diet of propaganda.

Wow. Sounds like US citizen who watches FOX, NBC, CNN, ABC, the list
goes on and on. Except for the fact that US citizens are too lazy to
be doing any "frenzy".

R

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:39:34 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/in...rtner=homepage


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Must be hard to be so unwelcome anyplace you go .....

It's a pretty meaningless event. In places like the Palestinian territory,
it's pretty easy to whip up a frenzied mob of ignorant people mislead by a
steady diet of propaganda. (Karl Rove understands this)

Jeff

So did Kerry and Deans puppet masters.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to
live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering about
those types.

Jeff

On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:55:05 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Might depend on if they were educated (liberal) enough to
spell.

Note that clearly they have chosen NOT to do so.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:58:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

So did Kerry and Deans puppet masters.

You must be thinking of Falwell & Robertson & that crowd.

"Fundamentalism means sticking strictly to the script, which in turn
means being deeply fearful of the improvised, ambiguous or
indeterminate...Since writing is meaning that can be handled by
anybody, any time, it is always profane and promiscuous. Meaning that
has been written down is bound to be unhygienic...Fundamentalism is
the paranoid condition of those who do not see that roughness is not a
defect of human existence, but what makes it work."

Terry Eagleton
--The Guardian 22 Feb. 2003
--
Cliff

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
was
heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to
live
in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering about
those types.

Jeff

You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted.
Snicker.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

was

heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to

live

in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering about
those types.

Jeff


You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted.

Gunner, the quality of your posts appear to me to be declining
pprecipitously . You can now be reliably counted upon to attempt to
personally demean and rail against anyone you perceive, rightly or
wrongly, to be not toeing the party line as you see it, and in the same
predictable and shopworn manner, rather than face the substance of the post.

your posts are showing clear signs of "intellectosclerosis." You are
displaying a shrinking and hardening analytical capacity. Your posts,
often already dull and repetitive, are becoming increasingly inane and
irrelevant, in my judgment.

Your posts here are an example of this.

I merely commented on how easy it was for people to take a strong
position on the "right" solution to someone else's problem, when they
don't have to suffer the consequences themselves. The example at hand
was those who oppose Israel's peace process with the Palestinians but
aren't themselves at risk getting blown up if the violence continues. I
took no stance on the peace process itself.

I AGREED WITH YOU that anti-Israel types do the same kind of thing,
i.e., they'd probably be more sympathetic to Israel's problems if they
had to live in that very precarious nation. I then commented that
Israel-haters aren't worth much thought to me (being as I support Israel
in general). But that was still enough to set you off.

Your response? A sneering personal implication, and one apparently
based on a complete failure to comprehend what had gone before.

Jeff

On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:50:29 GMT, Jeff McCann
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

was

heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had to

live

in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering about
those types.

Jeff


You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted.

Gunner, the quality of your posts appear to me to be declining
pprecipitously . You can now be reliably counted upon to attempt to
personally demean and rail against anyone you perceive, rightly or
wrongly, to be not toeing the party line as you see it, and in the same
predictable and shopworn manner, rather than face the substance of the post.

Just taking pages from the Democratic Party Playbook. Are you miffed
that its being used against you?

your posts are showing clear signs of "intellectosclerosis." You are
displaying a shrinking and hardening analytical capacity. Your posts,
often already dull and repetitive, are becoming increasingly inane and
irrelevant, in my judgment.

Speaks volumes about the lack of quality in your judgement.

Your posts here are an example of this.

I merely commented on how easy it was for people to take a strong
position on the "right" solution to someone else's problem, when they
don't have to suffer the consequences themselves. The example at hand
was those who oppose Israel's peace process with the Palestinians but
aren't themselves at risk getting blown up if the violence continues. I
took no stance on the peace process itself.

Yes and?

I AGREED WITH YOU that anti-Israel types do the same kind of thing,
i.e., they'd probably be more sympathetic to Israel's problems if they
had to live in that very precarious nation. I then commented that
Israel-haters aren't worth much thought to me (being as I support Israel
in general). But that was still enough to set you off.

Set me off?
"I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?"

Oh now theres a rant if Ive ever seen one. Wowsers. I really should
be embarressed.

Your response? A sneering personal implication, and one apparently
based on a complete failure to comprehend what had gone before.

Actually Jeff, while you obviously didnt like the comment..it was an
observation, based on what ...5 yrs or so of reading your posts?

While you occasionally demonstrate a moment of dazzeling clarity...its
much too rare and does little to counter your boiler plate
partisanship and the rather pathetic upset that your party is no
longer A. In control. B. Of any particular note in the grand scheme of
things, C. Down by the bow, the rats are swimming off and the band is
still playing, albit in a frenzey.

Frankly Jeff.... Im rather embaressed for you and many others here.
Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s. The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry. Sad
reallly....watching the spew, the hate, the spin and pure bull**** you
lads blat out and yet trying to maintain a holier than thou demeaner
about "War is bad for childern and other living things", when you and
your ilk are just as scared of the "bad old muslims" but find this a
perfect time to demonstrate both your partisanship and your
intolerance. One supposes its the Last Great Desperate Act of
Defiance as your side of the asle becomes redundant.

Shrug. Must suck to be one of you.

Gunner


Jeff

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Anti-war based on their packs of endless lies?
You are their defense ...

Found those "WMDs" yet? ANY of the rest of it?

HOW could you have been so very wrong??
--
Cliff

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:50:29 GMT, Jeff McCann
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

was

heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had
to

live

in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their
attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury
of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering
about
those types.

Jeff


You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted.

Gunner, the quality of your posts appear to me to be declining
pprecipitously . You can now be reliably counted upon to attempt to
personally demean and rail against anyone you perceive, rightly or
wrongly, to be not toeing the party line as you see it, and in the same
predictable and shopworn manner, rather than face the substance of the
post.

Just taking pages from the Democratic Party Playbook. Are you miffed
that its being used against you?

your posts are showing clear signs of "intellectosclerosis." You are
displaying a shrinking and hardening analytical capacity. Your posts,
often already dull and repetitive, are becoming increasingly inane and
irrelevant, in my judgment.

Speaks volumes about the lack of quality in your judgement.

Your posts here are an example of this.

I merely commented on how easy it was for people to take a strong
position on the "right" solution to someone else's problem, when they
don't have to suffer the consequences themselves. The example at hand
was those who oppose Israel's peace process with the Palestinians but
aren't themselves at risk getting blown up if the violence continues. I
took no stance on the peace process itself.

Yes and?

I AGREED WITH YOU that anti-Israel types do the same kind of thing,
i.e., they'd probably be more sympathetic to Israel's problems if they
had to live in that very precarious nation. I then commented that
Israel-haters aren't worth much thought to me (being as I support Israel
in general). But that was still enough to set you off.

Set me off?

"I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?"

Oh now theres a rant if Ive ever seen one. Wowsers. I really should
be embarressed.

Yep. "You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted."
That is a rant if there ever was one. Not a long one, nor even a good one,
but a rant nonetheless. And yes, you really should be embarrassed, your
lame attempt at misdirection notwithstanding.

Your response? A sneering personal implication, and one apparently
based on a complete failure to comprehend what had gone before.

Actually Jeff, while you obviously didnt like the comment..it was an
observation, based on what ...5 yrs or so of reading your posts?

Any rant is just an observation. The lack of meaningful content, snide tone
and irrelevence are what makes it a rant.

While you occasionally demonstrate a moment of dazzeling clarity...its
much too rare and does little to counter your boiler plate
partisanship

Um, Gunner, you obviously missed that I was pointing out that the protest
against Mrs. Bush was meaningless. That's hardly boiler-plate
partisanship.

and the rather pathetic upset that your party is no
longer A. In control. B. Of any particular note in the grand scheme of
things, C. Down by the bow, the rats are swimming off and the band is
still playing, albit in a frenzey.

On the other hand, the above is a pretty good example of boiler-plate
partisanship. You really are a hoot, Gunner.

Frankly Jeff.... Im rather embaressed for you and many others here.
Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s. The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry. Sad
reallly....watching the spew, the hate, the spin and pure bull**** you
lads blat out and yet trying to maintain a holier than thou demeaner
about "War is bad for childern and other living things", when you and
your ilk are just as scared of the "bad old muslims" but find this a
perfect time to demonstrate both your partisanship and your
intolerance. One supposes its the Last Great Desperate Act of
Defiance as your side of the asle becomes redundant.

Shrug. Must suck to be one of you.

That's not a window you're looking through, it's a mirror. You don't need
to spend the rest of your days in a fog of mental confusion. Go see your
doctor about adjusting your medications, and do it soon, OK? ;-)

Jeff

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

Children get killed in war, but calling vets "baby killers" or the like,
then or now, without specific individual evidence just marks you as a first
class jerk. Soldiers are among those least responsible for the ugly
consequences of war, while at the same time paying the highest price for it.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Gunner has it backwards. The reality is that most people who are opposed to
(not "hate" as the NeoCon spin would have it) Bush think that way because of
his lies leading us into the war, among other good causes. But gullible
fools have been taught by their thought leaders that black is white, and
that because we "hate" Bush, we oppose his policies. By reversing reality
in this way, they push the debate into the arena of personal attacks, where
they are more comfortable, instead of having to deal with the fact their
opponents have legitimate objections to their policy. It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally to a lot of people who nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Jeff

"Jeffrey McCann" wrote in message
...

...It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally to a lot of people who
nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies.

Exactly. I'll bet he's a lot of fun at a party, and I'd enjoy duck hunting
with him, no doubt.

He reminds me of some of my friends in college.

This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

This is another area in which he reminds me of some of my friends in
college...the ones who were always late to class.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Jeffrey
McCann says...

policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Yeah, what ever did *happen* to all that fuss?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:17:19 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

Children get killed in war, but calling vets "baby killers" or the like,
then or now, without specific individual evidence just marks you as a first
class jerk. Soldiers are among those least responsible for the ugly
consequences of war, while at the same time paying the highest price for it.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Gunner has it backwards. The reality is that most people who are opposed to
(not "hate" as the NeoCon spin would have it) Bush think that way because of
his lies leading us into the war, among other good causes. But gullible
fools have been taught by their thought leaders that black is white, and
that because we "hate" Bush, we oppose his policies. By reversing reality
in this way, they push the debate into the arena of personal attacks, where
they are more comfortable, instead of having to deal with the fact their
opponents have legitimate objections to their policy. It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally to a lot of people who nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Jeff

Your (in error) opinion is noted.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:17:19 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

Children get killed in war, but calling vets "baby killers" or the like,
then or now, without specific individual evidence just marks you as a first
class jerk.

Missed some posts, did you?
Gunner has repeatedly mentioned some of his actions in Vietnam.
He misses it.

Soldiers are among those least responsible for the ugly
consequences of war, while at the same time paying the highest price for it.

He's a loony one, all right.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Gunner has it backwards. The reality is that most people who are opposed to
(not "hate" as the NeoCon spin would have it) Bush think that way because of
his lies leading us into the war, among other good causes. But gullible
fools have been taught by their thought leaders that black is white, and
that because we "hate" Bush, we oppose his policies. By reversing reality
in this way, they push the debate into the arena of personal attacks, where
they are more comfortable, instead of having to deal with the fact their
opponents have legitimate objections to their policy. It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally

I've heard rumors of otherwise ..... snarling temper tantrums, the
need of medications to keep him a bit under control ... and he's not
very bright.

to a lot of people who nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Jeff

It's just smoke & mirrors.
A distraction, like some of the other ones that have been
planted & hyped. Bait & switch.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:17:19 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

Children get killed in war, but calling vets "baby killers" or the like,
then or now, without specific individual evidence just marks you as a
first
class jerk.

Missed some posts, did you?
Gunner has repeatedly mentioned some of his actions in Vietnam.
He misses it.

Soldiers are among those least responsible for the ugly
consequences of war, while at the same time paying the highest price for
it.

He's a loony one, all right.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Gunner has it backwards. The reality is that most people who are opposed
to
(not "hate" as the NeoCon spin would have it) Bush think that way because
of
his lies leading us into the war, among other good causes. But gullible
fools have been taught by their thought leaders that black is white, and
that because we "hate" Bush, we oppose his policies. By reversing
reality
in this way, they push the debate into the arena of personal attacks,
where
they are more comfortable, instead of having to deal with the fact their
opponents have legitimate objections to their policy. It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally

I've heard rumors of otherwise ..... snarling temper tantrums, the
need of medications to keep him a bit under control ... and he's not
very bright.

What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. I wan't taken in by Bush's
sub rosa whispering campaign against McCain, by the laughable ploys of
Bush's paid political operatives in the guise of either "Swiftboat Veterans"
or "outraged Florida voters," or their various other attempted black bag
ops. So I'm disinclined the beleive such about Bush, pending further
evidence.

That being said, he's known to be petty and vindictive, so I don't see
snarling temper tantrums as that much of a stretch. As for medications,
mood stabilizers and SSRIs are probably a good idea for him, and wouldn't
cause any impairment in his ability to do his job. I don't know how bright
he is or isn't, but since he sees everything in stark black and white, he
does display a well known disdain for the those confusing shades of gray
that make up reality, the kind of careful analysis and thoughtful doubt
needed to comprehend them, and those learned individuals who do.

to a lot of people who nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate
over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Jeff

It's just smoke & mirrors.
A distraction, like some of the other ones that have been
planted & hyped. Bait & switch.

Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff

On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff

Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

(insert smiley face here)

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article , Gunner says...

On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff

Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

But seriously, if you've been following the many discussions of the
social security program that have gone on here...

Wait. Jim smacks himself upside the head.

Of course you've been following them. You were one of the prime
participants. g

So you know that there's been a lot of talk about SS and the folks
who really, truly have an objection to the program, and who can
articulate it well and make their point, wind up basically saying
it's a welfare program and welfare programs, no matter how
well-intentioned, are bad.

Because they encourage folks to rely on somebody else rather than
themselves.

And further the folks they would rely on (when depending on SS)
is the government - ie, the taxpayers. They also object to the
fact that entitlement welfare programs like this simply take
money from folks with it (workers and otherwise rich folks) and
give it to folks who are - well, not to put too fine a point on it,
are poor. This drives rich folks absolutely bonkers.

I think that jeffrey is somewhat mistaken in his belief that
the neocons hate the middle class and want to destroy the SS
progam because of that.

Really they object to any non-means tested entitlement welfare
program in principle. Destroying social security will hit the
truly poor harder than the middle class.

Of course, the neocons are doing a pretty good job of shuttling
the middle class folks down the line into the poor catagory so
my point is somewhat moot, granted.

I still maintain that a large component of the SS changes Bush
wants to make are there simply so the investment managers can
make a killing on tax money.

Kinda like that guy who invested all of the pension money in
ohio in those stupid rare coins. Think about it, what a great
scam - take other people's money, make them invest it via payroll
taxes in whatever you want, charge whatever you feel like as
a fee, and if some of the principle happens to disappear along
the way, well that's as sidney greenstreet calls "Carrying
charges my boy, carrying charges."

The ohio republican's mistake is, he was thinking too small.

Bush's plan to simply hand the payroll taxes over to the private
investment firms is, honestly, quite brilliant. For them.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle
Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of
the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else
for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff

Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

Which NeoCon fascist weblog made you think he didn't say it, Gunner? Google
is your friend.

George W. Bush, himself, was the source. He said it in a speech at an
October 19th, 2000, $800 a plate fundraising dinner for charity. "This is
an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the
elite, I call you my base," and as confirmed by his policies and actions
since then.

Jeff

"Jeffrey McCann" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle
Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of
the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone
else
for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff

Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

Which NeoCon fascist weblog made you think he didn't say it, Gunner?
Google
is your friend.

George W. Bush, himself, was the source. He said it in a speech at an
October 19th, 2000, $800 a plate fundraising dinner for charity. "This is
an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the
elite, I call you my base," and as confirmed by his policies and actions
since then.

Jeff


The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says
government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out
of
your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and
then get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff


Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

(insert smiley face here)

Gunner


One of these days old Jeffo is going to write a post and **** of the
wrong gator. Then Jeffo will be know by the handle gatorbate.

--
He who establishes a tyranny and does not kill Brutus,
and he who establishes a democratic regime and does not kill
the sons of Brutus, will not last long.

Niccolo Machiavelli

"Pope Secola VI" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51:04 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


Nah. I'm sure Bush and his handlers really would love to dismantle
Social
Security because it contradicts the faux social Darwinism and hatred of
the
middle class that is central to their creed. You know, his "base", the
"haves and have mores" for whom he will do everything, and everyone else
for
whom he will nothing except exploit for the benefit of his base.
Jeff


Which Trotskyite work did you crib that bit of dreck from, Jeff?

(insert smiley face here)

Gunner


One of these days old Jeffo is going to write a post and **** of the
wrong gator. Then Jeffo will be know by the handle gatorbate.

You volunteering, or just spouting off? If you're serious, then take a
number and get in line. I post under my real name rather than hiding like a
punk behind some ridiculous pseudonym, so I'm very easy to find. I decline
to be responsible for the silly-assed reactions of nitwits and cowards, and
anyone who tries to make it otherwise had better pack a lunch, because it's
gonna take awhile. Don't bite off more than you can chew, boy.

In any case, I'm a Seminole, and we know how to handle gators. ;-)

Jeff